Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe man who flew the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima passed away last week at the age of 92. Paul Warfield Tibbets, Jr. did not die from war wounds or violently at the hands of other people, years before his time. He died in hospice care, in a bed, from heart problems and strokes.
In stark contrast, the more than 100,000 civilians who were killed at Hiroshima 62 years ago were burnt, melted, vaporized, in an apocalyptic act of warfare. Many died painful deaths over a period of days or weeks. Others saw family members consumed by flames. Most were far younger than Tibbets was when he finally died. Thousands were children.
Is now the wrong time to discuss this? Tibbets called it a "damn big insult" when a Smithsonian exhibit commemorating Hiroshima's fiftieth anniversary attempted to capture some of the suffering. If he didn't think that was the right time for such reflection, then perhaps now is as good as any.
Although he was offended to see the victims remembered, he had said that he meant no insult himself when he reenacted the bombing in Texas in 1976, complete with mushroom cloud. He said he slept fine every night. He consistently affirmed he'd do it all over again.
People disagree on whether the nuking was a war crime. The 1946 Strategic Bombing Survey determined it had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. We know that Japan, demoralized from having dozens of cities obliterated in fire bombings, was extending peace feelers. "The Japanese were ready to surrender," said Dwight Eisenhower, who as a general during that war believed the atom bomb was "completely unnecessary." Admiral William D. Leahy, General Douglas MacArthur, and many other high officials at the time agreed.
Japan wanted only to keep its emperor. Understandably, the nation feared the consequences of the unconditional surrender that Truman and the Allies demanded. They had reason to fear brutalities exceeding the very harsh treatment of Germany under the Versailles Treaty after World War I, which had come after a mere conditional surrender.
Some have tried to rewrite history and have said that to win the war without nuclear weapons, the U.S. would have had to invade and suffer intolerable losses, that the atomic bomb "saved a million lives." But there is no reason to doubt that Japan's cause was lost by mid-1945-even without an invasion. Practically every major city was destroyed. The people were blockaded and starving. Then, perhaps as a show of strength to Stalin, the U.S. government nuked two of Japan's remaining cities, introducing nuclear warfare to the world, and ultimately, allowed the Japanese to keep their emperor anyway.
Robert McNamara, who worked with Curtis LeMay in planning the pre-Hiroshima fire bombings of Japan, admitted in recent years that he and LeMay were acting as "war criminals." Does this term apply to Tibbets?
We know Tibbets did not shy away from personal responsibility. He proudly took credit for planning the nuclear attack.
This raises uncomfortable questions: If your government orders you to slaughter tens of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, to whom and to what do you owe your loyalty? If you're willing to take credit for your supposed acts of wartime heroism, should you also be ready to accept blame if it turns out you committed an atrocity?
Some might say it's insensitive to ask now whether Tibbets was a war criminal. Indeed, there is no need to condemn this man upon his passing. Even if he was guilty of a war crime, he is now beyond the reaches of human justice.
But it remains crucial for us to consider the implications of what he did. It is important to our sense of individual responsibility in a world where, especially in times of war, people think mainly in terms of the collective. It is this fallacy in moral reasoning that leads otherwise decent people to commit unspeakable barbarities against their fellow man.
We must not lose track of the individual's role, even in the chaos of war. For whatever we think of Tibbets, it is the refusal to view people as individuals, the branding of everyone as merely an expendable part of a larger group, which brought about the atomic bombings and so many other horrors of World War II.
Anthony Gregory is a Research Analyst at The Independent Institute.
208 Comments so far
Show AllWhy is the U.S. WMD use circa WWII so visible in comparison to Imperial Japan's?
The germ warfare and other efforts that came of places like Unit 731, officially known by the Imperial Japanese Army as the Kempeitai Political Department and Epidemic Prevention Research Laboratory, was said by one source (Wikki) to have slain upwards of 400,000 Chinese. This does not include experimental subjects killed in the course of "research" conducted by the various units. Compare 400,000 to the entire population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined - roughly 450,000 or so. While the detonation of two atomic bombs is much more dramatic than the works of Unit 731 and her sister facilities, why has there been so little publicity about Imperial Japan's own WMD program?
As a final note, this post is not intended to condemn or condone the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but only to ask everyone to consider that this act by the so-called victor receives much more attention than the similar actions of the nation they did it to...
http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/jp-hung.htm
Japan's nuclear bomb project during WW 2.
Too late BRIAN. Someone alresdy posted it way back there. The B-29 was named Bocks Car. It's at the aircraft museum at Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio. Captain Bock did not fly it that day however. I won't mention the pilot's name, since you wish it not to be.
Well guys, I thought I had mentioned Japan's endeavors to have atomic weapons. They were working on it long before we were. Truman was unaware of that until May of 1945. As far as I can determine, he was unaware of their nuclear facilities in North Korea, even after the war ended. Had he been aware of that, I am pretty sure Russia would not have been allowed to have control of North Korea and divide the country. That dumb decision was a disaster anyway as it turned out. We are still officially at war, or in a "police action" with North Korea, the truce there has been in effect since early 1954. We'll likely never know how close Japan was to having atomc weapons, because the Russians took over their program immediately after the Japanese surrender.
This BTW was one of the subjects I taught at the Air Force Academy in 1957-8. I was cleared top secret then and had the information on the German Sub U-234. I didn't know about the nuclear facility the Japanese had in Korea then. We could only presume that Japan did have the means to enrich uranium, and Germany had not been able to do that in 1945. That's why they sent their uranium to Japan. ( I do believe I said the uranium shipped was enriched and I mis-typed if I did. It was not enriched. What did bother Truman and his associates who were in the loop was, evidently Japan could enrich uranium, or it would not have made much sense for Germany to ship uranium to them. We always thought Japan had their facility hidden in caves in Japan and we never found it. I am not aware of when we did learn the truths of the Korean facility.
Good questions Dougeaston. Germany did not have atomc weapons and were not close to having them. The British had destroyed their 'heavy water' plant in the Netherlands, in I believe, 1943 or 4 with an air attack, using Mosquito fighter bombers and a guerilla mission of some very brave men.
As to why didn't Germany threaten England or us with a dirty nuclear bomb? I dunno why, they could have I suppose. Maybe they did and that is still classified information? There are many things that hapened during those years that are still not available to anyone, just like Hanger 18 at Wright Patterson AFB.
Some of Tom Paine's personel writings in The Library of Congress are srill availabe to "no one". He was in the loop just after the war. What did he actually discover on that surrendered Japanese I-400 submarine? He was a nuclear scientist, among many other things. Were the Japanese actually taking nuclear weapons to bomb us and the cover story is they were heading to bomb the Panama canal with conventional bombs? __ Maybe? Our government was super duper secret when atomic weapons were the issue. If that was the case, we came very very close to having an atomic bomb, or perhaps three or more dropped on our cities. That sub was half way across the Pacific when Japan surrendered. The sub commander committed suicide when he was ordered to surface and surrender, there were over two hundred men on that sub and the normal crew number was about 160.
