- Cattle responsible for global warming
- Abortion should never be acceptable
- Bronco “fans” go too far
- Electoral college comments
- Ft. Collins A.K.A. Grinchville
- Paul Campos & the Constitution
- U.S. now tortures
- Chandler Grafner’s parents want to sue
- Denver Election Commission
- Makes me want to vote Republican
Any regrets now?
Paul Tibbets lived to age 92, which is nearly 62 years and three months longer than the 140,000 Japanese he helped kill (“Forever linked to Hiroshima,” Nov. 2). All his life he insisted he had no regrets about dropping the bomb. I wonder if he does now.
Ben Tucker, Lone Tree
Ok Ben, how many lives would have been lost had he NOT dropped the bomb? How many millions would have perished in the conventional bombings that would have continued? How many millions would have died when the invasion of the Japanese mainland come to fruition? How many more years would WWII continued had the bombs not been dropped? Would you have been more comfortable with that level of death and destruction? 140,00 dead is regretable, however, it is much better than millions and it also stopped the use of such weapons ever since. And they are the ONLY weapons ever used that have never been used again for the very fear of the level of death they bring.
One last point, does Japan ever regret the crimes they committed in China, Korea, or the Philippenes? Battan, Wake Island and more? Do they ever regret all the deaths they caused?
Well put Nick.
Posted by on November 12, 2007 10:27 AMDon't worry Ben, I'm sure Pelosi and company are drafting a resolution to declare these bombings as egregious acts too.
Posted by on November 12, 2007 11:41 AMFor all of the hand wringing that goes on over Japanese deaths due to the bombing, I would like to point out that they were the ones who brought it on through their attacking of Pearl Harbor.
Anyone remember that little detail?
Posted by Philip on November 12, 2007 11:45 AMObviously Tibbits slept well and lived a stress free life....92 years says it all.
Hand wringing and mind bending guilt was not his to shoulder!!
Only one way to find out if he regrets it now. If you would kindly join him in the hereafter, you can ask him. Let us know how that works out.
What an idiotic letter
Posted by Dravur on November 12, 2007 12:43 PMOnly one way to find out if he regrets it now. If you would kindly join him in the hereafter, you can ask him. Let us know how that works out.
What an idiotic letter
Posted by Dravur on November 12, 2007 12:43 PMBen Tucker, Lone Tree
"All his life he insisted he had no regrets about dropping the bomb. I wonder if he does now."
I for one have only admiration for him and his great crew. His difficult mission saved hundred of thousands of lives both Allied and Japanese. I pray he never had a single regret for his action.
Posted by jgd777 on November 12, 2007 01:04 PMAmazing how many people think they speak for God
Posted by on November 12, 2007 01:28 PMEven funnier how god is never here to speak for himself
Posted by Clarence Boddicker on November 12, 2007 02:11 PMBack in the day,anyone who even whispered what the O.P. has proudly said today would have been charged with treason,and might now have been able for "62 years and 3 months " to answer the question he has asked us.
Posted by Jimminy on November 12, 2007 02:35 PMThe letter just goes to show the mind set of some. No matter what the noble cause, the means never justifies the ending solution. Wonder if Benny boy speaks Japanese?
Posted by The Shadow on November 12, 2007 03:20 PMYes, they started it. Yes, it stopped the war. Yes, it gave everyone a nice look-see at what a nuclear weapon would do. Still and all, if I pulled the trigger that killed 140k most innocent people I doubt I would sleep well and I'd probably use the extra time to practice what I was going to say to the Lord. May he rest in peace - ditto the 140k others.
Posted by Mike A on November 12, 2007 04:53 PMMike A.
How would you feel knowing you saved hundreds of thousands lives, possibly a million or more? In one way it most have been a terrible burden for him to carry, on the other hand, being able to look in the eyes of your fellow soldiers knowing you may have saved their lives, must have given him great comfort.
Guess it is just how you view your actions, killed 140k or saved a million or more lives.
Posted by jgd777 on November 12, 2007 05:19 PMNone of you should bring up Pearl Harbor, where the Japanese bombed military targets and the civillian death toll was at 68. Own it for what it is: our country killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, and that is how we ended the war. We saved some of our service men's and that is important. I was a Marine, and as an American warrior I am proud that we don't harm women or children. I would have offered my life in an invasion if it could have saved the elderly or children from suffering the hell they did at Hiroshima. That is the honor offered by the Corps. All of you thoughtless, excuse making bigots, have some Cojones : ). Semper Fi!
