Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Mon Jun 30, 2025 1:49 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:01 pm
Posts: 353
I'm neither right wingfacsist or a bleeding heart liberal. I'd like to think that the subject could and should be discussed reasonably. Most of the "we" who say "we did this, or we did that" weren't even there. For most of us, it is what our fathers and grand father's experienced.

as an observer of history and not a participant , at least in this episode, I'd like to point out that the nation was at war and did what ALL nations do in time of war. That includes doing ANYTHING to win. It also includes the fact that nations, even the socalled good ones will do and say anything (PROPAGANDA) to placate the populace, garner support, etc . Surely there must be some middle ground consensus? Or do "warbird" enthusiast all have to tow a particular party line?

BTW- I have an uncle that served aboard a cruiser. He related to me how he was ordered to shoot unarmed Japanese sailors in life boats. He did his duty but was thouroghly disgusted and emotionally racked by it. It bothers his consience still.
While I understand the logic, for either the machine gun or the atom bomb, don't I also have right to be disgusted by them at the same time?

_________________
Charles Neely


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:02 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6884
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
Hi Charles,
Excellent post, and I agree with all your points.

One small caveat; as you say in most senses W.W.II was 'total war' and the participant nations (including the Allies) did just about anything to win. However there was one, very interesting glaring exception, which was the non-use of poison gas. From 1939 to 1945 both sides were worried about the potential use - as demonstrated on the Western Front in W.W.I and by the Italians in Abyssinia. However, both sides refrained in W.W.II throughout. Why? Moral issues? Maybe. Certainly potential reprisal and the indiscriminate and inefficient nature of the weapon were issues. Not quite as 'total' as we remember.

An interesting sidelight is that the Fleet Air Arm Museum's Corsair has what is believed could be a 'gas detector paint' patch on the wing - intended to be deployed in the Pacific in '45, was this there for detection of gas, and if so ours or theirs? Or is it a (yellow) herring?

Cheers

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:17 pm
Posts: 97
Location: Idaho
Weren't the Japanese given an ultimatum to either end the war or suffer the consequences of the bomb being dropped? And they chose to not only ignore that, but also another warning that followed? I think the civilian population had the Japanese wartime leadership to thank for that. And I believe we had every right to do what we did, considering Japan started that bloody war which cost us much of the flower of our youth.

_________________
http://www.disrudstudios.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:28 pm
Posts: 254
Location: East Texas
JDK wrote:
Hi Charles,
Excellent post, and I agree with all your points.

One small caveat; as you say in most senses W.W.II was 'total war' and the participant nations (including the Allies) did just about anything to win. However there was one, very interesting glaring exception, which was the non-use of poison gas. From 1939 to 1945 both sides were worried about the potential use - as demonstrated on the Western Front in W.W.I and by the Italians in Abyssinia. However, both sides refrained in W.W.II throughout. Why? Moral issues? Maybe. Certainly potential reprisal and the indiscriminate and inefficient nature of the weapon were issues. Not quite as 'total' as we remember.

An interesting sidelight is that the Fleet Air Arm Museum's Corsair has what is believed could be a 'gas detector paint' patch on the wing - intended to be deployed in the Pacific in '45, was this there for detection of gas, and if so ours or theirs? Or is it a (yellow) herring?

Cheers


Uhhh, James, I think the Germans used poison gas on thousands of Jews...

-Pat

_________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:03 am
Posts: 958
Location: Creve Couer, MO
The only thing that I am absolutely sure with regard to this discussion is, that when Bill Greenwood starts quoting Republicans to make his points, it must surely be a sign of the apocolypse. :roll: :roll: :roll:

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:30 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6884
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
Pat wrote:
Uhhh, James, I think the Germans used poison gas on thousands of Jews...