Why 200+?
Truman had little choice, it didn't matter if Japan did have them or not. If we used ours and feared because of that they would use theirs, may have been an issue of discussion. If we didn't use ours and they did have them, they could have wreaked havoc on our landing fleet. One of my beliefs is, Japan did have some, and were waiting for us to invade their homeland and use them on our invasion fleet. Then we used our two and so they feared there would be no invasion and decided to instead send that I-400 sub to bomb our cities on our West Coast. That would have been one of the reasons their militay officers were so adament in efforts to prevent their Emperor from broadcasting the surrender. They damn near succeeded there too.
As in our government and military, likely few of the Japanese militay officers were aware of their atomic program. Maybe their Emperor was unaware of it? That is not impossible, those militay officers didn't all regard him as a GOD. There is a lot of guessing and supposition here, and of course due to not having all of the still secret documents, guessing is all we can do. That's the dilema Truman was in also. He decided to use the bomb and if he ever had any fears or reservation about it, he never ever said so.
He refused to use them during the Korean conflict and MacArthur wanted to use them. Funny, he spoke out against them after we used them on Japan. He wanted a land invasion, that's what he was trained to do. He was a superb tactician, historian, and leader, a true egotistical prick of a general and made few mistakes. He hated Truman for using the atomic bomb as did Eisenhour and Curtis LeMay. It ruined their "glory".
Well, guess I've really sounded off here, it had been a very interesting debate and mostly fun and I learned a lot. Which is why we should be here. Again, I am truly sorry for some of my crude remarks to some, ___ I apologize. There are a couple way back there though, who can kiss my ass. Not you or Tony BTW.
I never served on a bomber but I did see a few movies. I know the bombardier drops the bombs and not the pilot. And since the war did not end until after Nagasaki was bombed on Aug 9th.The second mission actually ended the war. I don't know who dropped the bomb on the 9th but I do know who flew the plane and the name of the plane, but I'm not telling because I don't want his name dragged through the mud on CD by some pacifist who did not have a relative in WWII.
Amazed this topic is still on, Kem's right with most of his posts and information about the a/c submarines. I'm amazed that he's missed the information about the Japanese military's program to build an atomic bomb. Google Japan atomic bomb and Hungnam, then read about how they too were trying (some say that they succeeded at) to build and deploy a bomb.
The surrender of Japan was unconditional, their emperor was reduced from the status of a living god to a constitutional monarch. You can certainly ask the Japanese why they would want to keep a king when a president would have been the choice of the west, but those of who have a Queen argue that the cost of a monarch is less than that of a president. She's easier on the eyes and has no real power, would that we could say that about the current occupant of the whitehouse...
Well, you've certainly done a lot of research on this subject. And it's interesting to see how the message topics started on the comparison of loss of life due to the atomic bombs versus loss of life due to an invasion. And then whether or not an invasion was needed to end the war. Now the topic is analogous to the four decades of Cold War: What to do with nuclear weapons.
We and the Soviets both had nuclear weapons (and each knew about the other's possession of nuclear weapons), but we didn't use them on each other. We came close, but we didn't use them. We didn't use them because we liked each other. We didn't use them because we knew whoever used them first would be hit by the other guy's retaliation.
If your investigation of this matter (Japan's atomic research) is correct, it leads to a problem for Truman.
Now here's Truman's problem: He knows Japan is doing atomic research. He knows the Germans had been doing atomic research. He knows some nuclear material has got from Germany to Japan, but he can't ascertain the Japanese progress on the developement of a workable bomb. So what can he do?
1. If he drops the atomic bomb on them and they have one, they'll drop their bomb on us.
2. If he doesn't drop the atomic bomb on them, and they have one, will they drop it on us? Difficult to predict. But you'd figure they would have learned after nearly four of war with us that an atomic attack would be responded to.
3. His third option is to end the war as quickly as possible to get Japan out of the atomic bomb developement process. And in case they have the atomic bomb already, to end the war before they get a chance to use it. (either as a first strike or retaliation). This would entail ( after reading their diplomatic messages) specifically telling them the Emperor would be safe.
He did have a similar problem in the Korean War: Should he use atomic weapons on China when they invaded Korea? He didn't because he knew it would bring nuclear retaliation from the Russians. So is it possible that Truman in 1945 would have avoided dropping the atomic bomb, because of the possibility of a Japanese atomic retaliation?
Now, this is off the subject, but the German business bothers me. so indulge me for a minute.
Germany was on the ropes after January 1945, on their Eastern front and Western front. So if they had enough nuclear material to make an atomic bomb or a radio-active dirty bomb, why didn't they? Why send it off to an ally who appeared ready to lose anyway? Or if they don't lose they might decide they should be the "senior partner" and the Germans could be the "junior partner". Why didn't they send diplomatic messages to London and Washington, and Moscow and threaten them with it if they don't let them [Germany] off the hook? or even after they lost the war, there were still enough fanatically evil men around to carry the nuclear material into London or Paris and blow it up?
I notice you did not list any of your posts where you were rude. I became somewhat rude after yours and others very rude remarks to me.
"So Which one is correct"? That is a good example of your perhaps strange reasoning, or perhaps problems with reading comprehension. Bear with me here, if you really do wish to continue this rather humerous debate.
Truman was quite certain Japan had a nuclear program, because of the uranium shipments from Germany to Japan, which he learned of on May 10, 1945. Really think of it with an open mind.
Suppose you are in Truman's place. You know about the Manhatten Project, you know America is attempting to develope atomic bombs. There are some serious problems with the project and none have been tested as yet. The Project is far behind the estimated schedule. Then on May 10th, you learn Germany is shipping uranium to Japan and Oppenhimer is very disturbed by it. He can see no reason for Germany to ship Uranium to Japan, unless the Germans could not enrich it and Japan had the means to do so. That makes a lot of sense, and if you read the reports of what did transpire, that is what was discussed at that time and of course it became top secret information.
Now, Truman knows that Japan has recieved other uranium shipnments prior to May of 1945, according to the German sub commander. How much more? Truman doesn't know. There is enough uranium on this shipment to develope two atomic bombs. So then as president, you ask yourself; have the Japanese developed an atomic bomb already, and if so how many? Or, have they managed to develope any at all? Those types of questions you would have been asking yourself, if you were the president. At least I hope you would have.
So, that was what I meant when I wrote my comment, combning those two questions in a single sentence. Sorry if it didn't make sense to you, but as I read it, that's what I said. Truman didn't know if Japan had managed to develop Atomic bombs, or if they were close to developing them. He had to act quickly before they could develop them, IF they had not already done so, may have been more understandable for you. I understood it and still do. Of course I realize that E-mails are often misunderstood, there is not eye contact, no manner of one asking right then, "What do you mean by that"? Then recieve an instant clarificaton response.
