"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 1, 7:38?pm, Tim wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:59 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...article=1&catn...

"...Tibbets, then a 30-year-old colonel.."

WOAH! I think he has the right idea over secrecy in his burial,
though.

Knowing what I know now, I don't know if I could have done his job or
not. Even though it was probablyt he right thing to do, I don't think
it would be a prideful act.

But I wasn't there either.

mixed emotions

We had reduced Japanese naval power to the point where an effective
blockade of the island nation would probably have inspired its
surrender within a matter of weeks...likely without an invasion.

The nuke was only one of several options available for ending the war.
We know that it worked, there's probably no way to know whether it was
the best options available, and opinions at that time were most
decidedly mixed.

Truman felt it was neccessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of both
the uranium bomb (Hiroshima) and the plutonium bomb (Nagasaki) to
convince the Russians that we had the will and capability to react to
any threat "with extreme prejudice". I was also strategically critical
to end the Japanese war before our Russian "allies" marched in during
the mop up with possible plans for occupying some of the islands and
thereby establishing effective Naval bases in the Pacfic.

Japanese people continued to die from radiation poisoning for many
years after the explosions, with more than 500,000 civilian deaths by
1951.

Many military leaders of the day disagreed with Truman's decision to
use the atomic bomb.

Dwight Eisenhower said that when he was infromed of Truman's decision
to use nuclear bombs, "I voiced my misgivings, first on the basis of
my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb
was completely unneccesary, and secondly because I thought that our
country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon who
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."

Admiral William Leahy, Chief of Saff to Presidents Roosevelt and
Truman, said in his autobiography "It is my opinion that the use of
this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material
assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already
defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade
and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

General MacArthur apparently did not voice any official support for or
opposition to the bombing in 1945, but his consultant Norman Cousins
wrote in 1987 that MacArthur's oft-stated private opinion was "The war
might have ended weeks earlier if the United States had agreed, as it
later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Historic footnote: The "we dropped it to save American Lives"
rationale didn't begin gathering a lot of traction until 1958- the
year that Truman convened a news conference to defend his decision to
drop atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The news conference was
precipitated, in part, by a letter from the Hiroshima City Council
asking Truman if, all those years later, he had any regrets or was
inclined to apologize for the decision. Authors Robert Jay Lifton and
Greg Mitchell,
("Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denmial" published by Grossett/
Putnam in 1995), claim to have documentation that official US
estimates for the number of military deaths that would result from an
invasion of Japan would be between 20,000 and 63,000.

So, yes, RIP Paul Tibbets. He was a brave and dutiful airman, simply
doing his job. Opinions will vary enormously whether there is any
guilt to bear over the manner in which we chose to end WWII, but the
heroes of the hour (or the villians, depending on ones' point of view)
will be found among the decision makers of the day- not down among the
ranks of those who simply upheld their oath to follow orders.


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?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"?

It is too bad that the Japanese became expansionist. They were already
racist.

On Nov 3, 7:22?am, "Del Cecchi" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Nov 1, 7:38?pm, Tim wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:59 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...article=1&catn...

"...Tibbets, then a 30-year-old colonel.."

WOAH! I think he has the right idea over secrecy in his burial,
though.

Knowing what I know now, I don't know if I could have done his job or
not. Even though it was probablyt he right thing to do, I don't think
it would be a prideful act.

But I wasn't there either.

mixed emotions

We had reduced Japanese naval power to the point where an effective
blockade of the island nation would probably have inspired its
surrender within a matter of weeks...likely without an invasion.

The nuke was only one of several options available for ending the war.
We know that it worked, there's probably no way to know whether it was
the best options available, and opinions at that time were most
decidedly mixed.

Truman felt it was neccessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of both
the uranium bomb (Hiroshima) and the plutonium bomb (Nagasaki) to
convince the Russians that we had the will and capability to react to
any threat "with extreme prejudice". I was also strategically critical
to end the Japanese war before our Russian "allies" marched in during
the mop up with possible plans for occupying some of the islands and
thereby establishing effective Naval bases in the Pacfic.

