Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Nov 3, 10:39?pm, Hiroshima Facts wrote:
On Nov 4, 1:12 am, Chuck Gould wrote:



Actually, the emperor *did* retain his throne as one of the terms of
surrender. The last paragraph of the surrender document reads, "The
authority of the Emperor and the Imperial Government to rule the state
shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Forces...."

That line is saying that the Supreme Commander for the Allied Forces
can depose the Emperor if he feels like it.

Which is fundamentally different than a treaty declaring that the
insitution of Emperor shall be definitely abolished. It's compromise
language in its purest form. :-)

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Nov 3, 10:28?pm, Hiroshima Facts wrote:
On Nov 3, 10:12 am, Chuck Gould wrote:

On Nov 3, 7:22?am, "Del Cecchi" wrote:

You can say that the Japanese were ready to surrender peacefully after
watching the "War" coverage of the pacific campaign? After seeing the
tenacity with which the Japanese fought in the Pacific, what leads you to
the conclusion that they would surrender?

Observations made during that time by leading US Military officials,
including General Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy.

Leahy's observations to that effect were not made "during that time".
They were made years after the war had ended.

Ike is about the only one who claimed Japan was trying to surrender,
but he didn't make a big deal over it, and the only person he told
(Stimson) didn't take him very seriously.

Somehow I think they
probably a more accurate finger on the pulse of the situation than any
of us can have more than 60 years after the fact.

Not necessarily. Historians have access to pretty much all the
knowledge that they had during the war.

Personally I am thankful that we
didn't have to invade because my father was scheduled to go participate,
since the war in Europe was over.

And how many civilians would have died of starvation and bombing during
this blockade? How long to convince whoever that the Emperor wasn't
"divine"?

According to General Douglas MacArthur, (another individual in a
position to know what was going on at the time), the Japanese were
willing to surrender as soon as we agreed to allow the Emperor to
remain on his throne.

That was MacArthur's view years after the war. Just after Hiroshima
his view was still that Japan wouldn't surrender until the US invaded
Japan.

And we never made any agreement regarding keeping the Emperor. The
surrender terms gave MacArthur the power to depose the Emperor if he
felt like it.

Why would MacArthur change his view after the war was over?
He may have waited to express his opinion, but what could have
possibly happened to change his view entirely?

More importantly, what would motivate him to lie about the conclusions
he reached in 1945? I can't think of a single thing.

Even today, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an action that
many Americans feel must be defended as a good, right, maybe even holy
episode in our history. Voicing any willingness to examine whether
there were alternatives and whether in retrospect we still think we
chose the best if there were is an unpopular exercise even afer 60
years. Closer to the event, public sentiment in favor of the bombing
was
undoubtedly stronger. It was pretty courageous of MacArthur to voice
his private conclusions at any time, even if the doubts and
reservations he later expressed didn't prevent him doing his public
duty at the close of WWII.

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ps.com...


Even today, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an action that
many Americans feel must be defended as a good, right, maybe even holy
episode in our history. Voicing any willingness to examine whether
there were alternatives and whether in retrospect we still think we
chose the best if there were is an unpopular exercise even afer 60
years. Closer to the event, public sentiment in favor of the bombing
was
undoubtedly stronger. It was pretty courageous of MacArthur to voice
his private conclusions at any time, even if the doubts and
reservations he later expressed didn't prevent him doing his public
duty at the close of WWII.


You realize, of course, that one of the reasons Truman fired MacArthur
during the Korean conflict is because MacArthur publicly pushed for using
nukes on the Chinese after they (the Chinese) became involved.

Eisboch

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Nov 4, 8:07?am, "Eisboch" wrote:


You realize, of course, that one of the reasons Truman fired MacArthur
during the Korean conflict is because MacArthur publicly pushed for using
nukes on the Chinese after they (the Chinese) became involved.

Eisboch

And if you take the broadest possible view of the situation, that
actually reinforces MacArthur's statement about the use of the atomic
bomb to end the war with Japan.

MacArthur never said, "We shouldn't have nuked Japan because it was
morally wrong", but instead said that we didn't need to nuke Japan
because the country was already willing to capitulate if we would
simply let them keep the institution of the Emperor as one of the
conditions in the documents of surrender (which we ultimately did).