BTW. The man I used as a reference for that Japanese submersible aricraft carrier (which I was told was hair brained and idiotic) is Tom O paine. He was a scientist, an American Naval Officer who was one of the crew members who brought one of the Japanese I-400 subs to Hawaiii after the war ended. He stated in his report, that those subs were decades ahead of their time and were a menancing strategic threat. Truman was aware of those subs and then when he discovered the uranium shipments to Japan, he put the two together and began to worry about the potential threat in that regard.
Tom Paine later became the Director of NASA, he was the Director when the Apollo Missions to the moon were launched. He also wrote some reports on the Japanese military which are in the Library Of Congress and to this day are highly classified and available to NO ONE. His comprehensive document on the Japanese subs is in the Special Collection of the Nimitz Library at Annapolis and was required reading for all graduate cadets. Paine was also a nuclear scientist.
If you scroll up and read Anderson Coopers post, you may fnd it of interest also. Japan was much closer to having the atomic bomb than most ever realized. We are very fortunate the war ended when it did.
Those I-400 subs, could travel at twice the speed of any of ours, and do so submerged at a depth of 300 feet for 37,500 miles without having to refuel. The three bombers they carried were able to fly at over 300 knots airspeed and travel 1,200 miles with a full bomb load.
I wonder what may have transpired, if the war had gone on for several more months. Their nuclear facility was located in North Korea and we didn't have a clue of where it was until the war ended and we found out we had allowed the Russians to have it. Japan had been working on an atomic weapon there since the mid 1930s. I'm done guys, sorry for the ude remarks too. Forgive me, I'm human.
You know, KEM, that's a good idea about scrolling back through these messages. Let's see... what did you say on 11/18 at 5 PM?
You still refuse to believe the Japanese had huge submersible aircraft carriers. You are really adept at displaying your ignorance firsthand and your belligerent stupidity after. Thank you very much for showing it to all here. I now rest my constant bickering with fools such as you on this thread and do not wish to see you post on another, yet do as you may please.
or how about 11/18 at 6:42 PM?
I actually love to see guys like you make such fools of yourselves TONY. What facts did your pal present? You have gone from being stupid to funny, keep it up, a little humor is good for the soul.
or how about 11/18 at 7:25PM ?
Do you two self centered dorks need any other facts?
or how about 11/19 at 12:04 AM ?
Well well, I do wonder if our ignorant Devils Advocate, DOUGEASTON,
or how about 11/21 at 1:59PM ?
You believe. What other nonsense do you believe? You don't want to know the truths, you have a mind set of believng distorted history and are therefore stuck with your flawed beliefs. Well, your're not alone there.
or how about 11/21 at 6:58PM ?
Before children whine about others being snippy and insulting, they should scroll back and see what they wrote and who started the snide remarks.
You asked the same question several tmes, "Why did we offer an unconditional surrender and then accept a conditional one"? __ We didn't, the Potsdam and surrender documents were the same.
You alos insulted me by stating more than once, in a snippy manner, that the submersible subs were a figment of my imagination and once accused me of being nothing less than a liar, making thnigs up.
or how about 11/21 at 8:34PM ?
Have you fellas ever considered seeking treatment at a mental health facility? Probably not, it's too late for that.
By the way, KEM, while I was looking over the messages I noticed you said on 11/17 at 10:46 AM : I have also read the documented history of Japans endeavors to have atomic bombs, which until the 1980s was top secret and unavailable to the public and or any others without the need to know. Truman and a handful of other Americans were aware of it in 1945.
But then on 11/19 at 11:54 AM you said:
I must be really stupid, or really informed, to believe Truman was correct. I based that belief upon what Truman was fully aware of in May of 1945, when the cargo of that German submarine was discovered to be enriched uranium, and its destination was Japan prior to its surrender and it was not the first shipment of uranium to Japan. How close were the Japanese to having an atomic bomb? Truman did not know the answer to that most important question. Knowing what was self evident, and also knowing that Japan had the means and the will to bomb any city in the United states, with either a dirty radio-active bomb, or an atomic bomb, he was determined to do ALL he could to end the war before Japan could indeed accomplish that.
But on 11/21 at 6:58 PM you said : Truman did not know if the Japanese had managed to develop, or were close to developing atomc bombs. He had to act quickly to end the war and he did just that.
So which one is correct? Did Truman know about Japan's atomic program? or did he suspect they had one? or did he not know they had an atomic program? or did he not even suspect they had one?
Most likely, Tony. But I think it's worse than trashing the Enlightenment. Even the "talking points" are non-sequiturs.
for example:
"Truman did not know if the Japanese had managed to develop, or were close to developing atomc bombs. He had to act quickly to end the war and he did just that. "
How do these sentences connect?
Have you fellas ever considered seeking treatment at a mental health facility? Probably not, it's too late for that.
Dear Dougeaston, Regarding the language of the Potsdam Conference, I have the opinion, I am not a scolar, but Truman seemed high as a kite on the posession of the Atomic Bomb, and he and Byrnes intended to reverse the agreements made by Roosevelt at Yalta, difficult in the extreme, since the territory ceded to the influence of the Soviet Union at that conference was securely occupied by the Red Army, who rightfully thought they had borne the greater burden in the defeat of fascism. The language of Potsdam was a public stance that soon morphed into the cold war. Regarding history and the language that is used to describe it, I suppose we have to become accustomed to intellectual discourse that is no longer guided by the rules and regulations of the Enlightenment.
Before children whine about others being snippy and insulting, they should scroll back and see what they wrote and who started the snide remarks.
You asked the same question several tmes, "Why did we offer an unconditional surrender and then accept a conditional one"? __ We didn't, the Potsdam and surrender documents were the same.
You alos insulted me by stating more than once, in a snippy manner, that the submersible subs were a figment of my imagination and once accused me of being nothing less than a liar, making thnigs up.
Mr. Tom Pain's Journal, which is published and in the Library Of Congress and also in the Special Collection of the Nimitz Library, gives a comprehensive report of the Japanese I-400 submersible aircraft carriers. Paine stated that those far superior to our submarines, which could navigate at speeds twice the speed of any we had, and had a submerged and un-refueled range of 37,500 miles, were decades ahead of their time. The advent of atomic weapons, which Japan was in stages of developing since 1938, made the super subs a menancing 'strategic' threat. They were capable of hitting targets in any part of our country and Truman was fully aware of that.
Truman did not know if the Japanese had managed to develop, or were close to developing atomc bombs. He had to act quickly to end the war and he did just that. ___ Bye.
You're right, Tony. Based on real evidence, no other conclusion is possible.
And I think there's a deeper problem in our culture that shows up in these messages. Besides the obvious one of people getting snippy and insulting when their opinions are questioned. For a lot of people, this is the way society works. When they were kids they got slapped down for thinking critically, for asking too many questions or the "wrong" questions. And if you didn't get the curiosity slapped out of you at home, you'd sure get it slapped out in school. And if you still hadn't learned to keep stuff to yourself, the Church would straighten you out. And if you still keeping asking the "wrong" questions, wait until you go to work.