Posted by Zorro on November 12, 2007 06:45 PMWhat hereafter?
Posted by on November 12, 2007 07:13 PMZorro,
How much hell do you think the children and elderly would have suffered in a total invasion of Japan? Do you think only the soldiers would have died in our massive bombing raids, shore barrages, and the actually individual battles?
I respect your desire to save the children and the elderly, but the truth is in wars innocent people die. Ask the Chinese how many civilians died at the hands of the Japanese. During one operation, the attack on Nanjing the best estimate was 300,000 mostly civilians. Or should we only count American civilians?
Posted by jgd777 on November 12, 2007 07:13 PM"Back in the day,anyone who even whispered what the O.P. has proudly said today would have been charged with treason,and might now have been able for "62 years and 3 months " to answer the question he has asked us.
Posted by Jimminy on November 12, 2007 02:35 PM"
That shows how ridiculous some people can be when they post. There was a great deal of debate over whether the bomb should be dropped. There was a great deal of debate afterwards over whether it was the right thing to do.
Of course, maybe Jimminy was living in Germany at the time and thinks America was the same way. Or maybe is a little too young and thinks that the Bill of Rights came into existence after World War II.
Posted by Truth on November 12, 2007 07:15 PMAfter America dropped the two bombs, it was natural for the Soviet Union and China to get it as soon as they could. It is difficult to know how different the nuclear picture would be today if we had not dropped those bombs but certainly other nations would not have had the motivation they did to copy us.
There are many who say that Japan was already close to surrender. Could it be that dropping the bomb, like invading Iraq, was really not necessary?
Posted by Truth on November 12, 2007 07:20 PMTruth,
Have you ever read anything regarding world war II? The Japanese would never have surrendered, they still had a standing army of over 3 million men, and a civilian population willing to fight to the death.
Even after the first bomb was dropped they did not discuss surrender, because they believed we only had one bomb. It took two of them to convince them the war was over.
Yes, jgd, I've done a little reading on the atomic bomb issue. You should try it.
The Decision the Atomic Bomb, http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm
Part One
In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:
[T]he 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. . . .
[I]n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. (See p. 3, Introduction)
Privately, on June 18, 1945--almost a month before the Emperor's July intervention to seek an end to the war and seven weeks before the atomic bomb was used--Leahy recorded in his diary:
It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression. (See p. 324, Chapter 26)
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . . [Nimitz also stated: "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . ."]
In a private 1946 letter to Walter Michels of the Association of Philadelphia Scientists, Nimitz observed that "the decision to employ the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was made on a level higher than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." (See pp. 330-331, Chapter 26)
Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:
The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. (See p. 331, Chapter 26)
The Under-Secretary of the Navy, Ralph Bard, formally dissented from the Interim Committee's recommendation to use the bomb against a city without warning. In a June 27, 1945 memorandum Bard declared:
Ever since I have been in touch with this program I have had a feeling that before the bomb is actually used against Japan that Japan should have some preliminary warning for say two or three days in advance of use. The position of the United States as a great humanitarian nation and the fair play attitude of our people generally is responsible in the main for this feeling.
During recent weeks I have also had the feeling very definitely that the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender. Following the three-power conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.