MacArthur apparently felt that we couldn't win the war in Korea unless
we *did* nuke China. It would be difficult to make a resounding case
that we achieved a decisive victory in Korea, so maybe MacArthur was
right.

So Douglas MacArthur cannot be counted among those who were *morally*
opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, only among those who claim to
have felt, back in 1945, that using nuclear weapons on Japan was not
*strategically* necessary to force a Japanese surrender.
In fact, he claims to have thought that Japan would have surrendered
weeks before the bomb was dropped (and of course that event would have
saved American lives as well) if we had been flexible enough to allow
them to keep the Emperor in place.

One of the many shoulda, coulda, wouldas, and what-ifs of discussing
history. :-)

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Nov 4, 2:35 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:00:20 -0800, Chuck Gould

wrote:
So Douglas MacArthur cannot be counted among those who were *morally*
opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, only among those who claim to
have felt, back in 1945, that using nuclear weapons on Japan was not
*strategically* necessary to force a Japanese surrender.
In fact, he claims to have thought that Japan would have surrendered
weeks before the bomb was dropped (and of course that event would have
saved American lives as well) if we had been flexible enough to allow
them to keep the Emperor in place.

One of the many shoulda, coulda, wouldas, and what-ifs of discussing
history. :-)

We still had the problem of convincing the Japanese army they were
beat.
They had been raised with the "no surrender" ethic and without the
horrible spectre of the A bombs I am not sure we would have been
successful in getting them to stop fighting.

Some people just won't beleive that, no matter how it came out. We are
the bad guys here, always making the wrong decisions after being
attacked and treated like animals... stupid us...

Now, just like then, the best way to support the troops is to let em'
win... and that's never pretty.

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:07?am, "Eisboch" wrote:

You realize, of course, that one of the reasons Truman fired MacArthur
during the Korean conflict is because MacArthur publicly pushed for using
nukes on the Chinese after they (the Chinese) became involved.

Eisboch

And if you take the broadest possible view of the situation, that
actually reinforces MacArthur's statement about the use of the atomic
bomb to end the war with Japan.

MacArthur never said, "We shouldn't have nuked Japan because it was
morally wrong", but instead said that we didn't need to nuke Japan
because the country was already willing to capitulate if we would
simply let them keep the institution of the Emperor as one of the
conditions in the documents of surrender (which we ultimately did).

Capitulate is not the same as unconditional surrender. The end result of
the war in the Pacific was always unconditional surrender from Japan.

MacArthur apparently felt that we couldn't win the war in Korea unless
we *did* nuke China. It would be difficult to make a resounding case
that we achieved a decisive victory in Korea, so maybe MacArthur was
right.

The Korean War has not ended, there has been no victory nor defeat on
either side of the 38th parallel.

So Douglas MacArthur cannot be counted among those who were *morally*
opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, only among those who claim to
have felt, back in 1945, that using nuclear weapons on Japan was not
*strategically* necessary to force a Japanese surrender.
In fact, he claims to have thought that Japan would have surrendered
weeks before the bomb was dropped (and of course that event would have
saved American lives as well) if we had been flexible enough to allow
them to keep the Emperor in place.

Douglas MacArthur was of the opinion that he was a demi-god

One of the many shoulda, coulda, wouldas, and what-ifs of discussing
history. :-)

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

Douglas MacArthur was of the opinion that he was a demi-god


Wasnt' there a book about him called "The American Caesar"?

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

wrote in message
ups.com...


Some people just won't beleive that, no matter how it came out. We are
the bad guys here, always making the wrong decisions after being
attacked and treated like animals... stupid us...

Now, just like then, the best way to support the troops is to let em'
win... and that's never pretty.


You just said a mouthful.

War is hell. Avoid it if you can, but pull out all the stops if you can't.

Eisboch

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...


Some people just won't beleive that, no matter how it came out. We are
the bad guys here, always making the wrong decisions after being
attacked and treated like animals... stupid us...

Now, just like then, the best way to support the troops is to let em'
win... and that's never pretty.