The other problem, maybe the worse problem, is language. How can there be any real dialog, not just exchange of insults and sound bites and talking points, if we assign different meanings to the same words? Unconditional surrender means one side quits without bargaining over the terms, over any terms - there is nothing to bargain over. A non-negotiable demand means that in the bargaining, other points might be haggled over, but not the non-negotiable ones. so how can anyone read item 5 of the Potsdam Proclamation: (5. Following are our terms.
We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.) and then claim the only unconditional item is item 13: (13. We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.) Item 13 is the re-iteration of the previously mentioned terms. And as item 5 says, "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay." That means no haggling no delay no changes. Take it or leave it.
On the other hand, maybe history really doesn't matter. Maybe fables and myths will make a better world. How could things get worse?
You believe. What other nonsense do you believe? You don't want to know the truths, you have a mind set of believng distorted history and are therefore stuck with your flawed beliefs. Well, your're not alone there.
Dear Dougeaston, I believe it is the thrust of Alperovitz's work that the Truman administration wished to use the atomic attack on Japan as a demonstration to the Soviet Union, therefore nothing was acceptable before the demonstration, and after, the keeping of a modified Emperor immediately became acceptable.
The only thing that was unconditional was item 13. So your question of (why did we accept conditional surrender? ) makes no sense. Item 13 was never changed, it was unconditional surrender. Bye
What is confusing about that. That was the Potsdam confrence surrender terms and on August 10, Japan agreed to them. Nothng specific had been said abut the status of their Emperor in the Potsdam terms. They didn't agree to surrender until after the second atomic bomb was dropped. The Final surrender document was the same as the Potsdam terms. Until the atomic bombs were used, Japan was NOT gong to surrender. ___ Period.
There seems to be a lot of controversy about the Potsdam Proclamation. so I thought it would be a good idea to put in.
Potsdam, July 26, 1945.
1. We --- the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agreed that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.
2. The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the west, are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist.
3. The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.
4. The time has come for Japan to decide whether die will continue to be controlled by those selfwilled militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason.
5. Following are our terms.
We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.
6. There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.
7. Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.
8. The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.
9. The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.
10. We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.
11. Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.
12. The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.
13. We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.
Here's what Japan said when they surrendered.
OFFER OF SURRENDER FROM JAPANESE GOVERNMENT
August 10, 1945
United States Department of State Bulletin.
August 10, 1945
SIR:
I have the honor to inform you that the Japanese Minister to Switzerland, upon instructions received from his Government, has requested the Swiss Political Department to advise the Government of the United States of America of the following:
"In obedience to the gracious command of His Majesty the Emperor who, ever anxious to enhance the cause of world peace, desires earnestly to bring about a speedy termination of hostilities with a view to saving mankind from the calamities to be imposed upon them by further continuation of the war, the Japanese Government several weeks ago asked the Soviet Government, with which neutral relations then prevailed, to render good offices in restoring peace vis à vis the enemy powers. Unfortunately, these efforts in the interest of peace having failed, the Japanese Government in conformity with the august wish of His Majesty to restore the general peace and desiring to put an end to the untold sufferings entailed by war as quickly as possible, have decided upon the following.
"The Japanese Government are ready to accept the terms enumerated in the joint declaration which was issued at Potsdam on July 26th, 1945 by the heads of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, and China, and later subscribed by the Soviet Government, with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler.
"The Japanese Government sincerely hope that this understanding is war ranted and desire keenly that an explicit indication to that effect will be speedily forthcoming."
In transmitting the above message the Japanese Minister added that his Government begs the Government of the United States to forward its answer through the intermediary of Switzerland. Similar requests are being transmitted to the Governments of Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics through the intermediary of Sweden, as well as to the Government of China through the intermediary of Switzerland. The Chinese Minister at Berne has already been informed of the foregoing through the channel of the Swiss Political Department.
Please be assured that I am at your disposal at any time to accept for and forward to my Government the reply of the Government of the United States.
Accept [etc.]
GRÄSSLI
Chargé d'Affaires ad interim of Switzerland
and here's our acceptance of their surrender:
BYRNES Reply of August 11, 1945. [4]
AUGUST 11, 1945
SIR:
I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your note of August 10, and in reply to inform you that the President of the United States has directed me to send to you for transmission by your Government to the Japanese Government the following message on behalf of the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and China:
"With regard to the Japanese Government's message accepting the terms of the Potsdam proclamation, but containing the statement, 'with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a sovereign ruler,' our position is as follows:
"From the moment of surrender the authority of
[4] Ibid.
Page 77
the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms.
"The Emperor will be required to authorize and ensure the signature by the Government of Japan and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters of the surrender terms necessary to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration, and shall issue his commands to all the Japanese military, naval and air authorities and to all the forces under their control wherever located to cease active operations and to surrender their arms, and to issue such other orders as the Supreme Commander may require to give effect to the surrender terms.
"Immediately upon the surrender the Japanese Government shall transport prisoners of war and civilian internees to places of safety, as directed, where they can quickly be placed aboard Allied transports.
"The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people.
"The armed forces of the Allied Powers will remain in Japan until the purposes set forth in the Potsdam Declaration are achieved."
Accept [etc.]
JAMES F. BYRNES
Secretary of State
and then their acceptance of our acceptance:
Mr. MAX GRÄSSLI
Charge d'Affaires ad interim of
Switzerland.
GRÄSSLI Letter of August 14, 1945. [5]
AUGUST 14, 1945.
SIR:
I have the honor to refer to your note of August 11, in which you requested me to transmit to my Government the reply of the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and China to the message from the Japanese Government which was communicated in my note of August 10.
At 20.10 today (Swiss Time) the Japanese Minister to Switzerland conveyed the following written statement to the Swiss Government for transmission to the four Allied governments:
"Communication of the Japanese Government of August 14, 1945, addressed to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and China:
"With reference to the Japanese Government's note of August 10 regarding their acceptance of the provisions of the Potsdam declaration and the reply of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and China sent by American Secretary of State Byrnes under the date of August 11, the Japanese Government have the honor to communicate to the Governments of the four powers as follows:
"1. His Majesty the Emperor has issued an Imperial rescript regarding Japan's acceptance of the provisions of the Potsdam declaration.
"2. His Majesty the Emperor is prepared to authorize and ensure the signature by his Government
and the Imperial General Headquarters of the necessary terms for carrying out the provisions of the Potsdam declaration. His Majesty is also prepared to issue his commands to all the military, naval, and air authorities of Japan and all the forces under their control wherever located to cease active operations, to surrender arms and to issue such other orders as may be required by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces for the execution of the above-mentioned terms."
Accept [etc.]
GRÄSSLI
Charge d'Affaires ad interim
of Switzerland
Thanks Tony, that's a good summary of Alperovitz' book.
But the question is still un-answered:
why did we ask for un-conditional surrender before we dropped the atomic bombs and then accept conditional surrender after we dropped the bombs?