Yes, of course, thanks for the correction. As did the Japanese against equally defenceless people. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The Holocaust was not part of the prosecution of the war - being neither offensive or defensive but an attempt at genocide, and eugenics (the murder of gays, gypsys, the mentally retarded etc, etc...). The gas in question was not usable as pat of a military operation, AFAIK either. But neither the Germans, Italians or Japanese used gas as an offensive or defensive weapon; nor did anyone else. We like to think of the cold war nuclear 'stalemate' of MAD as a unique phenomenon, but like many things it has its antecedents.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 642
Thats what I like about the Wix board :lol:

_________________
IF YOU CAN FIND IT WE CAN FIX IT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:22 am
Posts: 640
Location: VA, USA
I had never heard about Ike's position on the use of The Bomb before reading Bill's post, and I was sceptical about it, but a quick Google search turned up the following quotes:

Quote:
~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63



(Mandate for Change was Ike's own book about his first term in office. I don't have a copy, so I haven't checked the quote for accuracy or context.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:49 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:21 pm
Posts: 1329
Location: Dallas TX
So is Ike the final source on what is right and what is wrong in regards to military tactics???

_________________
Taylor Stevenson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:10 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6884
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
me109me109 wrote:
So is Ike the final source on what is right and what is wrong in regards to military tactics???

I don't see that stated by anyone here. Why say that?

However, Like, say, Tibbits, he's got a personal opinion that's a lot better placed than any of us. Secondly, Tibbits, for instance was (rightly) following orders, rather than being a person making a decision on the matter. Eisenhower had more executive options and experience. As a senior military figure in W.W.II politics and the prosecution of the war, I'd say he's worth listening to, even if you don't agree. You'll note that he didn't 'stop' the use of the bomb - don't know if he could've, but that would have been interesting.

It's an intriguing digression that the American voters later chose Ike as President. The roughly comparably senior MacArthur wanted the job, I believe, but wasn't suited (to say the least) and thankfully never got near it.

IMHO, nothing's as scary as someone who knows they are right.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Last edited by JDK on Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:22 am
Posts: 640
Location: VA, USA
me109me109 wrote:
So is Ike the final source on what is right and what is wrong in regards to military tactics???


That's not why I posted.

When I read Bill's first post which mentioned Ike, I was ready to challenge him on it because I had never heard about it. I'm glad I checked it out first before putting my foot in my mouth.

No, Ike's not the "final source", but I think only a fool would ignore what he had to say about the matter.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:26 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6884
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
Some interesting quotes. (All from Wikipedia for convenience - generally accurate.)

Openheimer...
Quote:
Oppenheimer later recalled that while witnessing the explosion [of the 'Trinity' test bomb] he thought of a verse from the Hindu holy book, the Bhagavad Gita:
“ If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one... ”

Years later he would explain that another verse had also entered his head at that time:
“ We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' I suppose we all thought that one way or another.'[26] ”

According to his brother, at the time Oppenheimer simply exclaimed, "It worked."


Edward Teller:
Quote:
Despite (or perhaps because of) his hawkish reputation, Teller made a public point of noting that he regretted the use of the first atomic bombs on civilian cities during World War II. He further claimed that before the bombing of Hiroshima he had indeed lobbied Oppenheimer to use the weapons first in a "demonstration" which could be witnessed by the Japanese high-command and citizenry before using them to incur thousands of deaths. The "father of the hydrogen bomb" would use this quasi-anti-nuclear stance (he would say that he believed nuclear weapons to be unfortunate, but that the arms race was unavoidable due to the intractable nature of Communism) to promote technologies such as SDI, arguing that they were needed to make sure that nuclear weapons could never be used again (Better a shield than a sword was the title of one of his books on the subject).

However, there is contradictory evidence. In the 1970s, a letter of Teller to Leo Szilard emerged, dated on July 2nd, 1945:

"Our only hope is in getting the facts of our results before the people. This might help convince everybody the next war would be fatal. For this purpose, actual combat-use might even be the best thing."[15]


If a pair of left wing and right wing scientists who both worked on the bombs contradict themselves at the time and later... And let's not get trapped into the 'scientist who can't tie his shoelaces' myth. Both these men were very sharp - that's why they cut themselves as well as others.