You just said a mouthful.

War is hell. Avoid it if you can, but pull out all the stops if you
can't.

Eisboch


Amen....

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:07?am, "Eisboch" wrote:

You realize, of course, that one of the reasons Truman fired MacArthur
during the Korean conflict is because MacArthur publicly pushed for using
nukes on the Chinese after they (the Chinese) became involved.

Eisboch

And if you take the broadest possible view of the situation, that
actually reinforces MacArthur's statement about the use of the atomic
bomb to end the war with Japan.

MacArthur never said, "We shouldn't have nuked Japan because it was
morally wrong", but instead said that we didn't need to nuke Japan
because the country was already willing to capitulate if we would
simply let them keep the institution of the Emperor as one of the
conditions in the documents of surrender (which we ultimately did).

Capitulate is not the same as unconditional surrender. The end result of
the war in the Pacific was always unconditional surrender from Japan.

MacArthur apparently felt that we couldn't win the war in Korea unless
we *did* nuke China. It would be difficult to make a resounding case
that we achieved a decisive victory in Korea, so maybe MacArthur was
right.

The Korean War has not ended, there has been no victory nor defeat on
either side of the 38th parallel.

So Douglas MacArthur cannot be counted among those who were *morally*
opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, only among those who claim to
have felt, back in 1945, that using nuclear weapons on Japan was not
*strategically* necessary to force a Japanese surrender.
In fact, he claims to have thought that Japan would have surrendered
weeks before the bomb was dropped (and of course that event would have
saved American lives as well) if we had been flexible enough to allow
them to keep the Emperor in place.

Douglas MacArthur was of the opinion that he was a demi-god. See above
regarding unconditional surrender.

One of the many shoulda, coulda, wouldas, and what-ifs of discussing
history. :-)

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:31:09 -0500, gfretwell wrote:


I think the big problem was our European culture did not prepare us for
war with Asians who did not have that gentlemanly war ethic Europe had.
Europeans used to fight all the time but it was a very orderly thing
that they could start and stop with a piece of paper. Most of the royal
families were so inbred that it was cousins fighting each other anyway.
Unfortunately we have some of the same problems getting a grip on our
middle east adventures today.

I'm not sure I buy European culture had a "gentlemanly war ethic". Look at the "ethnic
cleansing" of the Balkans, the uncivil Spanish Civil War, the Holocaust, or even the Russian-
German battles of WWII, none were very gentlemanly.

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 21:15:43 -0500, gfretwell wrote:


I'm not sure I buy European culture had a "gentlemanly war ethic". Look
at the "ethnic cleansing" of the Balkans, the uncivil Spanish Civil War,
the Holocaust, or even the Russian- German battles of WWII, none were
very gentlemanly.

You are talking about people who were not part of the European "royal
families". Even with your examples there is still little comparison to
the things that happened to the people who the Japanese conquered.
European wars have little to compare to the rape of Nanking, the forced
prostitution of Korean women, sword practice on allied prisoners and the
bayonetting of babies by the jap troops. Europe also never really saw
anything like the Kamakazi.

I'm not disputing the barbarity of Asian wars. The Japanese were incredibly brutal, as was Pol
Pot, the Chinese Nationalists (Yellow River Flood), etc. I was disputing the "gentlemanly"
character of the European. Because of our predominately European heritage, many of the
European atrocities have been glossed over, including our own. We have all heard of the
Malmedy Massacre, but how many have heard of the American reprisal, Chenogne. or the
Starvation at Remagen, and we were far from the most brutal.

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Nov 4, 10:45 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:53:35 -0000, thunder
wrote:





On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 21:15:43 -0500, gfretwell wrote:

I'm not sure I buy European culture had a "gentlemanly war ethic". Look
at the "ethnic cleansing" of the Balkans, the uncivil Spanish Civil War,
the Holocaust, or even the Russian- German battles of WWII, none were
very gentlemanly.

You are talking about people who were not part of the European "royal
families". Even with your examples there is still little comparison to
the things that happened to the people who the Japanese conquered.
European wars have little to compare to the rape of Nanking, the forced
prostitution of Korean women, sword practice on allied prisoners and the
bayonetting of babies by the jap troops. Europe also never really saw
anything like the Kamakazi.

