[Mike Irwin]

From Reuters....


"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It carried the most destructive weapon of World War II and now the Enola Gay, the aircraft that dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, is going on display at the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum.

The reassembled B-29 Superfortress was unveiled to the media on Monday in a hangar near Dulles International Airport at the museum's new annex which opens on Dec. 15.

"This airplane is a part of our history and it is a part of who we are," said Dik Daso, curator of the aeronautics division of the museum.

"First Atomic Bomb, Hiroshima, Aug. 6, 1945," are written on the side of the shiny aircraft, with its transparent cockpit nose and defensive machine guns strutting out of the tail.

The Enola Gay unleashed an atomic bomb nicknamed "Little Boy," on the Japanese port city of Hiroshima, killing more than 140,000 people and leaving tens of thousands disfigured and suffering from lingering radiation illness.

The pneumatic doors to the "bomb bay" that once held the atomic weapon were swung open for television cameras but Daso said a decision had not been made on whether to leave them open when the plane goes on public view.

The bombing was carried out on a sunny day at 8:15 a.m. from an altitude of 31,600 feet. The Enola Gay was then used as the advance weather reconnaissance aircraft for the follow-up attack on Nagasaki that killed 70,000 people. Six days after that, Japan surrendered.

Nearly a decade ago, an exhibit in Washington about the atomic bomb and the Enola Gay -- named after the pilot's mother -- was met with a storm of controversy because many U.S. veterans felt the Japanese were cast as victims of U.S. aggression. A smaller, less interpretive exhibit finally opened several months later.

NO DETAILS OF CASUALTIES

The current text for the Enola Gay exhibit does not include casualty figures from Hiroshima or show any photographs of the devastation the bomb caused.

Daso told Reuters that death toll estimates varied widely and the exhibition space did not lend itself to a complicated display including details of the human cost.

"Our role is to provide, artifact and restore it (the Enola Gay) as best we can and allow people to come to see it and let it speak to them. They can come up with what it means to them. I don't need to tell them," said Daso.

The Air Force Association, which took up the cause a decade ago for veterans, said it approved of the new exhibit.

"We believe that it is historically accurate this time and we congratulate the Air and Space Museum," said Napoleon Byars of the association.

However, Japanese-American researcher Aiko Herzig said she had hoped scenes of the human impact could have been included.

"I have no objections to the Enola Gay being reassembled but to see an aircraft without the story behind it is a waste of time. We need to remind ourselves about how terrible nuclear weapons are," said Herzig.

With a wingspan of 141 feet and a gross weight of 137,500 pounds, the Enola Gay was too large and heavy to be housed at the museum's flagship building on the National Mall.

The museum has spent more than 300,000 staff hours restoring the Enola Gay, which was one of 15 B-29s modified specifically for the secret atomic bomb missions.

The planes were fitted with special engines, propellers and faster-acting bomb bay doors. They were also the first successful large-scale use of pressurized crew compartments.

The plane was donated to the Smithsonian in 1949 and was stored at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland for a while before being disassembled in 1960 and its components taken to the Smithsonian's giant storage facility in nearby Suitland.

[TheeBadOne]

Good news, although I'm sure some anti-war nuts will protest it...:rolleyes:

[agricola]

it should be on display, but together with the human cost of its mission.

[geekWithA.45]

...but together with the human cost of its mission.

OK, I'll include all the folks who died in Hiroshima, if right alongside it they list all the dead marines in guadacanal, the dead civilians in Nanking, and all the folks who DIDN'T die in a mainland Japan invasion.

[OF]

Absolutely. There are old men in Japan today who believe the bomb was a gift from God to bring Japan out of the darkness. A holy fire to cleanse the Japanese of their brutal past and allow them to move forward into the future.

- Gabe

[agricola]

geek,

i am sure they would if they were doing an exhibition on Guadalcanal, or the rape of Nanking. As for the people who would have died in any invasion, well that was moot wasnt it since the Japanese had sent out peace feelers already?

[Mike Irwin]

Not sure what you mean by peace feelers, Agricola.

US terms for Japan's surrender were very clear.

Immediate and unconditional.

No muss, no fuss, simply total capitulation.

Even after the dropping of the two atomic weapons, though, there was still a significant faction in the government and the Army (essentially the same thing by 1942, really) that wanted to contine the war, even if it meant the extermination of the Japanese race.

An Army coup, which would have placed the Emperor in "protective custody" was attempted, but for a number of reasons was failed, and Hirohito's message was broadcast to the nation, ordering the cessation of hostilities and acceptance of Japan's fate.

[Azrael256]

I absolutely agree with the casualty figures bit! We also need to calculate the total number of Germans killed in firefights with Shermans, and post that number along with all those M4's sitting in front of VFW's and such. I suppose it would probably also be appropriate to do that with all the other military hardware, and heck, while we're at it, we should engrave the number of people killed in car accidents on the dashboard of every new car.

Sorry for the sarcasm, it's been a long day and it's only 3PM.

Weapons of war are used to kill people, that's why they're called weapons.

[Navy joe]

So is getting that thing airworthy for a 60th anniversary flyover of Hiroshima out of the question?

No peace feelers, lots of people on both sides were going to die invading the Home Islands. Keep in mind that the Nipponese didn't have a great track record for surrendering in the previous four years.

As it was, the country was spared further devastation that would have attended a full scale invasion. It changed a lot of minds about war being the path to greater glory. It certainly raised awareness of atomic weapons and their fearsome potential, most likely helping to prevent their future use. It would probably do well to remember that more people died due to firebombings in Tokyo and Dresden than did in the atomic attacks. Many more died of starvation due to the ravages of the advancing German and Japanese armies.

It is good war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it. -W.T. Sherman I believe said that, pretty much sums it up.

Apologize for the bombings? Yeah sure, just as soon as we hear some admission of culpability for starting their half of WWII, an apology for Pearl, Bataan Death March, Nanking, etc...

[DMK]

No need for casualty numbers. It's an "Air and Space" museum. The aircraft is an aeronautical artifact.

Anyway, you'd have to be completely ignorant of history or a complete idiot not to understand the terrible power of atomic weapons. If either is the case, there are plenty of exhibits demonstrating the effects of Hiroshima (why doesn't anybody talk about Nagasaki?) at other museums. I saw one at the UN building one time. The exhibit was very powerful.

[dustind]

That is neat, I met the pilot and saw the airplane on display last summer at the ww2 air show in Minnesota.

[Cosmoline]

The greatest tragedy of the bombing of Hiroshima was the way it's allowed the Japanese to view themselves as victims. A secondary tragedy has been the untold millions of innane assertions that Japan was about to give up without a fight, after having held on tooth and nail for worthless chunks of island thousands of miles from the motherland.

I have a feeling Agricola and those like him would have changed their views had they been preparing for the invasion of mainland Japan when the bombs were dropped.

[TallPine]

We need to remind ourselves about how terrible nuclear weapons are," said Herzig.

We need to remind ourselves about how terrible sneak attacks are. :fire:

[Mike Irwin]

"(why doesn't anybody talk about Nagasaki?)"


Who talks about the number two finisher in the Kentucky Derby 5 years ago?

Bocks Car, the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, is on display at the Air Force Museum out at Wright-Patterson.

[agricola]

cosmoline,

oh dear me:

A secondary tragedy has been the untold millions of innane assertions that Japan was about to give up without a fight, after having held on tooth and nail for worthless chunks of island thousands of miles from the motherland.

I presume you know better than such nonentities as Nimitz, Halsey, Byrd, LeMay, Eisenhower, H.H. Arnold, MacArthur - and in any case, the point at which the Japanese were most concerned - the retention and no-blame for the Emperor - turned out not to be an issue after all.

check out: http://www.historians.org/archive/hiroshima/190645.html

plus, given the stranglehold established by US submarines and the various Fleets that had free rein around Japanese shores at the time, they could have just sat there and starved them out, to say nothing of the millions of angry young Russians tear-arsing through Manchukuo at the same time.

[Preacherman]

IIRC, the Russians didn't invade until after the first atomic bomb was dropped?

[AJ Dual]

Agri,

I think, given the choice between nukes and the Russians, the Japanese would take the nukes every time... :D

[Kinsman]

So is getting that thing airworthy for a 60th anniversary flyover of Hiroshima out of the question?
Maybe the CAF guys would do it.....I'd love to see it.

[agricola]

preacherman,

yep, by three days - but they'd been building up forces for some time, and the peace feelers from Japan had convinced (if indeed he needed any more convincing) everyone's least favourite Georgian that there was easy pickings out there (despite the Kwantung Army - Japans largest).

Of course, by that stage of the war the Red Army was probably the most technologically and tactically advanced in the world; plus the Japanese had bad memories of what had happened at Khalkin-Gol. The entry of the USSR into the war against Japan would have (and did) brought about peace; IMHO the dropping of the bombs (especially the second) was more about sending messages to the USSR than it was to Japan.

edited to make a statement clearer

[HBK]

Dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved countless American lives. If the Japanese hadn't been so stubborn and just surrendered, it wouldn't have been dropped. Unconditional surrender is just that, no negoatiations needed. The "blame America first" crowd always points to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of why the US is so bad. Everyone that has good sense knows it was the right thing to do.

[Mike Irwin]

Agricola,

I'm not sure what your point is by invoking the names of US military leaders.

As far as I know, none of them questioned the use of the atomic bombs at the time, nor did they later, after the war.

The leaders in the Pacific were busy planning for Operation Olympic, and the leaders in Europe were busy transferring troops that would participate. If you look at the history of the Pacific War, each island closer the Americans got to Japan resulted in higher and higher casualty rates.

Add to that the toll taken by Japanese Kamakazi strikes against American ships, plus the utterly incomprehensibility of a campaign built around crashing aircraft into ships on purpose, and you may get just an inkling for the feelings that they had at that time.

As I noted, factions of the Japanese Army planned to prevent Hirohito from making the broadcast that effectively ended the war, and place him under "protective custody."

Given that the Japanese people had been, for nearly 30 years, obeying the military's orders, which were issued with the imprimature of the Emperor, nothing would have seemed to be out of the ordinary, save possibly some changes in governing figures.

Since the Emperor had never been heard by the general public, and most people had never even seen him other than in a picture, it wouldn't be out of character at all.

As for the concept of starving the Japanese out...