Another scientist with a significant input to the Manhattan Project had the most amazing route to Los Alamos, directly from the heart of Occupied Europe. And yes, it's conceivable he could've been coerced into working for Germany; although how effectively, no-one could guess. His name was Niels Bohr, a Dane, and how he escaped in the bomb-bay of a wooden aircraft has to be one of the war's most amazing stories:

Quote:
Bohr and Werner Heisenberg enjoyed a strong mentor/protégé relationship up to the onset of World War II. Heisenberg had made Bohr aware of his talent during a lecture in 1922 in Göttingen. During the mid-1920s Heisenberg worked with Bohr at the institute in Copenhagen. Heisenberg, as most of Bohr's assistants, learned Danish. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was developed during this period. Bohr's complementarity principle likewise. By the time of WWII, the relationship became strained because, among other reasons Bohr, with his Jewish heritage, remained in occupied Denmark, while Heisenberg remained in Germany and became head of the German nuclear efforts. Heisenberg made a now-famous visit to Bohr in September/October 1941, and during a private moment, it seems that he began to address nuclear energy and morality as well as the war effort. What was said is a matter of scholarly debate as neither Bohr nor Heisenberg spoke about it in any detail to outsiders nor left written records of this part of meeting at the time, and they were alone and outside. Bohr seems to have reacted by terminating that conversation abruptly thereby not giving Heisenberg any hints in any direction. While some suggest that the relationship became strained at this meeting, other evidence shows that the level of contact had been reduced considerably for some time already. One source, Heisenberg himself, suggests that the fracture occurred later. In correspondence to his wife, Heisenberg described the final visit of the trip: "Today I was once more, with Weizsaecker, at Bohr's. In many ways this was especially nice, the conversation revolved for a large part of the evening around purely human concerns, Bohr was reading aloud, I played a Mozart Sonata (A-Major)."[7]

The British intelligence services inquired about Bohr's availability for work or with insights of particular value. Bohr's reply made it clear that he could not help. This reply, just as his reaction to Heisenberg, made sure that, if Gestapo intercepted anything attributed to Bohr it would simply point to no particularly relevant knowledge regarding nuclear energy, as it stood in 1941. This does not exclude the possibility that Bohr privately did make calculations going further than his work in 1939 with Wheeler.

After leaving Denmark in the dramatic day and night (October 1943) when most Jews were able to escape to Sweden due to a series of very exceptional circumstances, Bohr was quickly offered, again, to join British efforts and he was flown to the UK for that purpose. He was evacuated from Stockholm in 1943 in an unarmed De Havilland Mosquito bomber (carried in an improvised cabin in the bomb bay) sent by the RAF. The flight almost ended in tragedy as Bohr did not don his oxygen equipment as instructed, and passed out. He would have died had not the pilot, surmising from Bohr's lack of response to intercom communication that he had lost consciousness, descended to a lower altitude for the remainder of the flight. Bohr's comment was that he had slept like a baby for the entire flight.

As part of the UK team on "Tube Alloys" Bohr was also included at Los Alamos. Oppenheimer credited Bohr warmly for his guiding help during certain discussions among scientists there. Discreetly, he met Roosevelt and later Churchill to warn against the perilous perspectives that would follow from separate development of nuclear weapons by several powers rather than some form of controlled sharing of the basic scientific knowledge, which would spread quickly in any case. Only in the 1950s, after the immense "surprise" that the Soviets could and did in fact develop the weapons independently, was it possible to create the IAEA along the lines of Bohr's old suggestion.


A BOAC Mosquito:
Image

Quote:
BOAC

Between 1943 and the end of the war, Mosquitos were used as transport aircraft on a regular route over the North Sea between Leuchars in Scotland and Stockholm. Lockheed Hudsons and Lodestars were also used but these slower aircraft could only fly this route at night or in bad weather to avoid the risk of being shot down. During the long daylight hours of summer, the Mosquito was the only safe alternative.