I'm not disputing the barbarity of Asian wars. The Japanese were incredibly brutal, as was Pol
Pot, the Chinese Nationalists (Yellow River Flood), etc. I was disputing the "gentlemanly"
character of the European. Because of our predominately European heritage, many of the
European atrocities have been glossed over, including our own.

I think the reason I feel this way was my father was a POW in WWII.
The Germans picked him up on the battlefield, severely wounded and
unable to walk, They put him in a hospital and saved his life. Again
wounded (his second purple heart) while running from our allies, the
russians, to get back to the American lines they again spared his life
when he could not move on his own,

The japs would have killed him the first day

That is if he was licky. they may have tortured him for about a week
first.

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Nov 4, 11:14 pm, Tim wrote:
On Nov 4, 10:45 pm, wrote:





On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:53:35 -0000, thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 21:15:43 -0500, gfretwell wrote:

I'm not sure I buy European culture had a "gentlemanly war ethic". Look
at the "ethnic cleansing" of the Balkans, the uncivil Spanish Civil War,
the Holocaust, or even the Russian- German battles of WWII, none were
very gentlemanly.

You are talking about people who were not part of the European "royal
families". Even with your examples there is still little comparison to
the things that happened to the people who the Japanese conquered.
European wars have little to compare to the rape of Nanking, the forced
prostitution of Korean women, sword practice on allied prisoners and the
bayonetting of babies by the jap troops. Europe also never really saw
anything like the Kamakazi.

I'm not disputing the barbarity of Asian wars. The Japanese were incredibly brutal, as was Pol
Pot, the Chinese Nationalists (Yellow River Flood), etc. I was disputing the "gentlemanly"
character of the European. Because of our predominately European heritage, many of the
European atrocities have been glossed over, including our own.

I think the reason I feel this way was my father was a POW in WWII.
The Germans picked him up on the battlefield, severely wounded and
unable to walk, They put him in a hospital and saved his life. Again
wounded (his second purple heart) while running from our allies, the
russians, to get back to the American lines they again spared his life
when he could not move on his own,

The japs would have killed him the first day

That is if he was licky. they may have tortured him for about a week
first.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*Lucky*

sorry

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:51:40 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote:


I can't say that if I were in Truman's shoes at the time I would have
decided any differently- nor can anybody else who wasn't there (or even
born) at the time.

Obviously, nor can we say, with any certainty, that the Japanese would have surrendered
without the use of A-bombs. However, forty years after the war, their plans to defend against
the invasion were declassified. If they were implemented, they definitely would have cost a
major number of American lives.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro.../downfall.html

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:51:40 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote:


I can't say that if I were in Truman's shoes at the time I would have
decided any differently- nor can anybody else who wasn't there (or even
born) at the time.

Obviously, nor can we say, with any certainty, that the Japanese would have surrendered
without the use of A-bombs. However, forty years after the war, their plans to defend against
the invasion were declassified. If they were implemented, they definitely would have cost a
major number of American lives.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro.../downfall.html


I always thought the Germans were far more deserving of having a couple
of nukes dropped on their cities, but the European war ended before that
could happen.

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Nov 4, 3:47 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...



Some people just won't beleive that, no matter how it came out. We are
the bad guys here, always making the wrong decisions after being
attacked and treated like animals... stupid us...

Now, just like then, the best way to support the troops is to let em'
win... and that's never pretty.

You just said a mouthful.

War is hell. Avoid it if you can, but pull out all the stops if you can't.

Eisboch

Pull out all the stops?? Hell even the cowboy in the White House
doesn't think like that! We have the capability and armament to
vaporize any country in the world that we wish. So, who first?

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 08:33:05 -0500, HK wrote:


I always thought the Germans were far more deserving of having a couple
of nukes dropped on their cities, but the European war ended before that
could happen.

I don't understand that thought. I don't think the Japanese were "deserving" of being nuked.
It was about winning a war, with the fewest American casualties. Nuclear weapons kill quite a
few undeserving. They are quite indiscriminate. Personally, I wish we hadn't used nuclear
weapons, but, unfortunately, I think it might have been the right decision at the time.