Hum...

Which is ETHICALLY more moral and humane, Agricola?

Starving 10 million people to death to end a war (which might take years, given the Japanese prediliction to not surrender), or inflict roughly 140,000 casualties, end the war in a matter of weeks, and begin the reconstruction of Japan?

I just :cuss:ing LOVE the concept that there's something intrinsically MORE moral about killing more people in a "traditional" and non radioactive manner than there is in killing them instantly.

Just boggles the mind.

[Mike Irwin]

"Of course, by that stage of the war the Red Army was probably the most technologically and tactically advanced in the world..."

Technologically advanced? Oh yeah, the Soviets had the technology to produce the B-29 and the atomic bomb...

Oh wait, the Soviets took until 1949 to develop the bomb, and it was only with stolen US secrets.

The B-29 they got by COPYING, down to the very last rivet, 4 B-29s that had emergency landed in Soviet space before the end of the war.

But there were those fleets of Soviet jet fighters...

Oh wait, those were German jet fighters...

Radar? Whoops, American and British, the Soviets didn't have a functionally capable home-grown radar capability until the early 1950s...

Proximity fusing, which made anti-aircraft and anti-personnel fire so much more effective? All American, baby. The Soviets didn't have anything like that until the early 1950s.

Soviet fighter and light and medium bomber aircraft were roughly on par with their American counterparts. Not technologically superior.


Tactically?

If you think the Soviets had any sophisticate tactical doctrine, you'd better think again.

You'd think that if they were so tactically advanced they would have shown it during the advances into Germany, and especially in the battle for Berlin.

Yet, it is tactical CRUDITY that nicely sums up Soviet tactics during much of WW II.

Berlin can be described rather easily -- Advance at all costs.

No thought about casualties, no real thought about concentrated attacks in weakened zones.

A simple process of attacking in roughly the same strength across the WHOLE of the front.

[agricola]

Mike,

For a start, elements of the Japanese armed forces did attempt to prevent the surrender but were stopped by other elements loyal to the Emperor. Without the dropping of the bombs (especially the second bomb), the Soviet invasion would have convinced the waverers as much as it did that further struggle was useless.

With regard to your moral question - well that was part of the plan for OLYMPIC, which had a proposed D-DAY of 1 November 1945 (for Kyushu) and six months later (Operation CORONET - for Honshu), to say nothing of the existing war situation.

We are radically drifting off topic, but whatever your beliefs those two aircraft paid a part in killing a hundred thousand people, and it should be remembered.

[Mike Irwin]

Elements...

And the point is?

It comes down to the fact that there was STILL significant resistance to the concept of surrendering.

At the point in time that the atomic bombs were dropped, there were NO definitive evidence from Japan that they were willing to accept US terms.

NONE.


"We are radically drifting off topic, but whatever your beliefs those two aircraft paid a part in killing a hundred thousand people, and it should be remembered."

You're right, they did.

But they should also be remembered for the fact that they likely SAVED the lives of perhaps upwards 1 million or more Japanese, and perhaps as many has 100,000 American and British soldiers.

It's very clear to me that the decision to use the atomic bombs was the best option available, and had the best overall moral outcome.

[benewton]

If I remember correctly, the initial firebomb raid against Tokyo (Roundhouse?) burned out 15 square miles, and, although the final count was, last I knew, still in doubt, killed more than either atomic attack. Dresden is often mentioned, but the fire raids on Japan have been submerged, somehow...

The net result of the atomics was to give the Japanese an excuse to quit: they already knew that they'd lose, but their leaders wanted it proven, and were training their civilian population to assist the military in taking as high a payment in blood that they could, regardless of cost to their own population.

I believe that the atomics saved many more lives than they took, by orders of magnitude, and so their use was justified.

It would have been justified if it minimized the allied casualty count alone, but the savings in our enemies probable casualty list would, to my mind, force the "use of" decision even harder.


So, put the "Enola Gay" on display: it's a matter of pride, not shame.

I'd skip the Hiroshima casualty list, but, if you believe that it must be displayed, then you must also support the display of the estimated casualties, military and civilian, for the invasion of the Japanese home islands.


As for me, I've already inspected a B-29, and I'd not make the trip to inspect this particular bird, although I'd hardly miss it were I in the neighborhood.

[4570Rick]

I’m not sure why so many threads degrade to the point that moderators feel the need to lock them down. I understand the passions surrounding a subject like the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Arguments can be made for or against the necessity of nukes to bring the war to an end, or the number of lives saved or lost as a result of their use. I’m not going to go there. Instead, in holding to “The Rules Of Conduct”, I’d like to visit a less contentious aspect of the Enola Gay.

The Enola Gay, the most famous B-29 was only one of the 3970 produced. The B-29 was an aviation first in many aspects and as such, is deserving of a place in history. The largest at that time, the B-29 was also the first to have a pressurized cabin and centralized and computerized defensive fire control. It also had the capacity to carry up to a 20,000-pound bomb load, or the ability to fly 5,830 miles, with a top airspeed of 365 miles per hour and a ceiling of 31,850 ft.

Additionally, the very existence of the B-29 is a source of great pride for me. You see, I have the great joy and frequent frustration of being the primary caregiver for my mother who, as an 18-year-old young woman living in Western NY in ’42, went to work at the Curtis Wright Plant on Military Trail in Buffalo NY. My mom was a genuine “Rosie the Riveter.” She worked on parts for the B-29 like engine cowlings. She can’t be sure, but it is just as likely as not that she worked on some parts of the Enola Gay, or Bockscar the B-29 that dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki.

In the ‘30s Nazi Germany lead by Hitler, started a campaign of aggression, acquisition, and mass murder. When Japan attacked the US December 7 1941, the US was no longer able to remain isolated and found itself fighting a world war again. The B-29 was only one of the many amazing accomplishments that ultimately lead to a victory over Fascism and Imperialism.

Today we have bigger ships, more accurate guns, faster and higher flying planes. We have engineering and manufacturing techniques second to none in the world. But at the onset of WWII, we were barely out of the Horse and Buggy – Blacksmith days, yet we managed to produce enough of the tools necessary for the military to once again preserve liberty for yet another generation. During a span of about 5 years, we built almost 13,000 B-17s, and 2,500 Liberty Ships, not to mention the Battle Ships, Destroyers, Aircraft Carriers and Support Vessels, the 6,000,000 plus M1 carbines, 2,000,000 plus M1 Garands, and the millions of other Firearms, Fighters and other Support Aircraft, etc. etc. and so on.

So the Enola Gay represents so much more than; The Only Aircraft To Ever Bring About An End Of A War.

My two cents worth. :cool:

[NIGHTWATCH]

My friends father was once a pilot on this bird. Not during its famous mission though.

[NukemJim]

, the dead civilians in Nanking,

Last I heard ( I do not follow this closely ) , the Japanese govement still has not aplogized or admitted that the "Rape of Nanking" ever took place. We all heard about the atrocities commited by the Nazi Physcians in the concentration camps but how many knew about the Japanese army unit that tested chem/bio weapons on civilians and POWs, or the forced use of US POWs as slave labout for economic gain?

It seems to me IMHO that the Japanes have a few things to do regarding the history of that era before they criticize our version of history, or how we display it.

4570Rick is also correct 1) the B-29 is worthy of display for it's sheer technological achievement. 2) if you want ot display the death totals and "human impact" of the nuclear weapons used, then there should be given the estimate of the cost of invasion of Japan. (It could be right next to the exhibit of the Rape of Nanking. There is plenty of photographic evidence :evil: )



I just ing LOVE the concept that there's something intrinsically MORE moral about killing more people in a "traditional" and non radioactive manner than there is in killing them instantly.

I have always found this attitude strange myself.

NukemJim

PS My cybername has nothing to do with nuclear weapons and instead is in reference to my job in Nuclear Medicine or as commonly refered to in the hospital I work in as "nukes"

Do not ask why the spelling differnce, hospitals are weird. Everybody knows of an EKG right? the initials refer to
E lectro Cardio Gram:rolleyes:

[FPrice]

"it should be on display, but together with the human cost of its mission."

Before you go on any more "holier-than-thou" rants again please read about such humanitarian efforts of the Japanese such as the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March. Then review the fanatical resistance of Japanese soldiers on many of the small islands our military forces had the pleasure of visiting on the way to their mainland. But then, many other fine folks have reminded you of these little examples of Japanese...honor... during WWII and you seem to have blown them off.

It is not the American Government and the American Military which were ultimately responsible for the deaths of all of those Japanese citizens. It was the Japanese Government and the Japanese Military which prosecuted a brutal war and convinced it's enemies that it would never surrender or feel remorse for what they did.

I will give you credit for one thing. You definitely can read history books and pick out historical facts and episodes and pose them as evidence of your position. But you can't fathom what was really going on at that time and what our people had to face to protect the rest of the world.

I plan on visiting the Enola Gay someday and saying a not-so-silent prayer for all those Americans, and Brits, and French, and Poles, and all the other Allies who gave their lives to defeat the Axis powers.

Agricola, let's face it. You just ain't got any gravitas in this forum.

Have a nice day.

(Sorry Mods if I was too harsh)

[Orthonym]

He was on Saipan in April '45 when they ran out of incendiaries and grabbed EVERYBODY (from him up to spare Generals) to help hoick 55-gal. drums of gasoline into the bomb bays as a substitute.

Oh, Agricola; read the accounts of what happened in Hong Kong (maybe to relations of people you know) when Nips came through there. I believe there was a bit of Nanking-style "recreation. "

[Ed Straker]

My dad commanded an LCT in the Normandy invasion, and he and his boat were on the way to Japan when the war ended.

Thank you Enola Gay.

[4v50 Gary]

Because of Enola Gay and Bock's Car, my uncles came home alive. Thank you President Truman for your courage to bring Japan into the nuclear age and thanks to all the men and women who made it possible. Victory is sweet - even after over half a century.

Just another reason to go back to the Smithsonian. :)

[agricola]

all,

Look, the dropping of that bomb by that plane was one of the defining moments of the war, if not human history. What's the purpose of not including the fact that it killed an awful lot of people in the process?

It is no better than those Japanese textbooks that dont mention the Chinese or Allied POW deaths, indeed it comes from the same twisted logic.

