62 YEARS AGO TODAY

[mike furline]

Charles Neely, What is WIX coming to? You are at least the 3rd guy who is suggesting folks actually think a bit, and not just accept blindly the party line. Man, that is a frightening and revolutionary concept to a lot of folks, and I sure welcome it. We in America learn in school about Thomas Jeffeerson or Sam Adams, etc. and freedom of speech and freedom of press; but for a lot of people it seems to be something you check off on a 6 grade civics test and then put it out of your mind and out of your life. It's great for people who agree with you, but you don't really mean it should apply to those other guys also? The most foreign concept of all is the basic one,freedoom to actually think, AND to grant the other guy the same right. Maybe, just maybe the scariest concept of all, actually listening to another veiwpoint, and considering it and maybe learning from it. I am sure like most others I could improve my listening also.

Sam Adams, he makes beer, right?? Is that where you get all these ideas?

Regards,
Mike

[HELLDIVERS]

Sam Adams? I agree pretty good beer I guess I did learn something but who the heck is Thomas Jeffeerson? was he any relation to George Jeffeerson?

[bdk]

We in America learn in school about Thomas Jeffeerson or Sam Adams, etc. and freedom of speech and freedom of press; but for a lot of people it seems to be something you check off on a 6 grade civics test and then put it out of your mind and out of your life. It's great for people who agree with you, but you don't really mean it should apply to those other guys also? The most foreign concept of all is the basic one,freedoom to actually think, AND to grant the other guy the same right. Maybe, just maybe the scariest concept of all, actually listening to another veiwpoint, and considering it and maybe learning from it. I am sure like most others I could improve my listening also.

I learned all about "Jeffeerson" from the members of the left wing Chicago Teacher's Union.

The Bill of Rights does not include the freedumb to thimk. It does include however the freedom of speech and the freedom to shoot guns in the air on the 4th of July.

So all 3 people that agree with Bill are exercising their freedom of speech while all those that disagree with Bill are not using their freedom to think?

[JDK]

I learned all about "Jeffeerson" from the members of the left wing Chicago Teacher's Union.

The Bill of Rights does not include the freedumb to thimk. It does include however the freedom of speech and the freedom to shoot guns in the air on the 4th of July.

So all 3 people that agree with Bill are exercising their freedom of speech while all those that disagree with Bill are not using their freedom to think?

My 'American' history was taught to me in England. Like anyone's school history, it can best be regarded as a starting point for more adult learning - if you care. I also seem to recall one of the few areas of agreement in the UK and the US as to what the 1770s fuss was all about was 'no representation without taxation'. For a start that contains two words beyond the comprehension of most western electorates today, so clearly it's an old battle cry. However the taxation, IIRC, was on newspapers...

For those carefully polarising this discussion into 'us' and 'them' and 'if you aren't with us you are against us' crap, I'm not a moderator, nor an adherent of any political party, or political wing, nor am I allied with any WIX 'group'. Generally I like to think for myself, and spend my time learning things. I've agreed with Bill, bdk, Charles and Eric, and also disagreed with each. AFAIK that's one of the points of this forum. Agreed or diassagree with each, it's caused me to think further and do some research. Generally if you exit the discussion carrying your father's opinion, you've not bothered about learning, IMHO. While I'm off on one, can some posters (no pointed fingers) grapple with the idea that a specific discussion does not imply specific or general criticism?

For instance there are two factors not yet discussed: Part of the reason Japan went to war was the economic squeeze they faced in the 1930s status quo, in part orchestrated by the US and other western nations. Of course it doesn't excuse Japan's actions, but it explains some. You put people, a nation or organisations under pressure, something gives. If they see themselves under pressure where you aren't applying any, you are also likely to collect. Secondly the remarkably constructive and forward looking approach of the US led reconstruction effort in post-war Japan is one of the main reasons Japan recovered as well as it did. I don't think (but see Charles' point) that any other nation would have been as un-punitive toward Japan in 1945; and rightly, IMHO, America can take great credit for putting Japan back on its feet.

Well, I did not read all the posts but here is my two cents:

No personal attack, but please, think about how discourteous that is. "I've not bothered to listen you you lot, but here's my opinion, like it or not." Tom, it's not an attack on you as you've simply articulated what a lot of us do - but let's just take a moment. Everyone should get enough respect to have their opinion listened to, and until they've shown themselves unable to be behave, get a fair run. It's not much, is it?

You've then gone on to make a good couple of points, but...

I am here today because of the bomb.

That contains a sting of assumptions, and isn't a fact, just an increased or decreased probability. Have a look at the survival rate of the Americans and Japanese on Iwo Jima, for instance. There were a lot of American fathers after the battle as well as a tragically high number who weren't given the chance.