That's corect TONY. The Japanese diplomats were ignored because the surrender terms were drawn up at the Potsdam conference which stated there will be no other options.
The only time unconditional was mentioned n those terms was at the end of the document. The unconditional was, the Japanese military would have to surrender all of their military equipment and cease fighting. Any who were suspect of war crimes would be subject to trial. I got that from reading the published surrender terms and the final surrender document, which was identical to the original terms. They were fair. All the Japnaese had to do was agree to them, they had ample time to do so, long before December 6th, 1945. ___ They refused and the atomic bombs were dropped. The war ended and the killing of innocent civilians in Japan stopped.
Dear Dougeaston, In July - August 1944, with the loss of Saipan and the fall of the Tojo government, intelligence (MAGIC interceptions) reported that Foreign Minister Shigemitsu ordered the ambassidor to USSR to explore the possibility of Russia initiating peace discussions. September 6, Sweden's minister in Tokyo telegrams the British government that high levels of government are expressing willingness for preliminary discussions though the Swedes. Message was ignored. January 30, OSS reports that the Japanese minister to the Vatican was discussing the possibility of the Pope as a mediator. April 6, The Swedish ambassidor to Japan notifies the State Department of Japan's willingness to surrender and, "it seems probable that very far-reaching conditions would be accepted by way of negociations..... May 7, the OSS reports that the Japanese ambassidor to Portugal is putting out feelers, saying they are ready of cease hostilities.. May 19, The Japanese ambassidor to Portugal repeats his offer, saying that the actual peace terms are not important so long as the term, "unconditional surrender" was not employed. July 7, Peace feeler to Department of State, Japanese Military Attache to Sweden, Maj. Gen. Onondera, suggesting that the King of Sweden mediate a surrender, with no conditions other than that the Emperor remain. July 13, intercepted cables (MAGIC) revealed that the Emperor had intervened personally to attempt to "quickly terminate" the fighting an to investigate a possible Russian role in this. I have made this poor summary from, "The Decision to Use the Bomb, and the Architecture of an American Myth", Gar Alperovitz (1995)
Well, it's history TWOBLUEDAY, and history is important.
It should be anyway, for it should be a learnng process. ___ It often isn't however.
BTW, this is actually the third article on CD about Paul Tibbets in the past two weeks.
This is the second thread/article about this insignificant Air Corps employee in a short period of time. The whole "war criminal" thing, as applied to discussions of Mr. Tibbits leaves me cold. He was a truck driver for the military, nothing more.
With all the issues facing the world right now, discussions of this type are just as valuable as rehashing the War of the Roses.
Hi KEM
Thanks heartily for your acceptance of my apology. I mean to keep in this discussion but first I must digress. I thought it was hilarious that you (KEM) referred to me as "wizard". For me that is one of the funniest words in the english language. I laughed all day about that word. I don't know why. I guess that's an important component of humour - not understanding why you're laughing. It was absolutely wizard. Am I the only one who remembers that quaint early eighties English piece of slang? With utmost sincerity (and - ALL POSTERS - remember - this IS the Internet) and looking forward to future correspondence with you KEM, I live in Florida -BobQDobbs
Paul Tibbets publically said he felt no remorse. We will never know the truth of that, he was a human being after all and had to live with it as did the rest of his crew.
I understand he bragged about it and even made money from it. Well, he had to live with that also if that is correct. He may have been insane, many people are and hide it pretty well, Look at Bush and Cheney for example.
That's understandable WHITLIAR. The generation of people who lived through the depression and the Second World War, had a far far different viewpoint about it and the use of the bombs, than those who lived durng the Vietnam and now the Gulf wars.
The Vietnam and Gulf wars were certainly unjust. Well, perhaps not the first Gulf War. But for certain this one and the subsequent occupation of Iraq is. We also did not use DU ammunition in the Second World War, Truman was advised of its potential, but he forbade it. Funny how so many condemn him for using the atomic bombs when he actually didn't wish to do so, would not allow DU to be used and ended up havng to make that awful decision. Well, the war ended and primarily because of the atomic bombs.
I read books and see films on war, and can't wrap my head around the horror of it.. They all say you have to go to war, to really understand how terrible it is..
That is why it is easy for Bush and Cheney, they have never been..
If they march those two to the Hague, how complicit are we?.
KEM,
Didn't mean to be so cryptic.. I was alluding to the fact that during the Nan King Massacre the Japanese reportedly used chinese babies for bayonet practice.
Paul Tibbets felt no remorse.. Is the mindset the same?... I don't know, and I am not being facetious..
I am one of those priveliged Gen Xers that never was asked to sacrifice for his country (Man did I do a lot of shopping though!)
I wonder how far I would go, if I was one of the Greatest Generation, or was drafted to Nam... That Ken Burns doc got me thinking..
Ever Read that book "First into Nagasaki"?.. There is also a book called "The Rape of Nan King".. I read em around the same time as watching the burns doc.. So My head is melted..
cryptically yours bwah ha ha...
xoxo
BTW, we did not accept anything other in the Japanese surrender terms, than that which was drafted at the Potsdam conference by The U.S, China and Great Britian. The myth prevails with many, that the surrender terms were modified. ___ They were not.
The only unconditional item was their military must lay down their arms and stop fighting. Google it and read the document drafted at Potsdam.
WHITELIAR. Ask the men who dropped the bombs to see how they felt. My father was a B-17 pilot in 8th Air Force, He flew 22 missions over Germany and never relished any of them. He only wished to come home and live a decent life. He seldom spoke of the horror, I do doubt he would have ever speared a baby, nor would I. Perhaps you have had that experience and know the answer to your rather strange question? Personally, I can see a major difference.
This is a general question directed at anyone who has an idea on it:
Is the following chronology of events correct?
1. As the Japanese military position weakened and with each closer advance to the Japanese home islands, our casualties worsened.
2. we demanded un-conditional surrender without mentioning assurances for the Emperor's safety.
3. we dropped atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
4. The next day the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria.
5. 2 days later we dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki.
6. 6 days (?) later they offered to surrender if their Emperor would not be harmed.
7. we accepted their surrender. allowing the Emperor's safety.
here's the question: why did we ask for un-conditional surrender before we dropped the atomic bombs and then accept conditional surrender after we dropped the bombs?
Does the same mindset exist for the soldier who firebombs the enemy from a plane, and the soldier who throws a baby in the air and spears it with a bayonet?
ACCEPTED BOB, and I am truly sorry for my crude and vulger remark. Thank you for your reply.
WHITELIAR. In war, soldiers always become part of a machine, a big killing machine. You kill or be killed. The Marines who fought in the Pacific were labeled as animals by the Japanese. Talk about the kettle calling the pot black. Indeed, those young Marines, at an average age of 19, became as animals. Brave animals I may add.
Some were witness to the Japanese brutality, where some of their Marine comrades, who had been seriously wounded, had been tortured to death and their bodies horribly desicrated, their sex organs cut off and stuffed into their mouths before being beheaded. The young men became as aminals, they fought with every thing they had available, including tooth and nail. Did they wish it to be happening? I am certain most wished to be home with their loved ones and lead a normal life.