[Byron Quick]

agricola,

Have you ever talked face to face with anyone who was due to be in the infantry during the invasion of Japan? If so, what was their feeling about the atomic bombing of Japan?

I have talked with such veterans who had already endured Okinawa, the Phillipines, and the island hopping. To a man their opinion is:"Thank God for Truman and the atomic bomb."

I don't have a problem if they display photos of each and every Japanese killed or injured by the atomic bombs. In color.


It is no better than those Japanese textbooks that dont mention the Chinese or Allied POW deaths, indeed it comes from the same twisted logic.

No, sir, it does not. The "same twisted logic" would prevent not only the inclusion of the Enola Gay in a museum it would prevent its continued existance.

There is not just a difference in degree between the those Japanese textbooks that don't mention the atrocities committed as policy by the Japanese but also distort the causes of the war and a single museum exhibit. Find me a US history textbook that covers the event that does not include casualty figures of the atomic bombings.

[4v50 Gary]

agricola - I've no objection to including a body count for either plane. It should be viewed in terms of the greater potential for property damage and loss of human life if we had invaded the Japanese mainland. It should be viewed in light of the Japanese plans to kill all the PoWs who were in forced labor in Japan. It should be viewed in light of all our PoWs who were killed and the atrocities against millions of innocent civilians - both Chinese, Filipino, Allied. The Japanese unleased a medieval minded army upon the world. We just put them away.

[rock jock]

the Japanese had sent out peace feelers
To refute that myth, I have but one word: "Nagasaki". Wouldn't have been necessary if the Japanese were so bent on ending the war.

[Marko Kloos]

When the Japanese even acknowledge the Rape of Nanking, I'll start working up some concern over the victims of Hiroshima. This may sound callous, but that's war. The Japanese started a war of conquest that was waged more brutally than any conflict since the Middle Ages. (Even the Germans and Russians didn't use each other's POWs for bayonet practice on the East Front.) They reaped the just reward for their aggression, and maybe they won't ever start another one. Those lessons have a lasting effect: why do you think Germany has become so pacifist in the last 50 years?

There are many incidents on both sides that illustrate the brutality of war. There are the bombings of Rotterdam and London, the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff, the Bataan Death March, and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, just to name a few. Both sides engaged in the indiscriminate killing of civilians. The atomic bomb, in the long run, saved more lives than it took, because it prevented the Japanese from utterly destroying themselves and their own nation. We would have lost another half million soldiers, they would have lost another two million civilians, and Japan would have been like Carthage ant the end of the Third Punic War: utterly destroyed, and erased from history.

If you only look at the lives lost, the atom bomb by itself was just another event of wanton civilian destruction. That's what bookkeepers call a "cost-only" analysis, and that's what the gun grabber crowd loves to do with shooting statistics. Both parties don't take into account the lives that were saved by employing those weapons.

[Skunkabilly]

Hey, if they ever get the Yamato pieced together I'd be fine with that.

Agri, we all acknowledge (sp?) the human cost, but as far as I'm concerned: They started it.

[FPrice]

"Look, the dropping of that bomb by that plane was one of the defining moments of the war, if not human history."

This much is true. It was the act that finally and irrevocably brought an end to the bloodiest conflict that the world has ever known.

"What's the purpose of not including the fact that it killed an awful lot of people in the process?"

Those who know history know the results already. Those who don't won't understand for one reason or another.

The purpose of this exhibit is to celebrate a feat of technical achievement and human endeavor which set a standard for it's time. Not to beat our breast, hang our head, and bemoan a relatively small loss of human life (compared to the loss endured over the previous 15 or so years) caused by the rulers of those people who's lives were lost.

"It is no better than those Japanese textbooks that dont mention the Chinese or Allied POW deaths, indeed it comes from the same twisted logic."

This is perhaps the most ridiculous statement you have ever uttered in these confines. I mean, I can't believe that you have the audacity to even think that this is true. It shows how callow and contemptable your thinking is.

There are plenty of American references which discuss, analyze, and acknowledge the loss of life suffered by the Japanese people at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

THERE ARE NO COMPARABLE JAPANESE REFERENCES WHICH DISCUSS, ANALYZE, AND ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR WAR CRIMES AT NANKING, BATAAN, AND OTHER LOCATIONS.

We are NOT going to denigrate Col Tibbets and crew by any attempt to appease people such as yourself who want to re-write history.

[Iain]

I appreciate the feeling in this thread - however as far as I am aware it is thought that the Japanese were in negotiations to surrender. Unfortunately they were in negotiations with the Russians. Even if this is not true (and I am searching for evidence of this in link form - I read it in a book by a noted academic a year or two ago) then the invasion of mainland Japan was already being planned for by our allies Russia.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/

A lot of info on there about the decision taken to drop the bomb.

I submit the following from the last link on that page

Dr. Leo Szilard, 62, is a Hungarian-born physicist who helped persuade President Roosevelt to launch the A-bomb project and who had a major share in it. In 1945, however, he was a key figure among the scientists opposing use of the bomb. Later he turned to biophysics, and this year was awarded the Einstein medal for "outstanding achievement in natural sciences."
Q Dr. Szilard, what was your attitude in 1945 toward the question of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?

A I opposed it with all my power, but I'm afraid not as effectively as I should have wished.
Q Would a demonstration have been feasible?

A It is easy to see, at least in retrospect, how an effective demonstration could have been staged. We could have communicated with Japan through regular diplomatic channels - say, through Switzerland - and explained to the Japanese that we didn't want to kill anybody, and therefore proposed that one city - say, Hiroshima - be evacuated. Then one single bomber would come and drop one single bomb.

But again, I don't believe this staging a demonstration was the real issue, and in a sense it is just as immoral to force a sudden ending of a war by threatening violence as by using violence. My point is that violence would not have been necessary if we had been willing to negotiate. After all, Japan was suing for peace.
Q Would a United States Government today, confronted with the same set of choices and approximately the same degree of military intelligence, reach a different decision as to using the first A-bomb?

A I think it depends on the person of the President. Truman did not understand what was involved. You can see that from the language he used. Truman announced the bombing of Hiroshima while he was at sea coming back from Potsdam, and his announcement contained the phrase - I quote from the New York "Times" of August 7, 1945: "We have spent 2 billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history - and won."

To put the atomic bomb in terms of having gambled 2 billion dollars and having "won" offended my sense of proportions, and I concluded at that time that Truman did not understand at all what was involved.

[Airboss]

Argicola
Be Happy that someone like me wasn't in charge in 1945.
The Japs couldn't have surendered.I would have left a smokeing hole where Japan used to be.
As example to those that would ever attack the U.S.
One of the things that is missed by people that take the position that we should never use the FULL might of the U.S. Military its lack of use,is seen,in the other parts of the world as weakness,and so encourges additional conflict.
By 1946 I would have had enough Atomic bombs to deal with "Uncle Joe"and we wouldn't have had the problems that we had with the U.S.S.R.,and Still have with China.
That's all wishfull thinking,still I'm glad it was us that had the "bomb" not the other way around.

[DFBonnett]

Why do you people rise to the bait the trolls like agricola throw out?
Two wonderful things happened as a result of dropping the bomb, the war ended and we won.
And to the agent provocateur agricola a question. Is that handle some sort of Latin reference? If it is then accept this from the bottom of my heart...

[seeker_two]

DFBonnett: Now, don't go cussin' out our favorite entertainer here. agricola's viewpoints have lead to hours of discussion, laughter, and bewildered looks toward those far east of here...

agricola: While I see what you're trying to argue, I think that telling people that a warplane carrying a weapon of mass destruction was responsible for people's deaths would be a little REDUNDANT... :rolleyes:

Besides, it's not the plane's fault or the bomb's fault---it's the person pulling the trigger... :cool:

[Thumper]

Did anyone else notice that rock jock just made a devastating point?

[4v50 Gary]

Now now DFbonnet. Agricola has been with us for a long time and is no troll. He just takes another view which is welcomed here and healthy.

Regarding the demo bomb, sure we could have demonstrated. But the Japanese still had over 1,000 operational fighters and if we told them date & time for the demo, they'd put up an airfleet to shoot it down. Then we'd lose a bomb and have to drop one anyway. To paraphrase a Filipino prison guard who was asked about warning shots, "Why waste a bomb?" Like gramma taught us, waste not, want not.

Horoscope for Airboss - You da man! Smoking hole in the ground, salt the earth, separate the stones such that no two stand together. You are reincarnated from a Roman Centurion who was present during the razing of Carthage. :)

[buzz_knox]

As for the people who would have died in any invasion, well that was moot wasnt it since the Japanese had sent out peace feelers already?

The Japanese military was planning a coup to oust the Emperor when they learned he was going to surrender. It was narrowly avoided. This was AFTER we dropped both nukes. So please, let's forget this crap.

[Poodleshooter]

Bocks Car, the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, is on display at the Air Force Museum out at Wright-Patterson.
A few years back, I met the pilot and some members of the crew at a Reading,PA airshow. I picked up a picture of the Bock's Car nose, autographed by the pilot. I asked him about riding out the blast wave. He said that the firebombing raids were much worse as far as turbulence.
I can't wait for the new Air and Space Annex to open in December.

[Iain]

We going to ignore Dr. Leo Szilard's point of view then?

See above.

[Thumper]

He said that the firebombing raids were much worse as far as turbulence.

Oh, you mean like in the joint (pay attention, ag) Brit and American raids on Dresden?

[Thumper]

We going to ignore Dr. Leo Szilard's point of view then?

Um...if a city full of dead folks didn't make a good enough demo for them, WHY ON EARTH do you think that an empty city would?

See rock jock's post above.

[benewton]

"We going to ignore Dr. Leo Szilard's point of view then?"

In a word, YES!

Scientists aren't engineers, and, while off in their own world, they seem to forget that the objective of all the money and time spent is to produce something that's useful. Theory is fine, and, no doubt, fun, but ....

Engineers, on the other hand, know that, and proceed to build the damned thing.

Ivory towers aren't the best place to abide if you wish to appreciate the life, and/or death, when dealing the the Japanese empire, of the masses, even today.

[Iain]

Thumper - don't know about agricola but I am fairly sure that like me, he is arguing that the atomic bomb is not something to be glorified in any way. I don't care about restoring the Enola Gay, but when the most famous of it's missions is remembered then also should be remembered the 135,000 people that were left dead or injured in its wake. The firebombings of Dresden and other cities should be remembered whenever the Blitz on London is talked about - too often they are not. Not out to bash America.