Because Sweden was neutral, the aircraft carried civilian markings and were operated by Norwegian officers, who were nominally "civilian employees" of BOAC. They carried small, high value cargos such as precision ball bearings and machine-tool steel. Occasionally, important passengers were carried in an improvised cabin in the bomb bay, one notable passenger being the physicist Niels Bohr, who was evacuated from Stockholm in 1943 in an unarmed Mosquito sent by the RAF.


It's a fascinating world out there...

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:10 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 2275
Location: Vancouver, BC
Reading this thread I agreed with most posts, but some were on the "meaner" side, and when someone brought something up, they were disregarded as having made something up. I'm glad Richard did some research to see if the facts were true. That brought an end to the Bill bashing. Thank you. I'd also like to thank JDK for being somewhat of a moderator.. haha. His opinions didn't halt the discussion, but facilitated it.

Arguments can so quickly get out of hand when people don't listen and/or give people a chance with their opinions/information. We have TWO ears and ONE mouth for a reason. We also have a set of eyes to look things up on google. haha

I'm somewhat undecided on the atomic bomb topic. Yes, dropping it killed a large amount of people, and not dropping it would have done the same if not MUCH worse. From what I hear and have read, the Japanese were not an easy enemy; quite the opposite. It is hard to fight someone bent on fighting to the death.

It's my opinion that the atomic bomb convinced the ENTIRE Japanese public and government that there was no hope of winning and no chance of victory. If there was no atomic bomb, the Japanese were probably confident they could hold off allied troops for quite a while and possibly even hold them off until the US were to give up trying. But with the knowledge of the atomic bomb, they realise their entire country and everyone in it could easily be utterly destroyed. No chance of winning... period.

I think that the Atomic bomb was also a tool to demonstrate the United States' power. Similar to putting man on the moon in the space race, the US were the first to use the bomb; therefore winning that race.

This showing of power clearly played a roll in future conflicts. But that's an entirely different story.

Cheers,

David


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:17 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 1525
Location: Williamsburg, VA
I understand that the bomb stirs deep passions, likely because of it's totality... there is no escape from it's reach, no way to avoid death when it is nearby. All modern arguments over the events of 60+ years ago are naturally based on our own individual perspectives, which is understandable.

What seems to be overlooked (whether intentionally or not) is that the decision to use nuclear bombs on Japan wasn't simply arrived at arbitrarily... much debate and discussion took place, as evidenced by Eisenhower's comments posted earlier. It is worth noting, however, that Eisenhower was the European theater commander, not directly involved in Pacific theater matters, and as such it can be presumed he did not have the direct experience of dealing with fanatical Japanese resistance at every step along the "island hopping" campaign. Given the battles fought for Iwo Jima, Saipan, Tarawa and Okinawa, there was absolutely no reason to anticipate anything but a complete bloodbath when invading the Home Islands (planned as Operation Downfall)... the firebombing raids on Japanese cities had killed hundreds of thousands of people prior to 6 August (over 100K in Tokyo in one raid alone), and yet the Japanese continued to fight. The Japanese government had been made aware of the Allied demands for unconditional surrender, and they knew that the Allies would not halt combat operations until those terms were met... so this immediately gives lie to the idea that Japan was already beaten. If they were beaten, they would have surrendered.

Given all the above conditions which existed in 1945, I still think Truman made the correct decision, difficult though it was.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: facts
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:52 am 
Offline
Probationary Member

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:53 pm
Posts: 3803
Location: Aspen, CO
Richard W. ; what a unique thing for a WIX poster; that you actually checked out the facts of someone who you might have diagreed with? Man, that's not the way most people do things here. Thanks for finding the quote, my memory is pretty good and I don't write most things off the top of my head, but I did not have the source word for word.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 34 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group