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Nov 4, 11:35?am, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:00:20 -0800, Chuck Gould

wrote:
So Douglas MacArthur cannot be counted among those who were *morally*
opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, only among those who claim to
have felt, back in 1945, that using nuclear weapons on Japan was not
*strategically* necessary to force a Japanese surrender.
In fact, he claims to have thought that Japan would have surrendered
weeks before the bomb was dropped (and of course that event would have
saved American lives as well) if we had been flexible enough to allow
them to keep the Emperor in place.

One of the many shoulda, coulda, wouldas, and what-ifs of discussing
history. :-)

We still had the problem of convincing the Japanese army they were
beat.
They had been raised with the "no surrender" ethic and without the
horrible spectre of the A bombs I am not sure we would have been
successful in getting them to stop fighting.

You may be right. Or not- from the aspect that these troops were so
loyal to the Emperor that they would follow his orders to use suicide
tactics in battle. Why would an army that valued blind obedience not
lay down its arms when ordered to do so by the same Emperor?
Not having been there in the day, I don't know.

I'm only remarking on what Douglas MacArthur said his opinion was at
that time. Somehow, I am foolish enough to place a very high
credibilty in the opinions of professional military commanders when it
comes to matters of specific strategy to win a war. Even when they are
wrong, at least they are operating in their area of expertise- unlike
civilian CIC's, congressmen, talk show hosts, and everybody else who
tries to run a war from an armchair. :-)

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Nov 4, 11:49?am, wrote:
On Nov 4, 2:35 pm, wrote:





On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:00:20 -0800, Chuck Gould

wrote:
So Douglas MacArthur cannot be counted among those who were *morally*
opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, only among those who claim to
have felt, back in 1945, that using nuclear weapons on Japan was not
*strategically* necessary to force a Japanese surrender.
In fact, he claims to have thought that Japan would have surrendered
weeks before the bomb was dropped (and of course that event would have
saved American lives as well) if we had been flexible enough to allow
them to keep the Emperor in place.

One of the many shoulda, coulda, wouldas, and what-ifs of discussing
history. :-)

We still had the problem of convincing the Japanese army they were
beat.
They had been raised with the "no surrender" ethic and without the
horrible spectre of the A bombs I am not sure we would have been
successful in getting them to stop fighting.

Some people just won't beleive that, no matter how it came out. We are
the bad guys here, always making the wrong decisions after being
attacked and treated like animals... stupid us...


There are few decisons ever made that are all good or all bad. On any
level. Most of the decisions we ever make will have certain
consequences we could not have foreseen when making them. Examining
the consequnces of past decisions can help us make better choices,
(sometimes), in the future.

The problem with adopting a view that "Everything we do is always
wrong" or the reverse, "Everything we do is always right" is that it
precludes learning from past results. We live in a very competitive
world, and if we rest on our moral laurels unwilling to examine the
process by which we make decisions, our motivations behind some of
those decisions, and the positive/negative/unintended consequences of
those decisions we can expect to be overtaken (maybe even physically)
by a society willing to be more objective in its self analysis.

Love for your country should be like love for your kids, not love of
your God. If you're religious, you never question God and simply
follow what you believe is divine will. Because you love your kids,
you will be concerned for their welfare, willing to sacrifice and
rearrange priorities to provide for them, and concerned at all times
for their welfare. If you truly love your kids you don't normally say,
"Go ahead and do whatever you want. Because you're my kids you can't
possibly do anything wrong and whatever choice you make you can count
on me to support 100%." When you love your kids, you help them learn
to make the best possible choices, and part of that process is
examining the results of choices made in the past.

There is no question that nuking those two cities in Japan
precipitated an end to the war. From that perspective, the tactic was
successful.
It's not wrong or unpatriotic to examine whether there were options
available at the time, and if there were, whether we chose the best
one.




Now, just like then, the best way to support the troops is to let em'
win...