What also should be remembered is that the questions around the use of the atomic weapon are not as simple as ''it ended the war''. The cost of any action must be evaluated before that action is carried out - and if the US were so worried about their soldiers then why not let the Russians do it?

Politics - pure and simple. The US was out to make a statement to the USSR. And as the guy in my previous post says:

"To put the atomic bomb in terms of having gambled 2 billion dollars and having "won" offended my sense of proportions, and I concluded at that time that Truman did not understand at all what was involved."

[Iain]

Dr Leo Szilard worked on the Manhatten Project - do you think many people are better qualified or more retrospective about the effects of the use of that weapon?

Sure you aren't ignoring because you don't like what he has to say?

take a look at the actual evidence (minutes of meetings etc) compiled here:http://www.dannen.com/decision/

[Correia]

St Johns, as for letting the Russians invade Japan, I don't think anybody in the West wanted to see that happen. We didn't want them to get as much of Eastern Europe as they did.

I think if the Japanese had a choice between getting hit with 2 atomic bombs, or living under communist rule, they may very well have choosen the bombs. They are much better off now than they would have been if either us or the Russians had invaded.

[Iain]

I don't disagree correia - although that concedes the political consideration was the strongest aspect of the decision to use it.

The second point - will let Szilard answer it

"I don't think Japan would have surrendered unconditionally without the use of force. But there was no need to demand the unconditional surrender of Japan. If we had offered Japan the kind of peace treaty which we actually gave her, we could have had a negotiated peace."

[Thumper]

Again St J,

Szilard evidently advocated a "demo" city...he got one.

Still didn't work.

don't know about agricola but I am fairly sure that like me, he is arguing that the atomic bomb is not something to be glorified in any way.

Depends on your point of view. Saved Americans are more important to me than dead Japanese.

You'll find that's a prevalent attitude amongst Americans.

[Sean Smith]

Dr Leo Szilard worked on the Manhatten Project - do you think many people are better qualified or more retrospective about the effects of the use of that weapon?

That's an appeal to authority. Otherwise known as a logical fallacy. Szilard's position is silly on its own non-merits. The fact that he was a smart scientist doesn't qualify him to judge jack squat about how to conduct a war, as evidenced by his silly utopian sentiment.

[Iain]

Thumper

That is your point of view. It also summarises everything that is wrong with America at times.

[Sean Smith]

Dr Leo Szilard worked on the Manhatten Project - do you think many people are better qualified or more retrospective about the effects of the use of that weapon?

That's an appeal to authority. Otherwise known as a logical fallacy. Szilard's position is silly on its own non-merits. The fact that he was a smart scientist doesn't qualify him to judge jack squat about how to conduct a war, as evidenced by his counter-factual statements about Japan "suing for peace."

[Iain]

So who do we believe then Sean - Truman, the Pentagon, who?

He was concerned after the use of fire raids on Japan. Wishing to avoid fire raids and the atomic bomb hardly qualifies as a ''silly utopian sentiment''.

Not likely to convince you of anything guys, largely because I am not trying to, more that I am suggesting that there is a viable alternative view of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Will leave you with actual evidence again - http://www.dannen.com/decision/ and no, it's not all liberal nonsense, much of it is official papers. Read it and re-evaluate. I was taught that the bombing was necessary, when I looked in to it myself I realised that it is not that simple.

[Sean Smith]

Wishing to avoid fire raids and the atomic bomb hardly qualifies as a ''silly utopian sentiment''.

In 1945 it did. By that point about 40,000,000 Allies had been plowed under. Saying that we should have played nice with the Axis by that point is an appeal to magic.

[Airboss]

St.Johns
The Enola Gay and what she and Col. Paul Tibbitts did that Aug 6 1945
is whats right about America

[Iain]

Fair enough guys. You have you pov and I have mine.

Again can I suggest that it was a whole lot more complicated than many of us have been led to believe. I fail to see how the use of the A-bomb is what is ''right about america'', or that dead Japanese are worth less than dead Americans. Guess it's that pesky trans-Atlantic thing again.

[Thumper]

That is your point of view. It also summarises everything that is wrong with America at times.

Fascinating...you openly advocate holding foreign nationals in higher regard than your own citizens?

Hey...good luck with that in your country. Please leave us out of it.

[Iain]

Thumper

All life in equal regard when it comes to civilians in war time.

[Thumper]

I fail to see how...dead Japanese are worth less than dead Americans.

Brother, if you don't have enough background to understand just how deep "Us vs. Them" went in 1945 (both sides), then you really shouldn't be contributing to this conversation.

[Thumper]

All life in equal regard when it comes to civilians in war time.

You are well read enough to understand that the concept of Total War was in full effect.

[TallPine]

And it would have saved a lot of lives if you Brits had just surrendered to Hitler, too.

:neener:

[Sean Smith]

Again can I suggest that it was a whole lot more complicated than many of us have been led to believe. I fail to see how the use of the A-bomb is what is ''right about america'', or that dead Japanese are worth less than dead Americans. Guess it's that pesky trans-Atlantic thing again.

I guess it's that pesky denial-of-reality thing on your part.

Japan didn't surrender. Objective fact.

WARN Japan of coming atomic bomb attack. Japan didn't surrender. Objective fact.

Drop an atomic bomb. Japan didn't surrender. Objective fact.

Drop second actomic bomb. Japan surrenders. Objective fact.

Some Japanese "unofficially official" representatives dithering about how they might maybe would end the war, if they don't actually have to give up or anything like that, does not constitute their surrender, no matter how much some might wish it to be so. And once Japan killed the first 15,000,000 or so, it is pure comedy to expect Japan's enemies to wage war by Marquis of Queensbury rules... it just wasn't a realistic political or military possibility.

[Iain]

It was like that in 1945 and still is - happens to be what I study.

Does that make it right? Some people disliked blacks at one time or another, they lynched them - that's ok too? Objectively both are wrong in hindsight, and hindsight is all well and good. Hindsight is all I am asking to be applied to this case - Truman thought it was the right thing to do at the time I am sure - doesn't mean he was right.

[Airboss]

Perhaps St. Johns
Holding the enemy in higher regard than your own people leads the the position that the Uk finds its self in today.ie.Less than a major power and a country where criminals have more rights than Citzens(Sorry Subjects)

[Iain]

How about I tell you this

The news came through to Truman at Potsdam - his attitude towards Stalin noticeably hardened after he passed on the news. And this wasn't about the US and the USSR? Some people in govt in the US were predicting war with the Soviets straight after WWII, what better to scare the Russians with?

It is believed that Russia and Japan were in contact and Japan had already offered the terms of its surrender. Those terms were not dissimilar to those eventually offered to Japan after the US initially demanded unconditional surrender. Why was unconditional surrender demanded - the Japanese are a very proud people and that would be a disgrace (remember the suicide thingy they used to get up to?). So Japan would never agree to an unconditional surrender, I am sure you wouldn't want the US to either.

[Sean Smith]

Does that make it right? Some people disliked blacks at one time or another, they lynched them - that's ok too?

Come on, that's an imbecillic non-analogy on your part. The Japanese sneak-attacked our country and killed off about 20,000,000 Chinese. They initiated total warfare, and got it in return.

Blacks in the U.S. didn't. Duuuuuh....?

[Thumper]

Holding the enemy in higher regard than your own people leads the the position that the Uk finds its self in today.ie

Just today?
And it would have saved a lot of lives if you Brits had just surrendered to Hitler, too.

Which time, Neville?

Tell you what...You folks stick to celebrating great retreats at Dunkirk and we'll keep celebrating enemy surrenders on warships...and we can all argue online how each country came to find itself in it's present position...

and pretend that it isn't obvious.

[Iain]

I fail to see where I mentioned ''higher regard''. Civilians are civilians. Roosevelt spoke against the bombing of civilians in 1939, everybody (including his own good self) then ignored him.

Equal regard for civilians of all nations. Perhaps the world would be a little nicer if we all thought like that. Call me utopian...

[Iain]

Neville Chamberlain gets a lot of bad press - mostly cos he was wrong but also because populist history, like that around the atomic bomb, is also wrong.

It was a hindsight analogy Sean - someone mentioned the us vs them attitude of 1945 like that justifies the act.

So I will withdraw because I could do without a flame war. Try looking at the evidence for yourselves though. History is never clear cut.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/

[Airboss]

Lynching Blacks equates to killing and enemy that attacked you and will not surender.
I must be missing something perhaps if we all join hands have a moment together and sing Kumbyah I'll understand.
Nope I don't
The japs and the Germans both should wake up each and every morning and thank their lucky stars that I or someone like me wasn't in charge.
They both would have been liveing today on what they feed their POW's and been worked the same way let's see we would have gotten 58 years of labor from both places.
The only way someone can feel what was done by the U.S in WWII is think what the Japs and the Germans did was right is that your position St.John???

[agricola]

sean,

many of your facts ignore the almost simultaneous invasion of the USSR into Japanese-held territory which would have had as shocking an impact to the Japanese command as the two A-bombs did (as pointed out, more people were killed in the Tokyo firestorms than during either Hiroshima or Nagasaki). there were clearly peace feelers being put out, feelers that would have become more desperate with the advance of Soviet troops through Manchukuo.

thumper,

I'm sorry, but that point of view, that the human beings of one nation (which are of course all entirely temporal creations) are "worth" more, or less, than those of another is clearly nonsense, unless you can evidence some differences at the genetic level that would give credence to your views.

rest,

I still havent heard one valid reason why the casualties of the bombs shouldnt be presented with the Enola Gay - the fact that the Japanese dont recognize their victims is, to me, far more justification for remembering the Hiroshima and Nagasaki deaths than it is for ignoring them.

[Iain]

Black and white there Airboss?

Because all the German civilians declared war - that's fair enough. Why don't we have a holocaust for germans then? Do the Japanese while we are at it.

Holocaust - possibly the most evil act ever. Period.
Japanese treatment of POW's and Manchurians - very very wrong
Firebombing Dresden - wrong
Hiroshima/Nagasaki - debatable and not clear cut - that's all I am arguing.

[Iain]

So like Agricola-

Enola Gay is a military memorial in the same way that Hiroshima should be. Pray to God that it never happens again.