Japanese people continued to die from radiation poisoning for many
years after the explosions, with more than 500,000 civilian deaths by
1951.

Many military leaders of the day disagreed with Truman's decision to
use the atomic bomb.

Dwight Eisenhower said that when he was infromed of Truman's decision
to use nuclear bombs, "I voiced my misgivings, first on the basis of
my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb
was completely unneccesary, and secondly because I thought that our
country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon who
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."

Admiral William Leahy, Chief of Saff to Presidents Roosevelt and
Truman, said in his autobiography "It is my opinion that the use of
this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material
assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already
defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade
and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

General MacArthur apparently did not voice any official support for or
opposition to the bombing in 1945, but his consultant Norman Cousins
wrote in 1987 that MacArthur's oft-stated private opinion was "The war
might have ended weeks earlier if the United States had agreed, as it
later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Historic footnote: The "we dropped it to save American Lives"
rationale didn't begin gathering a lot of traction until 1958- the
year that Truman convened a news conference to defend his decision to
drop atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The news conference was
precipitated, in part, by a letter from the Hiroshima City Council
asking Truman if, all those years later, he had any regrets or was
inclined to apologize for the decision. Authors Robert Jay Lifton and
Greg Mitchell,
("Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denmial" published by Grossett/
Putnam in 1995), claim to have documentation that official US
estimates for the number of military deaths that would result from an
invasion of Japan would be between 20,000 and 63,000.

So, yes, RIP Paul Tibbets. He was a brave and dutiful airman, simply
doing his job. Opinions will vary enormously whether there is any
guilt to bear over the manner in which we chose to end WWII, but the
heroes of the hour (or the villians, depending on ones' point of view)
will be found among the decision makers of the day- not down among the
ranks of those who simply upheld their oath to follow orders.

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. 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.

Much of the information released to the public during any war is pure,
unadulterated BS manipulation. The government can influence, if not
entirely control, what it wants the populace to think. Top military
leaders get a more accurate picture, as they need to deal with the
reality of a situation and not the political posturing. Consider the
internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry that occured in
the western US (and in Canda as well). The government convinced
everybody that these "little yellow people" couldn't be relied upon to
be loyal to the US, even those who were 2nd and 3rd generation
Americans, had never been to Japan, and didn't speak, read or write
Japanese. Funny thing of course is that we didn't round up everybody
named Schwartz or DiMaggio, even though we were also at war with
Germany and Italy. Only a few people remain who will voice
enthusiastic support for the internment, but at the time the sales job
had been thorough enough that a majority of Americans felt it was a
good idea.


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.



It is too bad that the Japanese became expansionist. They were already
racist.


Most of the world remains highly racist. I don't think the Japanese
had any unique claim in that category. Many of our official government
policies during the war (such as the internment) don't make any sense
in retrospect unless viewed through the lens of racism. While American
citizens of Japanese ancestry were in prison camps in the Rockies and
the midwest, the farms, homes, factories, fishing boats, and small
businesses they owned were confiscated by tax authorities. (Pretty
hard to pay taxes on the farm when you're not allowed to work it.) It
was considered shrewd business at the time to buy up property
"confiscated from the Japs", and most of the internees had to start
over again, completely from scratch, after they were released. Once
again, Americans whose ancestry was German or Italian were not subject
to the same treatment- at least they "looked like real Americans."

As racist as some Americans remain, I think that in general the
mixture of cultures and races in the US has done much to reduce
racism. As a society we are probably more inclusive than most, but we
still have a ways to go and some of the individual exceptions are
almost Neanderthalic.

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


As racist as some Americans remain, I think that in general the
mixture of cultures and races in the US has done much to reduce
racism. As a society we are probably more inclusive than most, but we
still have a ways to go and some of the individual exceptions are
almost Neanderthalic.



Most, if not all, nations have remained highly nationalistic by culture. An
exception is the United States. We are one of the few successful nations on
earth that can withstand the constant negative analysis and bad image
promoted by some of her own citizens.