Another way to support the troops is to avoid sending them into combat
without a clearly defined mission (makes it much harder to "win") and
when the security of the United States or an ally is not at stake. I'd
like to see us learn from some of our difficulties in the last 60
years and become more adept at fighting guerilla warriors. We've got
the "beat an organized army" aspect down pretty well, we need to
improve our ability to handle quasi-civilian enemies who strike from
ambush and then disappear into a crowd of innocent bystanders.

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Nov 4, 10:51 am, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 3, 10:39?pm, Hiroshima Facts wrote:

On Nov 4, 1:12 am, Chuck Gould wrote:

Actually, the emperor *did* retain his throne as one of the terms of
surrender. The last paragraph of the surrender document reads, "The
authority of the Emperor and the Imperial Government to rule the state
shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Forces...."

That line is saying that the Supreme Commander for the Allied Forces
can depose the Emperor if he feels like it.

Which is fundamentally different than a treaty declaring that the
insitution of Emperor shall be definitely abolished. It's compromise
language in its purest form. :-)

The US was not trying to abolish the institution of the Emperor.

Japan was trying to get a guarantee that the Emperor could continue to
rule. They did not get any guarantee.

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Nov 4, 11:00 am, Chuck Gould wrote:

Why would MacArthur change his view after the war was over?
He may have waited to express his opinion, but what could have
possibly happened to change his view entirely?

One possibility is that after the war he had greater knowledge of
Japan's plans.

During the war, Japan's intention to surrender was a lot less clear
that it was after the war.


Another possibility is that during the war he wanted the fighting to
continue until he had a chance to personally lead an invasion of Japan
(like Ike led an invasion of Europe), and after the war he saw some
sort of political advantage to voicing an opinion that Japan would
have surrendered anyway.

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Nov 5, 12:18 am, Tim wrote:
On Nov 4, 11:14 pm, Tim wrote:





On Nov 4, 10:45 pm, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:53:35 -0000, thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 21:15:43 -0500, gfretwell wrote:

I'm not sure I buy European culture had a "gentlemanly war ethic". Look
at the "ethnic cleansing" of the Balkans, the uncivil Spanish Civil War,
the Holocaust, or even the Russian- German battles of WWII, none were
very gentlemanly.

You are talking about people who were not part of the European "royal
families". Even with your examples there is still little comparison to
the things that happened to the people who the Japanese conquered.
European wars have little to compare to the rape of Nanking, the forced
prostitution of Korean women, sword practice on allied prisoners and the
bayonetting of babies by the jap troops. Europe also never really saw
anything like the Kamakazi.

I'm not disputing the barbarity of Asian wars. The Japanese were incredibly brutal, as was Pol
Pot, the Chinese Nationalists (Yellow River Flood), etc. I was disputing the "gentlemanly"
character of the European. Because of our predominately European heritage, many of the
European atrocities have been glossed over, including our own.

I think the reason I feel this way was my father was a POW in WWII.
The Germans picked him up on the battlefield, severely wounded and
unable to walk, They put him in a hospital and saved his life. Again
wounded (his second purple heart) while running from our allies, the
russians, to get back to the American lines they again spared his life
when he could not move on his own,

The japs would have killed him the first day

That is if he was licky. they may have tortured him for about a week
first.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*Lucky*

sorry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's on YOUR mind?!

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 3, 8:05?pm, JR North wrote:
?
Remember Pearl Harbor. And Nanking. And Battan.
JR
So, yes, RIP Paul Tibbets. He was a brave and
Chuck Gould wrote:


Of course.

There was no excuse for many of the Japanese actions during WWII.

Once hostilities end, each side has to deal with the aftermath of its
own decisions.

It's not my place to judge whether the atomic bombs dropped on Japan
were "right" or "wrong". I'm simply pointing out that my research into
the subject indicates we had more options than some revisionist
militarists would prefer to have us believe. Whether any of the other
options would have been "better" or "worse" is useless conjecture.

About a year after the war ended, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
report concluded that "certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all
probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered
even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not
entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or
contemplated." Yes, the conclusion in that report could have been
wrong, but I would have to give the Strategic Bombing Survey report at
least equal credibility with the opinions of talk show hosts and
historians 60 years after the fact.