[Thumper]

I'm sorry, but that point of view, that the human beings of one nation (which are of course all entirely temporal creations) are "worth" more, or less, than those of another is clearly nonsense, unless you can evidence some differences at the genetic level that would give credence to your views.

If you cannot develop a distinction between friend and foe, Darwin had some great terms for you...Extinct. Absorbed. Eaten. History.

Appropos of nothing...how's the "Euro" treating you?

[stringj]

agricola,

Depends on your point of view. Saved Americans are more important to me than dead Japanese.

The above is an "exact quote" from Thumper's earlier post. He didn't say American lives were more important that Japanes lives! If you are going to criticize someone for a statement they made, you should at least "know" what they actually stated.

Jerry

[AZTOY]

I went to the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum when i was in school.

The Enola Gay should be displayed and the Japanese casualties of the Atom bombs should be displayed.

If school kids see the pictures of Japanese casualties,.......................... maybe it will never happen again.

Lets hope!!!

[agricola]

thumper,

Neville Chamberlain was confronted by what he recognized as a meglomaniac and provided enough time and resources to rearm the RAF, the RN and most of the Army, which even as late as 1938 were equipped in the main with obsolete weapons. He knew, as those of us who read history from books rather than cereal packets know now, that the UK and the Empire were in no shape or spirit for war in 1938. He then prepared the country for war, and the first chance he got once we were ready he took the Austrian on.

Subsequent events were out of his hands (a mix of the incompetence of the standing plan and the genius of Mansteins' overall plan of attack and Guderian's execution of it), but the preparations he made saved those men at Dunkirk, and saved his country at the Battle of Britain. In time and with distance people will come to understand that Chamberlain was the Fabius to Churchill's Scipio - the latter's glorious victory was only possible thanks to the time he had been granted by his predecessor.

Oh, and in 1940 we stood alone against one of the two most evil regimes in history, a regime that was in almost total control of Europe. When the US is in a fight for its life against an opponent of similar size, when US cities are bombed night after night, when US pilots die defending their families homes, then you can make a jibe like that. Until then kindly keep your disrespectful comments to yourself, and most of all dont dress them up in that pseudo-Americanism because you slander the men of the Eagle squadrons who stood with the people of the UK in that time.

[Thumper]

I'm sure, Ag, that your family members are "worth" more to you than some random individual in the Japan, genetics notwithstanding.

The fact that you can't make that same distinction with regards to your countrymen (vs. others) makes a great point about the socialization and emasculation of Europe.

Again, good luck with it.

[Sergeant Bob]

Peace feelers? Peace feelers? IIRC, wasn't the Japanese ambassador in Washington negotiating for Japan when Pearl Harbor was attacked? Yeah, I'd trust their Peace Feelers.:rolleyes:

We sent our own Peace Feelers, named "Fat Man" and "Little Boy".:D

[Airboss]

Lets see
Agricola and St. John's
I will try to put this very simply
1st My Family
2nd My Friends
3rd Texas
4th USA
If anyone screws with any of these in the order listed I will endevor to see to it that the person/Nation that has brought harm/grief to those listed is place in a position never to be able to harm or cause grief to anyone again.
Now I am not so foolish as to believe I alone can take on the world;that said I can do alone my family I'll have some help from my friends for my friends.
I bet I can start to raise a group here to help with Texas
And I know I can raise a large mass of folks to help with the country.

[Mike Irwin]

Dr. Szliard's (sp?) feelings not withstanding, the concept that a "demonstration bomb" would have been effective is laughable.

The Japanese had had repeated demonstrations that the United States was more than willing to destroy entire cities. The only difference was that prior to August 6 it had taken several hundred planes to do so.

A "demonstration" a few hundred, or thousand, miles from Japan wouldn't have made any sort of effective impact on the Japanese given their military mindset.

Again, it should be noted that significant elements of the Japanese military resisted surrendering even AFTER the dropping of two atomic bombs.

Slizard never understood the Japanese mentality. Few did understand the Japanese mentality during WW II. Few understood the concept of willingness, even desire, to die for one's Emperor as opposed to going home to family and friends alive.

The only people who had even an inkling of what the Japanese mentality truly was were those who were fighting the Japanese.

Slizard knew about the scientific prospects and capabilities of the bomb.

That does not, however, make him an expert diplomat, or even an expert in its application.

That's like saying that the engineer who designed the tires used on Indy race cars is, in fact, a qualified Indy driver. Nothing could be farther from the truth.



As for Japan's surrender, the Japanese had put out peace feelers, but were NOT engaged in "surrender negotiations" with the Soviets. The Japanese and Soviets were still under the auspices of a non-agression treaty when the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on August 6. The Soviets only entered the war later.

But once again, as agreed to by the allied powers -- the United States, Great Britain, and China (the major combatants in the Pacific), the ONLY acceptable Japanese surrender would be immediate and UNCONDITIONAL.

The "feelers" that Japan put out were hardly unconditional, and as such were unacceptable to the United States or its allies.

Of course, we then have Szliard asking "why did we have to have an unconditional surrender."

Because that's what the Allies demanded. Nothing short of that.

Szliard once again attempts to use his position of authority as a scientist to cast himself in the mold of a diplomat and warrior. Sorry, it simply doesn't work that way.

He could just as well ask "why was it necessary for the United States to respond to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor with a declaration of war? Couldn't we have just taken the lump and ultimately ignored it?"

You are correct in one thing, St. John. There was some aspect of demonstration for the Soviet Union in all of this, but it was primarily about forcing the unconditional surrender of the Japanese.

The terms that we later GAVE to them are unimportant.

The important part was Japanese ACCEPTANCE of the unconditional nature of their surrender.

[agricola]

stringj,

you understand that quote dont you? an american life is more important than a japanese one - thats clear from the text.

thumper,

whoever said social darwinism was dead! :rolleyes:

[Thumper]

when US pilots die defending their families homes,

Actually, ag, American pilots DID rush to defend your family's home...and died.

Feel free to criticize, partner...but don't disregard history.

[agricola]

thumper,

maybe you should read the whole post before commenting?

[Thumper]

Ag,

Good point.

Your country is still tuning into an effeminate cesspool.

:D

[Delmar]

Where are these assumptions coming from concerning the guarrantee of Japan's surrender "if we had just stepped back and waited them out?" I have yet to see anything that would have convinced me otherwise.

President Truman did what he had to do-period. When the atomic bomb was a fact, and the war still on, Harry S. had absolutely no choice but to employ it. Had he not done so, and proceeded with the planned invasions, I think he would have been nominated as President most likely to be strung up in the Oval office.

Americans and allies paid a terrible price in blood, money and resources so that we could even have this conversation, and I for one am not going to second guess their tactics or motives in this particular fight.

Not so sure the great scientist wasn't speaking from at least a bit of hind sight in some of his statements. And there wasn't an armed Japanese squad within several thousand miles of Los Alamos, so its a bit easier to ponder things when you're not ducking bullets and Kamakazi's on a regular basis.

I'm unsure what the scientist's collective recommendations would have been had the Axis powers been doing better at the time-thank a WWII veteran, as well as the men and women who worked their tails off building the things necessary-we will never know that for certain. Not that it matters.

What does matter is the mindset of America-we have never liked back stabbers, or people who attack from ambush on a Sunday morning on unsuspecting kids.

In my mind, the Enola Gay symbolizes the Americans who had to fight as well as the Americans who had to build the weapons to fight with, not only for our own troops, but for allied forces all over the world.

Sure, the Axis powers paid a very high price for the devastation they started, but you have to answer that price paid by them to the millions who are laying under white crosses and stars of David too.

The only thing I regret is that we did not have the bomb, the airplane, and the means to get it over their cities December 8th. If we had that power at that time, I'm not so sure World War II would even be in the history books, and certainly not as it is written.

It's a whole lot more than something as stupid a politics.

[Mike Irwin]

"Oh, and in 1940 we stood alone against one of the two most evil regimes in history, a regime that was in almost total control of Europe."

And the main reason for that is because Britain and France failed to deal with the situation in 1933 through 1937 that they had largely created in 1919, Agricola.

Chamberlain's policies didn't buy Britain time, they almost bought Britain subjugation.

Chamberlain complicity, as Chancellor of the Exchequer under Ramsay MacDonald, in blocking military requests for funds to modernize, innovate, and procure new weapons is the main reason why Britain's plight was so desparate in 1940.

Chamberlain was the lap dog for the "peace at any cost" lackeys and deserves absolutely NO credit for anything more than putting your nation in dire risk.

Chamberlain's acquiescence in the face of Fascism is made even more frighteningly clear when you realize how deeply Chamberlain was invested in Leon Blum's ouster from prime minister's spot in France. Blum had the audacity to suggest that France and Britain should oppose the spread of Fascism in Europe and Africa, even to the point of military intervention.

Chamberlain's policies are a legacy to how to mishandle a growing political crisis by ignoring your advisors and your intelligence service, interfering in the affairs of ALLIED nations, and pandering to the popular press instead of the national need.

Why you hold Chamberlain in such high regard is a mystery to me, when all he did for Britain was ensure that Britain would stand alone....

[agricola]

thumper,

yeah - i mean here me and St Johns are quibbling about the deaths of more than a hundred thousand civilians and the necessity of a memorial to them. what wimps we are!

[Thumper]

Not at all, Ag...not quibbling.

How many would have died in a Japanese homeland invasion...American, and Kiwi and Aussie and Japanese? What's a conservative estimate?

Do you even consider it possible that Bushido could have killed more (on both sides) than the nukes did?

Why NOT celebrate those saved lives?

[Sean Smith]

Neville Chamberlain was confronted by what he recognized as a meglomaniac and provided enough time and resources to rearm the RAF, the RN and most of the Army, which even as late as 1938 were equipped in the main with obsolete weapons. He knew, as those of us who read history from books rather than cereal packets know now, that the UK and the Empire were in no shape or spirit for war in 1938. He then prepared the country for war, and the first chance he got once we were ready he took the Austrian on.

Pure counter-factual comedy. Chamberlain's own statements put the lie to that theory, as do his defense budgets. You don't seem to know your own history very well; see his scathing denunciations of Churchill's warnings about the Nazi menace for details. Oops.

"This is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time"

...Making him either an immense liar and fraud, or a spectacularly gullible fool. Decisions, decisions...