Did our pilots wish to drop bombs on civilians? I doubt it, but they hit their targets and did so in the hopes the enemy would stop, surrender, and the killing could end. I was a youngster when Japan attacked us, I hated the Japanese, everyone we knew did. Years later, I was stationed in Japan for two full years and discovered they were just like me, and I liked them as I would my brothers or sister.
We are all the same, and those imaginary lines drawn on maps do not really exist. The war was tragic, the use of the fire bombings and the atomic bombs was horrific. Truman had no other credible choice. Some here have attempted to explain that the Japanese wished to surrender. That is just not so, the facts of such can be read, if one just Googles Japanese surrender terms. The surrender terms drawn up at the Potsdam Conference were fair and just and not negotable. The Japanese wished to negoiate, that was very unfortunate, they were forewarned they would suffer dire consequences if they did not quit. The only unconditional iotem in the terms was, all of their military, must lay down their arms and stop fighting. Other than that, they would lose nothing, except the lands they had taken in war and they would have a Governor for a short time to insure the citizens had the rights of a Democratic government. ___ And so they did.
Both sides are guilty of atrocities..
Rape of Nan-king anyone?
Hi KEM - I was just making a joke. Trying to bring a BIT of levity to the table. The joke was based on the fact that if you look over this thread your voice is by far the loudest. I'm sorry if I offended you. Sometimes these discussions get really heavy and ugly in a personal way. We all have problems but if you can't laugh once in a while what are we doing here trying to solve the world's problems? We spend way to much time, I think, infighting on CommonDreams. That aside thanks for sharing some personal stuff about yourself. It's good to "put a face" on some of these usernames. I am a 38 year old pacifist from a military family. You are an asset to these discussions. Please accept my apology.
I guess you failed to read and or understand what I and many others wrote in regards to your question DOUG, Japan didn't surrender until nine days after after we dropped the second bomb. Insult? only when I've been attacked first. Apparantly you alos didn't bother to Google the articles that explained why Truman determined the use of the atomic bombs was necessary. That's your loss of not learning truth, not mine. Bye.
My daddy used to say, never rassle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it.
Good morning CommonDreamers! What a lively discussion - and it's STILL alive. Not surprising given the weightiness of the subject matter of this article. Surely when the "greys" (or other "alien" species) writes the history of our little genome ;) the events in question here will be counted as quite significant.
To those who say we are rehashing ancient history and neglecting the present debacle I say that you are indeed wrong. Let them not be forgotten - on both ends of the gun barrel - at any place in space or time.
"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Albert Einstein
We all do evil. Evil is a distinctly human trait. Lucifer told me so. I am not apologizing for Tibbets or his peers but I have always believed the ONLY law with any reliable accordance is the law of the jungle. I have wept continuously since I was old enough to know better over the brutality of the nuking of Hiroshima etc. I am glad to see here (hear?) that I am not alone. Love to all and, KEM, with all due respect - get a job :) Thanks to all who participate in these threads. and love to all
PAX HUMANA
Kem Patrick is a genocide apologist and a liar. He loses every argument he gets into but keeps making a fool out of himself in order to defend the indefensible.
I see his arguments in favor of the senseless incineration of the innocent that took place in Japan the same way I see Dick Cheney's reasoning for his permanent 'war of terror.' It's full of lies and deceit.
KEM, can you stop insulting everyone who dis-agrees with you long enough to answer one last question? Since it's so difficult to determine the motives people have for their actions, and since it's really difficult to speculate about actions that didn't happen but could have happened, can we just discuss the actual events?
Those events being that as the Japanese military position weakened and with each closer advance to the Japanese home islands our casualties worsened. And chronologically:
1. we demanded un-conditional surrender without mentioning assurances for the Emperor's safety.
2. we dropped atomic bombs on them.
3. after a few days they offered to surrender if their Emperor would not be harmed.
4. we accepted their surrender. allowing the Emperor's safety.
here's the question: why did we ask for un-conditional surrender before we dropped the atomic bombs and then accept conditional surrender after we dropped the bombs?
like right now it says 1482 seconds left to edit
I've noticed that also. I submitted a message and it said you have 1500 seconds to edit it. so I decided to remove the sarcastic part, but apparently it gets submitted even while in process of edit.
?
Well well, I do wonder if our ignorant Devils Advocate, DOUGEASTON, is someone who is working the Common Dreams desk? A goodly portion of his last post mysteriously disappeared, as soon as I replied to his post. In it, he had written thigs like, "how could the Japanese possibly have the fuel for their subs to go 37,000 miles and also made other sarcastic remarks about my error in months. ___ Very interesting.
Excuse my stupidity DOUGEASTON. I meant August not December. Of course you were aware of that, as I had written August several other times here. Naturally one such as you could not wait to jump on a mistake or a typo. You just prove to all, your sophistically manner of childish reasoning. A decent person would have writtensomthng like, "Hey KEM you made a little mistake there, it wasn't December, it was August. Oops"!
Japan had the fuel for the subs, one was at sea heading for the Panama Canal when the war ended. The captain committed hari-kari instead of surrendering. The Japanese also had stockpiled enough fuel for their Kamazie aircraft if and when an invasion occurred.
Why don't you consider readng the articles on the issue and argue your points with the authors and post them on this site for us to determine if you or they are sensible? Those are not my opinions, it came from well docmented history and you are so foolish to not read them and then if you don't believe them, give us some decent arguments as to why those writers are lying or stupid. This CD is a learing site for some, it is a site for some to show their ignorance and or stupidity. ___ Which do you choose? No need to reply to that question, ss you have already answered it.
December of 1945? I thought the war ended a few months before that. I don't remember seeing anyone wearing coats in the V-J day pictures.
You and your pal Doug must be scratching your asses off.
You lay down with dogs, you get fleas...
Do you two self centered dorks need any other facts?
www.ww2pacifc.com/i-400-html
That's the link but it is not available unless you Google Japanese submersible aircraft carriers.
That article had a photo of one of the Aichi Slerian aircraft being taken from the Subs deck hanger to be readied for flight. There is only one of those aircraft on display. The Smithsonian has it and it is presently located at the Udor Center in Washington DC. The aircraft had a range of near 2,000 miles, carrying a 1760 lb bomb at a speed of 580km/h. It could have carried an atomic bomb or a dirty bomb with a 500 lbs of uranium.
I was refering to facts about the subs and atomic weapons, which was the gist of the problem for President Truman.
I actually love to see guys like you make such fools of yourselves TONY. What facts did your pal present? You have gone from being stupid to funny, keep it up, a little humor is good for the soul.
Dear Dougeaston, Thanks for having the patience to go to the books and writing down some facts. However, it seems to be a waste for some here, probably has heard too much Free Channel talk radio and can't help writing like a jerk. Also, his shitmeter seems to be disfunctonal, submersible aircraft carriers and Japanese A-bombs at the end of the war, indeed.