I can't think of any major national issue or decision in which there
hasn't been a difference of opinion. In the interest of establishing
the best possible insight into the past, it is useful to know that
many people
at that time- including some very responsible, patriotic, loyal
Americans in positions of military authority, disagreed with Truman's
decision to nuke the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Once it's done,
it's done- so questions about good, bad, better, or worse are simply
academic. What we can profit from the experience is a lesson in
evaluating options and dealing with the aftermath of choices.

I can't say that if I were in Truman's shoes at the time I would have
decided any differently- nor can anybody else who wasn't there (or
even born) at the time.


My uncle spent the war as a shooter in the South Pacific. He left SF on a
troop ship to Guadalcanal during the first blackout of WWII. He woke up in
a hospital in the Philippines the day the Japanese surrendered. He figured
the bomb saved his life! He would have gone to Japan invasion after
recovering from the handgrenade damage. The worst fear was to be a prisoner
of the Japanese. So most battles were fought to the extreme. When he
arrived in Guadalcanal, there were still marines hung on stakes that the
Japanese used for bayonet practice. When he woke up in the hospital, there
was a Philippine nurse in the room who he mistook for Japanese and he shook
so bad they said he moved the bed across the room. And still shook for 3
days afterwards when the doctor finally convinced him he was in an American
hospital. Yes the bomb was horrific, but the whole war was horrific, and
the Pacific / Asian theater was just a lot worse than the European action.
**** happens in war, and the payback for the Japanese extracted a terrible
penalty. But we were still correct in the bombings. They dropped the first
bomb and the Japanese thought it was a fluke. Nagasaki, happened to be
secondary target as the primary was cloud covered. The 2nd got the
attention the first should have gotten by those in control.

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
thunder wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:51:40 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote:


I can't say that if I were in Truman's shoes at the time I would have
decided any differently- nor can anybody else who wasn't there (or even
born) at the time.

Obviously, nor can we say, with any certainty, that the Japanese would
have surrendered without the use of A-bombs. However, forty years after
the war, their plans to defend against the invasion were declassified.
If they were implemented, they definitely would have cost a major number
of American lives.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro.../downfall.html


I always thought the Germans were far more deserving of having a couple of
nukes dropped on their cities, but the European war ended before that
could happen.

Why? The European theater was a lot less nasty than the South Pacific.
Something like 5% of the German prisoners died in captivity, and that
includes those wounded when captured. Japan killed about 39% of the
prisoners.

Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
 

On Nov 5, 12:31 pm, wrote:
On Nov 5, 12:18 am, Tim wrote:





On Nov 4, 11:14 pm, Tim wrote:

On Nov 4, 10:45 pm, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:53:35 -0000, thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 21:15:43 -0500, gfretwell wrote:

I'm not sure I buy European culture had a "gentlemanly war ethic". Look
at the "ethnic cleansing" of the Balkans, the uncivil Spanish Civil War,
the Holocaust, or even the Russian- German battles of WWII, none were
very gentlemanly.

You are talking about people who were not part of the European "royal
families". Even with your examples there is still little comparison to
the things that happened to the people who the Japanese conquered.
European wars have little to compare to the rape of Nanking, the forced
prostitution of Korean women, sword practice on allied prisoners and the
bayonetting of babies by the jap troops. Europe also never really saw
anything like the Kamakazi.

I'm not disputing the barbarity of Asian wars. The Japanese were incredibly brutal, as was Pol
Pot, the Chinese Nationalists (Yellow River Flood), etc. I was disputing the "gentlemanly"
character of the European. Because of our predominately European heritage, many of the
European atrocities have been glossed over, including our own.

I think the reason I feel this way was my father was a POW in WWII.
The Germans picked him up on the battlefield, severely wounded and
unable to walk, They put him in a hospital and saved his life. Again
wounded (his second purple heart) while running from our allies, the
russians, to get back to the American lines they again spared his life
when he could not move on his own,

The japs would have killed him the first day

That is if he was licky. they may have tortured him for about a week
first.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*Lucky*

sorry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's on YOUR mind?!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

just trying to correct spelling after the fact.