And feelers aren't surrender. We gave Japan a choice - Surrender or Else. They chose "else." Then they surrendered.

Agricola seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth... whining about how we didn't get in the war soon enough, then whining about how we went about it too well when we did, and of course denying any possiblity that any Brit ever goofed up anything... even the largely deserving whipping-boy Chamberlain, who his own party abandoned. :rolleyes:

[Iain]

Chamberlain - vastly misunderstood, unfairly pillioried for sentiments he never expressed. Up until the Czech business he thought Hitler could be placated - from thereon in he made plans for the worst.

Churchill- populist history's golden boy. He was against the tide of public opinion all throughout the 30's with regard to hitler. He was washed up and ready to be ditched by some. He opposed the handing over of India. History vindicated his warnings with regard to Hitler - but many thought he was wrong at the time.

Pacifism was very popular amongst Europeans at the time (and I seem to recall the Americans not wanting to get involved either), nobody wanted a war. Chamberlain wanted to avoid a war with Hitler over the terms of a treaty that he disagreed with too. The German's were duplicitious and kept much back from the UK on rearmaments etc. Hitler was charismatic beyond that of Blair or any other, he pulled the wool over many an eye.

Easy to get it right in hindsight, much like the atomic bomb really, much harder to make the right decision at the right time. Chamberlain's mistake was Munich and after, perhaps there should be a memorial to the genuine meaning of the term ''appeasement''. It has been lost due to populist understanding of the policy of the 1930's towards Hitler.

[seeker_two]

Seeing what Britain is becoming today, I can understand why they would want to celebrate Chamberlain....

Chamberlain was as much for defending the British homestead as their judges are for defending one's personal home... :(

[number6]

Some of Churchill's wartime radio addresses were actually spoken by an actor who impersonated Churchill very well. Unbeknownst to everyone until much later after his death. None the less, Churchill was exactly what the English needed during that time. He rallied the people, stood for what he believed, and that oh so wonderful picture of him standing with stogie in mouth and Thompson at the ready! And the Libs of today have a fit over Bush landing on that carrier in full flight gear. :rolleyes:

[Thumper]

St J,

Read your last post.

Do you realize that in less than a page, you've waffled from "Hindsight is the only viable view for righteous judgement" to "we must view these decisions in the context of the times?"

Do you also realize that this waffling coincided with whether we were talking about American or English decisions?

[Preacherman]

Folks, please remember to keep this discussion on The High Road. Please try to avoid personal attacks and demeaning expressions when referring to what others have posted. If not - lights out, which would be a pity.

[Byron Quick]

I fail to see how the use of the A-bomb is what is ''right about america'', or that dead Japanese are worth less than dead Americans.

In the abstract, I would agree with the statement about dead Japanese vs. dead Americans.

And...as I've oft stated...I'll play by civilized rules as long as my opponent does. However, I'll not be bound by such when facing savages. If they want to try terror...I'm willing to bet I can convince them that they only thought they knew what terror was.

I would submit that Japan has no basis to protest that we attacked civilians...given their record.

Furthermore, as commander in chief, the President has duties to the men and women under his command. One of his duties is to preserve their lives where possible. President Truman would have been derelict in his duty to the military if he had elected not to use the atomic bomb. Conversely, he had no duties to Japanese civilians.

The Japanese spread a reign of terror throughout eastern Asia and the Pacific. They showed no hesitation to kill civilians at any time. Not only for military reasons but often simply due to possessing the means and the opportunity.


If the atomic bomb had been developed a few months faster, it would have been used against the intended target...Berlin.

[telomerase]

>I would submit that Japan has no basis to protest that we attacked civilians...given their record.

"Japan" didn't attack civilians. An armed gang calling itself their government did. US policy was to deliberately avoid killing the Emperor or the other big shots (we did kill one Admiral for being too brainy, which made sense).

Kill millions of civilians and draftees, or those who rule them? The choice seems obvious, but only if your intent is to get the war over with.

[Iain]

I've never actually said that I wouldn't have dropped the bomb given the same circumstances, or that I would have appeased Hitler as Chamberlain did.

The judgement that history makes is based upon hindsight and access to the full facts of a case. Many have attacked Chamberlain for what he did based on the nindsight of "we now know Hitler was evil." Chamberlain could hardly have known what we know now.

Truman was in possession of certain facts about the use of the bomb as said by that scientist, however arguably the bomb needed to be dropped and so he did it. Some will seek to condemn him for this action, as they seek to condemn Chamberlain.

The actual facts of each case should be examined, Chamberlain did what he thought was best as did Truman. Many people now regard both of them has having been wrong. Both should be remembered accurately however.

To get back on topic - all I am arguing for is a non-glorification of the the A-bomb and its use.

(mods - trying to take the High Road and not respond to the posts about the ''feminising'' of Britain)

[Thumper]

(mods - trying to take the High Road and not respond to the posts about the ''feminising'' of Britain)
:D
Wait...did you just not respond by responding by being a little girl and tattling to a moderator about someone calling you effeminate?
:D
Good Lord...the IRONY!!!!

:The above is just a joke. I respect both St John's right to his opinion and his desire to stay right here and support it.

I do not think that Britain is largely effeminate, nor a cesspool...as I suspect you know, that was a satirical response to ag's "good point."
(Note the big smiley face.)

[Orthonym]

1.IIRC, the Japanese were (some of them) working on a nuclear bomb, just like us and the Germans, but the Nip physicists (as good as any in the world) advised their Govt. that without good supplies of uranium they couldn't do very much. Does anyone recall the U-Boot with a cargo of uranium oxide intercepted on the way to Japan at the end of the war ?

2.As far as scary, dangerous Americans go , I'm a JACKSONIAN! Look it up, Agricola! (Andy Jackson took a BAD sabre cut while a boy, defending his mother from a British officer!)

3.You Brits! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! What do you have to say about Sir Arthur Harris? This was a man who threw away the lives of his own bomber crews to burn German civilians to death! At least our guys went over in the daytime, risking and suffering horrendous casualties, to save YOUR bacon while trying (yeah, they weren't perfect, but their hearts were in the right place) to minimize what's called "collateral damage" these days.

4. Something I heard on Mr. Liddy's radio program: He said, I think, that a very senior Chicom general had an opportunity to meet Col. Tibbets, enthusiastically shook the Col.'s hand , said he wished we'd had about two dozen more of those nasty bombs, and wished he'd been consulted on the making of the target list.

5.Oh,the peace feelers; yep, that was , as far as I know, a misunderstanding resulting from a bad translation. Hey, can you really blame our folks at the time? This was late in the war and the first verifiably true accounts of what the Nips had done were just starting to filter back to the public at home.

6.Agricola: I believe you wrote something about the racial-animosity component of the War in the Pacific? Well, turnabout's fair play! The official position of the Nip Govt throughout the war was that the Japanese race was descended from the Gods and the rest of us were just a bunch of more-or-less hairy, jumped-up monkeys!

Edited to insert You Brits! after 3.

[hops]

LOL! Usually it is the Germans and the Brits who still refight WW2 realities.

My first ever experience in 33 years where I see Brits and Americans at each other throats. We just need a Frenchie. Then like in bars of Berlin in the '60, the Americans and Brits would stop their bar room brawl and jump the French who just arrived for a drink.

Oh, I doubt the Americans would have used the Bomb on Germany. Germany had WMD's and the appropriate delivery systems. Anthrax and nerve agents delivered via the V1, V2 and jet aircraft would have unleased a true Goetterdammung over Europe.

What I find a true travesty is the US using their own troops and civillians in the nuclear bomb effects tests in the late 40's and early 50's. I do not think that the Brits were even that stupid?

[Mike Irwin]

"The judgement that history makes is based upon hindsight and access to the full facts of a case. Many have attacked Chamberlain for what he did based on the nindsight of "we now know Hitler was evil." Chamberlain could hardly have known what we know now."

Would that be the same sort of hindsight that you and others are using to try and build the case for the use of the atomic bomb being wrong?

Chamberlain and the rest of the British goverment (including Chamberlains' tenure as CotE and later as PM) KNEW , with absolute certainty, that Germany was in gross violation of the Treaty of Versailles military restrictions as early as 1935, yet did nothing.

Chamberlain and the rest of the British government KNEW, with absolute certainy, that Germany was using the Spanish Civil War as a proving grounds for his air crews.

Chamberlain and the rest of the British government KNEW, with absolute certainty, of Hitler's teritorial ambitions in the East in Poland and the Soviet Union from Hitler's own speeches throughout the late 1920s and well into the 1930s.

What was Chamberlain's, and the rest of the British government's reaction to all of this?

1936 - Germany remilitarizes the Rhineland in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Britain does nothing.

1936 - Germany begins sending military aid to Gen. Francisco Franco in Spain, in violation of international treaties. Britain does nothing.

1937 - Again, in violation of international treaties, Germany begins sending combat air craft and crews to fight openly on Franco's side. These members of the "Condor Legions," form the core of the Luftwaffe that savages Europe in the opening days of World War II. Britain whimpers, but does nothing.

March 12, 1938 - Germany "unifies" (an apellation for invades) with Austria, also in violation of international treaties to which both Germany and Britain are signatories. Britain does nothing.

September 1938 - Chamberlain travels to visit Hitler and discuss dismantling an independent nation that hasn't even been invited to the conference. Chamberlain bows to Hitler's threat to invade the whole of Czechoslovakia unless he's given the Sudetenland. Chamberlain fools himself by thinking that he can handle Hitler's demands, and feels that he is an "honorable" man despite a known 15 year record of thuggery, treachery, and deceit.

Britain signs over territorial rights to part of an independent nation that's not even theirs, with the understanding that Germany is now satisfied and has no more territorial demands (despite Hitler's record of inflamatory and expansionist demands directed at the east).

In other words, Britain does worse than nothing... Britain sells out someone else in the biggest Judas bargain since, well, Judas sold Christ.

March 14, 1939 - Germany invades the rest of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain's humiliated, Hitler rejoices, and Britain, once again, does nothing.

Finally, amazing, at long last France and Britain actually do SOMETHING. They reaffirm the borders of Poland, but knowing full well that if Hitler decides to invade Poland they can do absolutely nothing about it.

St. John, hindsight implies that one should have acted differently based on information that comes to light LATER, after the events have taken place.