Eisboch

Chuck Gould wrote:

Most of the world remains highly racist. I don't think the Japanese
had any unique claim in that category. Many of our official government
policies during the war (such as the internment) don't make any sense
in retrospect unless viewed through the lens of racism. While American
citizens of Japanese ancestry were in prison camps in the Rockies and
the midwest, the farms, homes, factories, fishing boats, and small
businesses they owned were confiscated by tax authorities. (Pretty
hard to pay taxes on the farm when you're not allowed to work it.) It
was considered shrewd business at the time to buy up property
"confiscated from the Japs", and most of the internees had to start
over again, completely from scratch, after they were released. Once
again, Americans whose ancestry was German or Italian were not subject
to the same treatment- at least they "looked like real Americans."

As racist as some Americans remain, I think that in general the
mixture of cultures and races in the US has done much to reduce
racism. As a society we are probably more inclusive than most, but we
still have a ways to go and some of the individual exceptions are
almost Neanderthalic.

There was even talk of internment camps in WW1 which would of course
been disasterous.

My great uncle Fritz Schnautz , was a second generation immigrant
from Germany and could speak German and English very fluentl. From
what I gather, his service was invaluable in many case's as an
interpreter.

Same with my Uncle Geo. Lichner in WWII, He was raised in Chicago and
only had a 6th grade education, but in service in Germany and Italy,
he was put in the I-Corps, and used as in interpreter, because being
raised in the melting pot of Chicago, he could speak and make his way
though centeral european languages including most
slavic dilects, because of his Bohemian background.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 3, 7:22?am, "Del Cecchi" wrote:
snip
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. 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.

Much of the information released to the public during any war is pure,
unadulterated BS manipulation. The government can influence, if not
entirely control, what it wants the populace to think. Top military
leaders get a more accurate picture, as they need to deal with the
reality of a situation and not the political posturing. Consider the
internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry that occured in
the western US (and in Canda as well). The government convinced
everybody that these "little yellow people" couldn't be relied upon to
be loyal to the US, even those who were 2nd and 3rd generation
Americans, had never been to Japan, and didn't speak, read or write
Japanese. Funny thing of course is that we didn't round up everybody
named Schwartz or DiMaggio, even though we were also at war with
Germany and Italy. Only a few people remain who will voice
enthusiastic support for the internment, but at the time the sales job
had been thorough enough that a majority of Americans felt it was a
good idea.

Sure, it was a disgraceful thing. Not nearly as bad as the Japanese
actions in China however. Not even close.


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.


Ah, so all we had to do was go along with the "divine emperor" remaining
in charge and retain his claim of divinity and they would have
surrendered. Were there any other conditions? Would it have been hard
to reform the government with the "divine emperor" on his throne?


snip

On Nov 3, 7:47?pm, "Del Cecchi" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

oups.com...





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

Much of the information released to the public during any war is pure,
unadulterated BS manipulation. The government can influence, if not
entirely control, what it wants the populace to think. Top military
leaders get a more accurate picture, as they need to deal with the
reality of a situation and not the political posturing. Consider the
internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry that occured in
the western US (and in Canda as well). The government convinced
everybody that these "little yellow people" couldn't be relied upon to
be loyal to the US, even those who were 2nd and 3rd generation
Americans, had never been to Japan, and didn't speak, read or write
Japanese. Funny thing of course is that we didn't round up everybody
named Schwartz or DiMaggio, even though we were also at war with
Germany and Italy. Only a few people remain who will voice
enthusiastic support for the internment, but at the time the sales job
had been thorough enough that a majority of Americans felt it was a
good idea.

Sure, it was a disgraceful thing. Not nearly as bad as the Japanese
actions in China however. Not even close.

Indeed. I had a great aunt and uncle killed in the So Pacific by the
Japanese. They were British civilians.



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.

Ah, so all we had to do was go along with the "divine emperor" remaining
in charge and retain his claim of divinity and they would have
surrendered. Were there any other conditions? Would it have been hard
to reform the government with the "divine emperor" on his throne?

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...."

We left the emperor in place, a move that was probably well calculated
to make the rebuilding and restructuring of the country. Even if
everybody knew that Hirohito was taking his orders from the Allies,
the changes were easier to accept as edicts from the Emperor.

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.

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. :-)

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.

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.