Just a few thoughts and opinions,

Regards,

[JDK]

It's been pointed out to me that it was actually 'no taxation without representation'... Details, details (and yes, I was aware - it was just a (perhaps poor) response to 'freedumb to thimk'). As far as I can see you don't get a vote without coughing up some tax in a democracy, so it's not far off either way around.

As to deaths, the following graph is very thought provoking, even allowing for source data variations or errors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

[Cripes]

You are at least the 3rd guy who is suggesting folks actually think a bit, and not just accept blindly the party line.

So anyone that disagrees with you can't possibly be thinking? Sheesh. That smacks of liberal arrogance.

[Bill Greenwood]

Some of you actually read this! Anyway Sam Adams was John Adams lesser know brother, who actually ghost wrote most of his speeches. We covered a lot of this stuff in civics class about the 6 or 7 the grade; but I gave it partial attention as I was usally studying the game plan for the next football oppenent. Also If God had really intended me to know all this, he would not have put those cheerleaders in my classes. It is hard to know all those guys from long ago, but I definitely remember Donna and Jan and Sandra. I must have learned enough of this stuff, I beat W by 80 points on the SATs and got in the college of my choice, Texas, not some weird place up in Yankee land.

[Second Air Force]

Ok,

I've just GOT to get something off my chest!

Does anyone have photographs of the 509th aircraft with the single digit nose numbers? I've seen film of the future Enola Gay being parked on a bomb pit with only the number "2" on the fuselage, and if you notice, most of the aircraft had the "8" or "7" applied later. In fact, Bockscar has two different shaped numerals. I think the second digit was painted on after the Squadron reached Tinian, but I'd sure like to see still photos.

Now, back to politics!

Scott

[Scott Rose]

This is purely my personal opinions and perceptions.

The descision to drop the bomb or not is irrelevant, it happened. However, from our nice safe homes 62 years after the fact we can try and discuss what lead to that descision and the percieved alternatives. There were three main options available at the time. 1. Drop the bomb, 2. No bomb drop, invade the home islands, and 3. No bomb, no invasion. Blockade the islands until the Japanese surrended. Since we know what happened with 1 I will not belabor the point.

Option 2: Invasion: The thought of sending a well equipped, well trained army with overwhelming firepower into action against poorly equipped troops is one sided, add a poplulous that is willing to die for thier emperor and you have a level of death that would be difficult for us to comprehend. And yes, a whole lot of Allied boys would die, but an enormous number of Japanese would have died as well. To think that the Japanese would have surrended before thier emperor told them to shows a distinct lack of knowledge of the Japanese culture and an unfortunate case or trying to overlay your own values on a culture that is dramatically different from your own. The Japanese had already show a horrifying willingness to sacrifice themselves, either dirrectly or indirectly and to assume this would have suddenly changed is unrealistic. Millions of Japanese would have died before the end of 1945. Far more than suffered from the atomic bomb.

Option 3: Blockade: The Japanese people were already starving. How long would you blockade them? A year or more? How many people would have starved to death? And you know the military leaders wouldn't have starved. History has shown that embargoes and blockades rarely work as a political tool and do far more damage to the civilian population.

Peace is a fine ideal, but all parties have to want it and want to share it. Some people can't do that and thus war is sometimes necessary. To think war is the answer for everything is foolish, to think peace is always possible is equally foolish. True peace is possible only two ways. Eliminate intolerance, or eliminate difference. The later has been tried numerous times and will happen again. The only way to achieve true peace is to eliminate intolerance, and unfortunately that is unlikely to happen in our lifetimes.

War is sometimes necessary, and those "peace-at-all-cost" individuals do as much harm as the "might-makes-right" crowd.

This thread hasn't got out of hand yet so I will leave it, but lets keep it civil.

[mike furline]

Ok,

I've just GOT to get something off my chest!

Does anyone have photographs of the 509th aircraft with the single digit nose numbers? I've seen film of the future Enola Gay being parked on a bomb pit with only the number "2" on the fuselage, and if you notice, most of the aircraft had the "8" or "7" applied later. In fact, Bockscar has two different shaped numerals. I think the second digit was painted on after the Squadron reached Tinian, but I'd sure like to see still photos.

Now, back to politics!

Scott

I believe there is a plaque next to Bocks Car at the NMUSAF that explains the number changes. Unfortunately I don't recall enough about it to help out.

Regards,
Mike

[Second Air Force]

Thanks, Mike!

I seem to remember that going to two digits was part of the attempt to "blend in" the airplanes of the 509th with regard to markings, including the borrowing of tail codes in place of the "Arrow in a Circle". At any rate, thanks for the information.