In Chamberlain's case, nothing can be farther from the truth. What Hitler was, what Germany was, and what they wanted was in full view before him and the world at that time.

Chamberlain knew full well what kind of man Hitler was. Winston Churchill had been the "voice from the wilderness" pointing out exactly what Germany and Hitler were since the early 1930s. Britain's intelligence services were pointing out the dangers that Hitler and Germany posted, and yet, Chamberlain and the rest of the goverment did nothing.

Even worse, in Chamberlains case, in the mid 1930s, he was actively cutting defense budgets knowing that Germany was spending more and more on its military, all in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.

Had Chamberlain, Baldwin, and Ramsey MacDonald had their way, Britain would have entered World War II with no modern battleships, no aircraft carriers, no new designs on the drawing board, a seriously neglected army, no armor to speak of, and an air force comprising mainly state of the art aircraft. State of the art in 1928, that is...


Finally, we have this little toss off. I'll give you credit for reliability. It's ALWAYS tossed out as some kind of pejoration of America when the subject turns to the roots of World War II...

"and I seem to recall the Americans not wanting to get involved either..."

And your point is?

This was Britain's BACK YARD.

Britain's international NEIGHBORS.

Even more fascinatingly, just why didn't Britain ask the United States to intervene in 1938 in the Czechoslovakia crisis as an arbiter?

You're so quick to pillory American disinterest then, but seems to me that Europeans are today equally as quick to pillory what's viewed as American imperialism if we step in to settle EUROPE'S little cluster piles, like the Balkans mess of a few years ago.

Did Britain jump in to help the United States or Mexico in 1916 when the Mexican Revolution was spilling over into the United States and threatening the general peace of Central America as a whole?

Nope.

Oops, I forgot. Britain was desparately trying to clean up the mess that would lead to the later mess.

And when Woodrow Wilson was cheeky enough in 1919 and suggested that Britain and France NOT enact crushing and humiliating reparations demands on Germany, the French and British effectively said "Hey, thanks for the warm blood of your American boys, don't let the door hit you in the ??? on the way out."

It was American disgust with British and French political "solutions" to the post war period that, in many cases, were the causative factors of the American turn toward isolationism. Solve your own damned problems. Why should we have to send Americans an ocean away to die for a King that's not ours and a County we've never been to?

Isolationism made a lot of sense to a lot of people in the 1920s. Granted, in HINDSIGHT yes, it was wrong. But it wasn't as wrong as what Britain and Chamberlain allowed to happen with their full knowledge and acquiescence.

Finally, as for American disinterest in Europe in this period...

Did Britain jump in to intervene or arbitrate in the 1920s when the Central Americas DID start suffering serious political unrest? Did Britain care that the United States was attempting to stabilize the situation in its own backyard instead of worrying about Britain's back yard?

Nope.

On behalf of all Americans, thanks for the help.

Do us all a favor, St. John. Find something else to harp on, instead of whining about how the United States didn't intervene early enough to save Europe from the problems of Europe's own making.

[Mike Irwin]

"Oh, I doubt the Americans would have used the Bomb on Germany. Germany had WMD's and the appropriate delivery systems. Anthrax and nerve agents delivered via the V1, V2 and jet aircraft would have unleased a true Goetterdammung over Europe."

Every hear of Unit 731?

The Germans weren't the only ones with biological weapons. Effective biological weapons. PROVEN biological weapons.

Had the Germans stalemated the American advance into Germany in the Battle of the Bulge, or even started pushing the American and British troops back, atomic weapons would have been used in Germany.

[Orthonym]

We are the people who wiped out the horses in North America before the Europeans got here. We are Humans! We walk around on our hind legs! We are the scariest badasses on the planet!

[Baba Louie]

Ahhh, the Enola Gay...

Design began 38 years after Orville and Wilbur played in the sand dunes at Kitty Hawk (I think it was '41)

Glad to see it back for public consumption and edification. Maybe it'll spark some spirited conversation, neh? :D

Paul Tibbets and Tom Fereman(sp?)... met them at a SOF convention here in LV a while back, bought the book, had them both sign it, talked for a second or three, introduced my kid, gave my Dad the book (gotta read it someday).

My Uncle Jesse was on Okinawa. My mom said when he came back his hair color had changed from brown to silver snow white. It's always been that color to me.

Ya gotta be careful if ya let the military run your emporership (would that be empire?) cause bad things can, and do, happen to innocent people.

Can you imagine flying one of those things?

Adios

[number6]

BL -- I've always been in love with the B-17, the P-40 Warhawk, The Spitfire, and the P-51.

[fallingblock]

It may not have been strictly B-29 related, but every bit was needing to be written here.

Ask a young Aussie what they think of the U.S., and you get quite a range of responses, some negative, from contempt to bordering on hatred.

Ask a WWII-era Aussie the same question, and you'll seldom find anything
more critical than the "overpaid, oversexed, and over here"...and that with a grin.

Some folks like to assume they are taking the moral high ground by following the trendy 'post modern' crowd, the ones who have no direct knowledge of what they condemn. :rolleyes:

[buzz_knox]

To get back on topic - all I am arguing for is a non-glorification of the the A-bomb and its use.

Glorification? Are you kidding me? The only thing that people have been trying to do is to exhibit a bird that helped end a war without having the U.S. and the pilots be implicitly indicted as war criminals. That's what the first attempt at a Smithsonian exhibit on this issue essentially did.

What IS going on here is glorification of the Japanese as "poor helpless people at the mercy of a vicious and illegal gang of criminals, forced to fight, and who longed only for surrender." BS! Obviously, you all never watched the films shown in Japanese theaters, where Chinese children were caught on bayonets as a game by Japanese soldiers. I have seen those. You've also never seen the interviews with little ole' Japanese grandmas who said that the U.S. seemed to be begging for an attack because it was so visibily weak.

[XLMiguel]

I saw the Enola Gay in pieces over at the Paul Garber Restoration Center in Silver Hill (very worth the trip - they've got more stuff on display, and you can get closer, that at the A&S Museum in town). The Garber Restoration Center in Silver Hill used to be a Nike base in MD just inside the Beltway, now serves as the place they prepare the exhibits for the Smithsonian.

IIRC, when they restore a plane, it is put back to 'airworthy' condition if at all possible. Much of the work is done by voluteers, some are of a vintage that they actually flew/crewed during WW II, and many are first rate mechanics or machinists.

I was over there a few years back when an older guy in the tour got real interested in an F4U Corsair. He recognized the serial no. and had actually flown the plane in the Pacific during the war. The guide stopped the tour, made a quick call, they found some champaigne, put him in the cockpit, took pictures, had a little ceremony - really nice :)

[Thumper]

Obviously, you all never watched the films shown in Japanese theaters, where Chinese children were caught on bayonets as a game by Japanese soldiers. I have seen those. You've also never seen the interviews with little ole' Japanese grandmas who said that the U.S. seemed to be begging for an attack because it was so visibily weak.
No Buzz,
You see, in this enlightened age, "hindsight" allows us to narrow our view and avoid a simple matter like context.

[Iain]

Nice to be horrendously misunderstood for a change around here. :rolleyes:

The ''reliable'' criticism of America that you saw in my post was a reference to the general spirit of pacifism of the 1930's. As Clyde Prestowich once said in a radio interview I heard - ''It is easy and lazy for us Americans to dismiss all criticism of our government and us as 'anti-american'''. He was a former policy adviser to Reagan.

Restoring the Enola Gay is not glorification of the A-bomb. Never said it was. What Agricola and I are arguing for is a remembrance of the trail of death that the A-bomb and those missions left behind them, would be nice if the Enola Gay was left as a memorial to the whole world of the power of atomic and nuclear weapons.

The other argument was about the necessity of using the A-bomb. That is a whole other matter and revolves around decisions made by Truman and others as to what to do with the ''gadget'' as one of them called it. Szilard was right to point out that to refer to the A-bomb as a ''2 billion dollar gamble that paid off'' was to mistake the proportion of the atomic bomb.

The spirit of history is to re-evaluate what happened in the light of what is now known. In about an hour I will post on another thread the conclusion of my dissertation on the appeasement of Hitler, I have avoided the subject in detail thus far but Mike's stunningly misinformed post has decided me.

Some of you really need to learn to respect and genuinely read what another has posted before you jump down that persons throat for being ''post-modern'' etc. Try looking into the political background of the decision to use the A-bomb yourselves, and if you ask me to appreciate the context, how about you appreciate the context of all the ''bad evil japanese'' sentiments that have been expressed here.

[buzz_knox]

I'm very familiar with the context in which the weapons were used, and the real cost of their development. I'm a native of Oak Ridge, Tennessee; my grandfather helped build the things; and many of my neighbors, friends, and family members have suffered from the environmental pollution caused by the nuclear weapon program. More Americans have died and suffered from it than Japanese.

As for reading and respecting other's posts, I've read yours. You've argued that one of those who built the bomb didn't want it used; that we should accept his opinion that it wasn't justified; that use of the bomb was strictly to quell Soviet ambitions; and we should never have attacked two legitimate military targets because civilians were present. You've also been a Chamberlain apologist and revisionist historian. After all was said and done, you changed your tune and said the point all along was about glorification of the bomb, when it never was. I miss anything?

[Iain]

Revisionist historian - such an insult when the term applies to Holocaust historians, but not when applied to other historians. It implies that they have attempted to change the interpretation of an historical event based of new or previously unknown material. History is not a static thing, the interpretation of historical events is all that we know about most things and it is just that - an interpretation.

I have argued against the necessity of using the bomb throughout this thread. Not because I necessarily believe that the bomb shouldn't have been used (see earlier) but because there is an assumption that the bomb was necessary. As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki being legitimate targets, they were, under the way that the ''rules of war'' had changed since 39. Prior to 39 outrages such as Guernika had led to civilian bombardment being ruled out of order, Roosevelt said so himself.

I was referring to the person who asked me why I had not criticised Bomber Harris when I quite clearly have. ''Dresden - very wrong''.

As for ''Chamberlain apologist'' - nothing is further from the truth really. I have spent the last three months researching this topic (appeasement) and I can tell you that it is a lot more complicated than ''Hitler is a bad man, but I'm a coward so I will make nice''.

