Enola Gay restored and back together...

[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]

Enola Gay

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.

 

[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]

Goofy thinking

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...