I have visited with and interviewed veterans, and they all were relieved we used the bomb--their perspective being shaped by the bloody invasion that would surely have happened if the war continued. Truman was truly in a tough spot, and to his credit, he took responsibility for using them.

Scott

[Bill Greenwood]

This has nothing to do with don't ask, don't tell: but for me it is great to see Scott come out of the shadows and post an opionion so others can tell him how nuts he is. I think some of what he wrote made good sense. To answer I. No one is much for invade at all costs without the Bomb. This is only the scenario the traditionalists set up to justify the Bomb. Some causualtie estimates are overdone, in the millions, but even if it were to be only less than 10,000 Allies it would be too many. Truman was the US pres and his duty was first to our troops, protecting civilans is secondary. So no invasion without the Bomb unless maybe there is some other consieraton such as not using it if we want to keep it under wraps until critically needed. II. Those who talk about the Japanese fighting to the death are missing my point( or more likely intentionally distorting it). When the Emperor declared peace, overwhelmingly his subjects cooperated, and did not resist the Allied oocupation.They were a people use to obedience, whether fighting or surrendering. III.The point I have tried to make is a fairly simple concept(perhaps difficult to acheive) that a genuine effort to negotiate peace Before Using The Bomb would be worth trying.There are problems with this, I'll write about it in my next post.

[Scott Rose]

This has nothing to do with don't ask, don't tell: but for me it is great to see Scott come out of the shadows and post an opionion so others can tell him how nuts he is.

My sanity is often the topic of discussion among my friends and the results are still out. No worries, I will let the personal attack slide this time.

I normally don't post on subjects like this because they can rapidly degrade into flame wars, but so far this has been a heated but civil discussion. I also refrain from posting the extent of my opinions concerning subjects like this because thats not really what the site is about. But here are three that I will share.

1. Gun control - is being able to hit your target.
2. Anti-war Protesters - Are one of the main reasons the last few wars have gone on too long, have poorly defined conclusions and result in needless bloodshed by given the opponent the will to carry on.
3. Salad - Salad isn't food, salad is what food eats.

There you have three opinions from me. I will now return to the shadows and suppress my responses to...... well, thats enough of my opinions.

[Bluedharma]

For those who don't have an opinion or those that need their opinion reinforced...
You should pick up (and read) the book: Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations - Michael Walzer.

Contrary to belief, there are rules to war, and why wars must sometimes be fought.
It can be argued that the United States broke some of those rules by not minimizing civilian casualties when dropping the bomb.

However, it could also be argued that far more civilians may have been injured by continuing to fire-bomb Tokyo.
God only knows what Northern Japan may have looked like if the Soviets had conquered it. Maybe a little like North Korea perhaps?

The book “Just and Unjust Wars” helps to point out that the rules should be applied, and whenever possible civilian casualties should be minimized.
But there are also instances when the rules may be argued against (to obtain the greater good for all.)

ok... no more Oprah from me.


Best Regards,

[Bill Greenwood]

I have been a bit of a devils advocate, ie that negotiating peace rather than using Atomic Bombs on civilans. Now let me take the other side, what is wrong with what I said? Really, how long do you try for peace and what methods do you use? As Ike said, Japan was defeated in the sense that they were no longer an offensive threat., they were retreating not advancing. Another prominent Gen, I think it was no less than Hap Arnold, said much the same thing. But just because Japan retreats and we don't invade there still would be some losses, perhaps not as big as the USS Indy sinking, but the inevitable, accidents, disease, and the thousands of men rotting on islands who want to get home. If the firebombing continued losses of Japanese civilians continue. It would seem to me it would be worth a few months to pursue peace, not many months or years. I have not studied the methods of such negotiations, so I am really guessing. It might be either of Japans Axis partners could be enlisted in the process, some of their leaders or military men were likely worried about their fate in war crimes trials. Did any of these men have any pull with the Japanese; could anyone even get through the military command to the emperor? Could some release of prisoners back to Japan have helped? I don't know, but despite the ridgid and closed ways of Japan, it would seem at least possible that if we could have had real discussions with the Emperor, he might see their cause was hopeless and want to end the suffering of his people not worsen it. After all shortly after the Bombs were used, he came to that decison no matter that it meant a complete change of course and loss of face. We had several cards in our hand to play; we could offer I Let the Emperor live rather than be prosecuted as a war criminal, II No bombing against civilian population, and III. Aid in post war reoconstruction. We did give these things in the end. I am only guessing, I have not studied this part, frankly I would guess chance of such a negotiated peace at less than 50%, but I think as Ike said peace negotitaons had already begun and it was worth more than a mock effort of twelve days. Some have mentioned a blockade, again just guessing I doubt if this would be very effective in the short run.