[agricola]

buzz,

how on earth can he be a revisionist historian when he is stating that the deaths caused by the dropping of the first atomic bomb should be displayed with the aircraft that dropped it?

[Mike Irwin]

St Johns,

I don't think anyone ever called Chamberlain a coward, nor should they. I don't believe that he was one.

Chamberlain was naieve, perhaps a fool, an idealist, woefully unprepared for the realities of modern politics, unwilling to face the reality of the situation as it clearly existed before him, and many other things.

I also like your categorization of my post as "stunningly misinformed," as if you're the only one who has ever done any research on the subject or has the capability to draw a conclusion from factual evidence.

Can you tell me, with a straight face and in all honesty, that the laundry list of Chamberlain's inactions as I posted them didn't actually happen?

No, you can't. Because it's historical fact.

Can you tell me, with a straight face, that Chamberlian, as CotE, worked VERY diligently to slash military budgets all through the 1930s, leaving Britain in a defensive posture that was virtually undefdable?

No, you can't. Because it's historical fact.

Can you tell me, with a straight face, that Chamberlain was unaware of the speeches that Hitler made regarding the German right to expand -- Liebsraum (sp?)?

No, you can't. It's historical fact. In fact, I believe it may have been Anthony Eden himself, as foreign secretary, who posted an in-depth analysis of Hitler's apparent goals for the Third Reich that proved to be frighteningly accurate. Eden so broke with Chamberlain over the subject of Czechoslovakia and Britain's response to Hitler's demands that he resigned in protest.


Here's an interesting "at the time" analysis of the situation from someone who is one hell of a lot harsher...

http://newdeal.feri.org/nation/na38146p292.htm


Some more interesting first hand reporting, this time apparently from the House of Commons...

http://www.guardiancentury.co.uk/1930-1939/Story/0,6051,127147,00.html


In any event, the sole conclusion that can be drawn from the entire debacle of British politcs of the 1930s is that Britain and Chamberlain not only helped create and foster the monster that was Hitler, but by their very inactions virtually assured that diplomacy would fail and war would result.

[buzz_knox]

The revisionist comment was about Chamberlain "buying time" for the militaries to gear up. First, Chamberlain didn't have that in mind when he actually claimed (and believed) to have achieved peace in our time. Second, the German military did not truly come into its own until after Chamberlain's deal. Either France or Britain could have dealt with Germany by not yielding the field of battle at the negotiations table.

[FPrice]

"The spirit of history is to re-evaluate what happened in the light of what is now known."

Thank you for defining "revisionism" for us. For, that is exactly what you, and many others, are trying to do. You want to use the distance between today and the events of yesterday to "change" them to fit your views.

Part of the manner in which you do this is to insist on tactics such as attaching the number of deaths suffered by the Japanese to an American exhibit when it is neither necessary nor germane to the exhibit. While accurate as to the fact that it happened, it supports revisionism by trying to instill a sense of guilt where none is warranted.

Suppose we (America) insisted on adding a model of a B-29 and details on how it was built to a monument in Hiroshima to people who died on August 6, 1945. Can you imagine how THAT would be received?

[Thumper]

I like this:
new or previously unknown material.

The concept of "new" history is a take on the concept I had hitherto overlooked. I think I'm gonna retire to the back room and write some myself. I think this time I'll just leave out the French.

[Iain]

Thumper - 'new' history is surprisingly common. A book I am presently reading about Chamberlain was written twenty years before the release of official papers from the 1930's. The interpretation of Chamberlains actions has changed considerable since the papers from 1938-9 were released in 1982.

Revisionism - a term like ''appeasement''. Everybody thinks they know what it means.

The Enola Gay and Hiroshima - irretrievably linked.

[FPrice]

"The Enola Gay and Hiroshima - irretrievably linked."

Hiroshima and Japanese agression and a legacy of millions who died at the hands of the Japanese - irretrievably linked.

Just how big do you want this to be? If it had not been for Japanese agression in WWII, Hiroshima would have never happened.

[Iain]

FPrice -

I don't actually disagree with you there. In a way Hiroshima avoided the potential use of more powerful nuclear weapons attached to ICBM's at some later point.

It all still happened, I am sure the Enola Gay and the Manhatten Project are very much in evidence at any Hiroshima memorials that might exist in Japan.

These are clearly very raw wounds.

Glover (Humanity. 1999) says:

'For the Japanese to have accepted the public ultimatum issued at Potsdam would have involved a loss of face. They were not prepared to accept unconditional surrender or the loss of the Emperor. A quiet invitation to negotiate, coupled with abandonment of the demand for unconditional surrender and an assurance about the Emperor, might have ended the war without dropping the bomb.

In fairness to Truman, it should be remembered that he did not have the advantages of hindsight...And there is obviously no certainty that the kind of approach suggested would have ended the war. But in the light of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the thought is unavoidable that such an approach should have been tried.'

[Mike Irwin]

OK, some thoughts on what constitutes revisionist history as opposed to reassessment.

Revisionist hisotry is most appropriately defined as taking an already known set of facts, but no real new ones that haven't been previously known, and deriving a significantly different conclusion. This is most normally done in a political context. A good example is Arthur Schlessinger's "The Age of Jackson." Schlessinger took a know set of facts and reassessed their historical context in a framework of Rooseveltian New Deal ideologies.

Another prime example of revisionst history is the relatively recent attempt to cast the United States as the agressor in the chain of events that ultimately led to the war between Japan and the United States.

This is, however, fundamentally different from a re-evaluation of history. A re-evaluation is based on new data and new facts coming to light that were previously unavailable.

A good example of this is what led to the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis. For many years it had been assessed as a triumph for the United States in that the United States forced the removal of missiles from Cuba, but gave up virtually nothing in return. Recently released data, however, shows that the resolution was achieved through more diplomatic means, including the withdrawl of some US medium range nuclear missiles in Turkey (which at the time was made to seem as if it was a long-planned move), and US promises regarding the soverignty of Cuba.

Unfortunately, in the case of Chamberlain and Britain, not much new has surfaced in the past 40 years to redact the historical record as it now stands, and certainly, to my way of thinking, nothing new has surfaced that would support the theory that Chamberlain was using appeasement as a way of readying Britain for war or even, as Clement Liebovitz claims in his book "In Our Time," that Chamberlain and the French and Hitler colluded to give Germany a free hand in Central Europe out of British and French desire to see Germany and the Soviet Union go to war.

[Iain]

Mike, have started another thread about appeasement as it appears to be such a huge issue. Would appreciate your thoughts.

[benewton]

Two thoughts, none with respect to the Brits.

They were warned to surrender, unconditionally, and they didn't.

We then forced them to do so, and, sans nukes, we would have forced them to
do so, regardless of our casuality rate. And, it would have been much worse for them than us, and civilians would have made up the major portion. Public opinion wouldn't have allowed any other approach.

I think that, in the end, the bombs saved lives,.


Existential crap aside, my now deceased, and once very much hated, daddy was on Okinowa, and, most probably, scheduled to go to the "home islands".

I'm here, which I think to be a good thing, some of them aren't, and I'm supposed to be concerned about???

[hops]

Mike ; I know all about unit 731. But the Japanese had no delivery mechanisim to threaten the US with. Germany, just by close proximity to its European enemies had such delivery weapons.

Anyone here ever read a book titled in English: France 1940: Sixty days that shook the West. ? It's French, I have the english translation, published in 1956. Very interesting read to say the least. Covers more the political aspects than the military aspects. It does a lot to clear up why France and England were in no position to go to war, even though they did. Even Germany was no ready for a total war and did not move in to total war footing from a economic point until 1942.

[Iain]

I'd recommend Keith Robbins' very short 'Appeasement'.

[hops]

Appeasement:

By the mid 1930's England and France realized that they were overly harsh against Germany with regard to the treat of versailles.

Also, we all tend to forget that from late 1918 and through the 1930's, communism was the greatest threat to Europe. France and England felt that it was better to have Germany on their side against the communist menace. Even Winston Churchill, felt that Germany was useful and expected the battle to be between Germany and Soviet Russia to be on ideology alone. He sorta missed that Hitler really wanted to restore Germany in land to 1918.

edit: Mike beat me to the part above. Glad to see that some people see this sort of stuff, which is not common knowledge. Also Poland got a small piece of the CZ dismemberment too.

Perhaps in 100 years more things will surface.

Oh, the allies also violated aspects of the treaty. Several peblecites in eastern germany, under Poland, were ignored, when the majority voted to be reunited with Germany.

[hops]

Mike - On Japan - The US being the agressor. Remember when Mathew Perry and a small US fleet sailed to Japan and said: 'Hi. We Americans and we are for free trade. So you will now trade with us, now, and give us rights to a coaling station." Sort of the stuff others did to china a few years before. Then other did it to Japan. Japan, unlike China got smart and modernized real quick, because they learned one deals from strenght.

Perry's / the US's actions with Japan are a mere footnote in American history books. I suspect this 140 year old event is a bit more than just a footnote in Japaneese history books.

Until the UN gives out history classes, our interpetations of history will differ. I for one does not want UN history lessons. It's too much fun, for the most part, to debate our views of histroy here. :)

[fallingblock]

"Until the UN gives out history classes, our interpetations of history will differ."
************************************************************

When the U.N. starts revising history...that's when the interpretations will SERIOUSLY differ from the reality:D

[Byron Quick]

hops,

Think you better look into the background of Perry's trip. It's not quite what you make. There was a little matter of Americans washed up on Japanese shores after shipwrecks and, shall we say, treated quite unkindly by the Japanese.

[JShirley]

Mike, I respect what you've said, even anything I don't agree with, but I do think Chamberlain was a coward. Selling your neighbor out to protect yourself seems pretty damn craven to me.

The "blitzkrieg" war could never have been fought without Germany's use of armor...made in Czechoslovakia.

[Iain]

There is another thread - all about Chamberlain and appeasement. Call this a plug.

[Orthonym]

See point #1 in one of my posts above. Had they been able to do so, I'm quite sure the Nipponese govt. would have built as many as they could and used them indiscriminately on anyone who so much as looked at them cross-eyed.


Don't forget the amount of racial hatred worked up by the propagandists on both sides, either, no matter how embarrassed we all are to admit it these days. I think Herman Wouk had one of his characters say in "The Caine Mutiny" something about the many massacres of the Pacific War having to do with each side's refusing to admit that the enemy were human beings.