Okay Mr. Know It All DOUGEASTON. One final shot. Since it is apparent you don't wish to look it up for yourself, or are too bullheaded to so so, here is just a bit of what is written on the subject of Japan's submersible aircraft carriers by Alan Bellows on April 9th, 2007. There are many other articles and photos of the subs.
BTW, I express my opinions based upon facts, which are not MY facts.
From Bellows article. "The I-400 and I-401 were the largest submarines by far the world had ever seen". (See photographs including Japanese sailors and the three bomber aircraft hangered on the hanger deck.) "The subs had a range exceeding 37,000 miles and could operate at depths exceeding 300 feet".
Those subs, with three excellent dive bombers, could target almost any city in the world and easily target our major cities, including Detroit, Mich. Had the war continued for several more months, Japan could have developed atomic bombs, they had already recieved enough uranium to build several when the war ended. BTW that is one reason Korea was divided at Stalin's insistance. The Japanese atomic facilities were in North Korea, he knew it, Truman ddn't. They were then available to the Russians after the war ended.
The Japanese military officers who were aware of that FACT and of the FACT they had the aricraft carrier submarines, did everything possible to prevent their Emperor from surrendering. Actually we were lucky in that regard and fortunate the war ended when it did. You can thank Truman and our troops for ending it in December of 1945, or you may not be here to spout your bullshit and I may not be here to shovel your BS out the door.
Kem, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
PARRYISLE, could you please tell us where you found that information?
Curtis LeMay was a child when WW1 ended as was Bomber Harris. They were both low ranking airmen just prior to the outbreak of WW2. Do you believe Billy Mitchell was perhaps the first to note, that the Japanese used wooden homes?
What on earth does any of what you just posted have to do with the use of the two atomic bombs? As to our being the only atomic power from 1945 thru 1949, when the Soviet Union exploded theirs, one which was many times more powerful than any we possessed at the time. Who did we threaten or attack durng those years? North Korea attacked South Korea and President Truman sent troops to assist South Korea. We didn't use any atomic bombs however, Truman would not allow it and insured we did not go north of the Yalu river, even after China joined in with over a million ground troops and even though we had ample proof Russian pilots were flying Mig-15s, fighting for the North Koreans.
President Truman did all possible to prevent another major war. Why? He had the atomic bomb and if he or we were as you state, he could have threatend both China and Russia with its use. Just wonder where you get your information?
Ahhh, bet I know, you read a book that someone wrote and sold.
I see another has mentioned Commodore Perry, as if he invaded Japan and forced them to terms. Actually he NEGOIATED terms with the Japanese, and it took months to do so.
The terms were fairly simple, open trade with others than a few Chinese and Dutch ___ allow foreign ships to purchase fuel, and other necessary supplies and stop putting ship wrecked sailors, who landed on any of their island in jail.
Why is it the citizens of Japan still annually celebrate his Black Ship arrival, if they believed he was a harmful aggressor?
At the end of world war One Italian Air General Douhet set for the rules for the use of air power in conducting a war. Bombing cities by air was a major component of that philosophy. All major air force leaders signed onto this-Bomber Harris of the RAF; Curtis Lemay of the US Army Air Corps. In his first visit to Japan Gen. Billy Mitchell took note of their heavy use of timber in construction. Most Japanese homes are costructed with this. I was stationed in the Pacific during WW2 and I remember the US Navy had terminated all sensorship of their members mail sent home. They also flaunted their power and the impotence of Japan to defend its mainland by announcing where our navy would be bombing major port cities before it was done. This alone must surely have finally convinced Japan's leaders and people that all was lost if the previous horrendous firebombings on their major cities in May, 1945 had not done. These killed far more than did the later more publicized atom bombings. Japan had been making gestures to end the war in June '45 with the only condition being the emperor would retain his prerogatives. This condition was accepted by the U.S. after the two a-bombs were dropped. I believe the enormous cost of the Manhattan Project which created the bombs had to be used to justify such an expense. Also having a monopoly with such weapons in our arsenal put us in charge of the planet. Wasshington has since 1945 threatened to use its nukes over two dozen times on other natiions not possessing a retaliatory response capability. Even the fear that any small nation may acaquire even one or two would mean they might defy U.S. global hegemony and this is why our leaders are determined that as far as these weapons are concerned they warn "What we say goes" though the word "WE" has never been fully defined at to who qualifies to be a member of this club
You are wrong again DOUGEASTON, Truman gave MacArthur a free reign on how to negoitate the peace terms and how to Govern Japan. So what does the Postdam conference have to so with it, it was entirely MacArthur's call as I stated. Whether he accepted the advice of any others is unknown to me. ___ He rarely accepted advice and publically acknowledged it.
You still refuse to believe the Japanese had huge submersible aircraft carriers. You are really adept at displaying your ignorance firsthand and your belligerent stupidity after. Thank you very much for showing it to all here. I now rest my constant bickering with fools such as you on this thread and do not wish to see you post on another, yet do as you may please.
Collective thinking.
It is not for those of us who didn't suffer the horrors of battle in the Pacific Theater of WWII to make a moral judgement on Tibbets for the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima or on General Sweeney for bombing Nagasaki. The deaths and suffering of so many noncombatant Japanese men, women, and children is difficult for the civilized mind to condone in hindsight while enjoying all the comforts of home, but is it any easier to condone the suffering that combatants on both sides would have suffered in conventional warfare?
Is it our moral right to say that infantrymen should have died in possibly greater numbers and suffered the kind of trauma they experienced on Iwo Jima or on the Batan Death March? Who would have had the moral right to choose which thousands of men would be condemned to die in the battle for the Japanese mainland? I would guess that most veterans of the Pacific Theater of Operation, living and dead, would not condemn Tibbets the Hiroshima bombing. For us to pontificate on Tibbets morality is pretentious at best.
Is it altogether certain that those civilians who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have remained as noncombatants if the Japanese mainland was invaded? The Japanese viewed Emporer Hirohito as God, and to die for him as the kamikase pilots did was to enjoy an eternal paradise after death. Does anybody today see anything wrong with killing radical Muslim suicide bombers that hold the same screwy belief? There were not many Americans opposing the invasion of Iraq until the body bags started trickling in. Morality is still a minor issue of the war in Iraq. The cost of the war in dollars and in American lives and the price of oil are bigger concerns than the morality of the devastation brought upon the civilian population of Iraq. The soldiers themselves are still revered even though they are engaged in an illegal, immoral war. We should apply morality to the present, not to the past.
But, as Anthony Gregory states, "it remains crucial for us to consider the implications of what he did. It is important to our sense of individual responsibility in a world where, especially in times of war, people think mainly in terms of the collective. It is this fallacy in moral reasoning that leads otherwise decent people to commit unspeakable barbarities against their fellow man." We should not judge Tibetts for what he did but, after seeing what he did, morally assess our own position on our willingness to wage war - perhaps morally assess our willingness to allow others to wage war and to what lengths we will go to stop them.
The fallacy of collective reasoning clashes with morality. Once war begins, morality becomes a luxury of the lucky and the few. Individuals can struggle with morality, but collective reasoning will prevail in war or in peace. If morality were to prevail, there would be no war; for "it is the refusal to view people as individuals, the branding of everyone as merely an expendable part of a larger group" which brings about wars. Morality loses its vigor when the collective reasoning says, "It's us or them". Think about the immorality of the incarceration of the entire population of Japanese-American citizens during WWII.
If morality is to be a meaningful concern, the course of the entire country and the individual's role in it has to be examined before we are placed in the spot Tibbets was in. He probably thought about the morality of bombing Hiroshima for about ten seconds if at all. He was more interested in the practicality of what he considered a final step toward ending the war. We cannot wait until we are in a war to start thinking along moral lines.
The use of nuclear weapons against Japan might have also been meant to scare the Soviets into submission. That would have been immoral in my judgement. To kill more than 100, 000 people and cause grave illness to many more, some of whom were not yet born, would be wrong even to serve as a deterrent to future war.
Collective reasoning provides an escape from individual morality. One of the most disgraceful scenes to behold is a casket draped with an American flag. The belief that the sins of the fallen soldier will be borne by the flag of his country is the ultimate in immoral collective thinking. It is collective reasoning that allows war to creep up on society. The nationalism that we are taught in childhood with the Pledge of Allegiance and the Star Spangled Banner while ignoring slavery, sweat shops, exploitation at home and abroad, genocide of Indians, and racism all serve to make morality sound ridiculous. Those are the things that made us the "greatest country in the world" to our collective way of thinking.
We had to kill the Indians, they wouldn't give us their land. They had no souls, anyhow. God wants us to expand from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We need slaves because it's economically impossible to develop the South without them. The Bible condones slavery and admonishes slaves not to rise above their station. They are inferior beings, not like us - collective thinking.
How does it spread so readily, collective thinking? What control mechanism allows people to condone what is obviously wrong and immoral? Lies, deceit, and trickery for sure, but they are soon found out. Religion disguises collective thinking as morality. The radical Muslims preach absurdities that people follow because it is God's will. Hirohito, himself, was God and he represented Japan. George Bush is divinely inspired and probably speaks in tongues - that's why nobody can understand him- and has a cult following. Morality is out; collective thinking is in.
Capitalism is the real religion behind war and expansionism. It was the prime mover of "manifest destiny" but used religious overtones to promote the collective thinking necessary to carry out the atrocities of the movement. Manifest destiny continued beyond the boundaries of the two oceans. Individual morality was absorbed by the collective movement toward national expansion.
We expanded to Cuba, Hawaii, the Philippines, Commodore Perry concentrated on Japan. Great Britain occupied India, forced themselves on China. France occupied Indo-China. Japan emulated the imperialist intenetions of the Western powers and itself broke out of isolation to become a contender for economic and military expansion in Asia. Japan was put in the position of resisting foreign intrusion and expanding or falling under Western power as with the rest of Asia.
Should we be concerned with Tibbets' morality, or should we be concerned with the morality of the system that got us into war after war on the basis of capitalist expansion and spreading "democracy" via proprietary governments that are controlled by Washington such as Cuba's Batista government that was preceeded by and overthrown by Castro. Should we continue to depose governments like that of Queen Liliuokalani in Hawaii? Did she have war canoes capable of invading San Francisco?
Should we allow more sanctions on Iran? Did sanctions work against Cuba? Did sanctions produce any results in Iraq other than death and suffering among the civilian population? Did those sanctions contribute to an increase in the number of "terrorists" willing to attack Americans? Will Iranians simply capitulate to the Bush adminstration's sanctions, or will their collective thinking tell them to resist until death?
Should we continue to allow people like George Bush to wage imperialist war in the name of democracy? What is our moral responsbility to our own preservation and to the rest of the world? Certainly not the collective thinking that has driven Bush's War on Terror to its present shameful, protracted state of lunacy. To what lengths are we to go in stopping lunatics like Cheney, Bush, Rice, et al if we are to consider ourselves moral people? If we do nothing as we have so far, who will debate the morality of the next nuclear blast?
No Kem, "...General MacArthur alone was the man responsible for insuring the Emperor of Japan was left alone after the surrender documents were signed." is not consistent with the facts.
Truman was approached before the Potsdam Proclamation on at least a dozen instances by at least 10 different people to include in the Potsdam Proclamation assurances that the Emperor would not be harmed.
by Acting Secretary of State Grew on May 28,1945
by former President Hoover in a memorandum dated May 30,1945
by Grew again on June 13,1945
by Counsel to the President Rosenman on June 17, 1945
by Grew again on June 18,1945
by Assistant Secretary of War McCloy on June 18,1945
by Admiral Leahy on June 18,1945
by the State Department in a formal recommendation June 30,1945
by Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bard on July 1,1945
by Secretary of War Stimson (with the support of Grew and the Secretary of the Navy Forrestal) on July 2,1945
by Stimson again on July 16,1945
by Churchill on July 18,1945
by the Joint Chiefs of Staff on July 18,1945
and by Stimson, again, on July 24,1945
So with all this advice, with such a general consensus, why did Truman choose to ignore it and remove the assurances for the Emperor from the Potsdam Proclamation?
And as far as the submersible aircraft carriers go, I think there were quite a few of them. Of course, they weren't submersible until they met up with our aircraft carriers.
Thanks you also ANDERSON COOPER, a very well written post and not fables or myths. You pretty well said enough to end this debate.
BTW, for any who are unaware, General MacArthur alone was the man responsible for insuring the Emperor of Japan was left alone after the surrender documents were signed.
MacArthur entered Tokyo unarmed, practically alone, chauffered to his headquarters in a jeep, wearing his wrinkeled fatiigue uniform, his 50 mission, gold braided hat, and with a corncob pipe in his mouth. He was a most intelligent, egotistial prima donna of a man and one who knew how to both lead men and impress his advisaries. He laid down the law and Japan came out of the war in pretty good shape, considering what they had done to China, Southeat Asia and the Phillipines. Peace prevailed to this day and Japan has been a wealthy nation for many long years.
BTW, for ANY to say the submersible aircraft carriers Japan had is a myth, just Google it and see the evidence, in photos and documents, which are unDeniable by any who may still have half a brain.
Slow down Kem. There is nothing in your 1:39 message I dis-agree with. But, Tony was saying that the foreign policy of the Democratic party was taken over by its right wing after FDR died.
What is pretty obvious to anyone reading these messages is that there is a dearth of solid evidence presented here. No one quotes documents. They quote TV shows
Hit what nail on the head? TONY says the contry was taken over by the right wing Democrats, blah blah , blah.
No sirs, our country, our government has been taken over by a handful of untra-rich people, who control what goes on here in American and in the entire world. Some of them a