Rear Admiral L. Lewis Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy from 1944 to 1945 (and later chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission), replaced Bard on the Interim Committee after he left government on July 1. Subsequently, Strauss repeatedly stated his belief that the use of the atomic bomb "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion. . . ." (See p. 332, Chapter 26) Strauss recalled:
I proposed to Secretary Forrestal at that time that the weapon should be demonstrated. . . . Primarily, it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate. . . . My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to the Japanese observers, and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a good place--satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomaria [sic] trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomaria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood. . . . I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest . . . would [have] laid the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they had been matchsticks, and of course set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities, their fortifications at will. . . . (See p. 333, Chapter 26)
The Decision the Atomic Bomb, http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm
Part Two
In a private letter to Navy historian Robert G. Albion concerning a clearer assurance that the Emperor would not be displaced, Strauss observed:
This was omitted from the Potsdam declaration and as you are undoubtedly aware was the only reason why it was not immediately accepted by the Japanese who were beaten and knew it before the first atomic bomb was dropped. (See p. 393, Chapter 31)
In his "third person" autobiography (co-authored with Walter Muir Whitehill) the commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated:
The President in giving his approval for these [atomic] attacks appeared to believe that many thousands of American troops would be killed in invading Japan, and in this he was entirely correct; but King felt, as he had pointed out many times, that the dilemma was an unnecessary one, for had we been willing to wait, the effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials. (See p. 327, Chapter 26)
Private interview notes taken by Walter Whitehill summarize King's feelings quite simply as: "I didn't like the atom bomb or any part of it." (See p. 329, Chapter 26; See also pp. 327-329)
As Japan faltered in July an effort was made by several top Navy officials--almost certainly including Secretary Forrestal himself--to end the war without using the atomic bomb. Forrestal made a special trip to Potsdam to discuss the issue and was involved in the Atlantic Charter broadcast. Many other top Admirals criticized the bombing both privately and publicly. (Forrestal, see pp. 390-392, Chapter 31; p. 398, Chapter 31) (Strauss, see p. 333, Chapter 26; pp. 393-394, Chapter 31) (Bard, see pp. 225-227, Chapter 18; pp. 390-391, Chapter 31)
Air Force Leaders
(Partial listing:
See Chapter 27 for an extended discussion)
The commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said:
The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air. (See p. 334, Chapter 27)
In his 1949 memoirs Arnold observed that "it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." (See p. 334, Chapter 27)
Arnold's deputy, Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker, summed up his understanding this way in an internal military history interview:
Arnold's view was that it [the dropping of the atomic bomb] was unnecessary. He said that he knew the Japanese wanted peace. There were political implications in the decision and Arnold did not feel it was the military's job to question it. (See p. 335, Chapter 27)
Eaker reported that Arnold told him:
When the question comes up of whether we use the atomic bomb or not, my view is that the Air Force will not oppose the use of the bomb, and they will deliver it effectively if the Commander in Chief decides to use it. But it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion. (See p. 335, Chapter 27)
[Eaker also recalled: "That was the representation I made when I accompanied General Marshall up to the White House" for a discussion with Truman on June 18, 1945.]
The Decision the Atomic Bomb, http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm
Part Three
On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in The New York Herald Tribune) publicly:
said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 336, Chapter 27)
Personally dictated notes found in the recently opened papers of former Ambassador to the Soviet Union Averell Harriman describe a private 1965 dinner with General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz, who in July 1945 commanded the U.S. Army Strategic Air Force (USASTAF) and was subsequently chief of staff of U.S. Air Forces. Also with them at dinner was Spaatz's one-time deputy commanding general at USASTAF, Frederick L. Anderson. Harriman privately noted:
Both men . . . felt Japan would surrender without use of the bomb, and neither knew why the second bomb was used. (See p. 337, Chapter 27)
Harriman's notes also recall his own understanding:
I know this attitude is correctly described, because I had it from the Air Force when I was in Washington in April '45. (See p. 337, Chapter 27)
In an official 1962 interview Spaatz stated that he had directly challenged the Nagasaki bombing:
I thought that if we were going to drop the atomic bomb, drop it on the outskirts--say in Tokyo Bay--so that the effects would not be as devastating to the city and the people. I made this suggestion over the phone between the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and I was told to go ahead with our targets. (See p. 345, Chapter 27)
Spaatz insisted on receiving written orders before going forward with the atomic bombings in 1945. Subsequently, Lieutenant General Thomas Handy, Marshall's deputy chief of staff, recalled:
Well, Tooey Spaatz came in . . . he said, "They tell me I am supposed to go out there and blow off the whole south end of the Japanese Islands. I've heard a lot about this thing, but my God, I haven't had a piece of paper yet and I think I need a piece of paper." "Well," I said, "I agree with you, Tooey. I think you do," and I said, "I guess I'm the fall guy to give it to you." (pp. 344-345, Chapter 27)
In 1962 Spaatz himself recalled that he gave "notification that I would not drop an atomic bomb on verbal orders--they had to be written--and this was accomplished." (p. 345, Chapter 27)
Spaatz also stated that
The dropping of the atomic bomb was done by a military man under military orders. We're supposed to carry out orders and not question them. (See p. 345, Chapter 27)
In a 1965 Air Force oral history interview Spaatz stressed: "That was purely a political decision, wasn't a military decision. The military man carries out the order of his political bosses." (See p. 345, Chapter 27)
Air Force General Claire Chennault, the founder of the American Volunteer Group (the famed "Flying Tigers")--and Army Air Forces commander in China--was even more blunt: A few days after Hiroshima was bombed The New York Times reported Chennault's view that:
Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped. . . . (See pp. 335-336, Chapter 27)
Army Leaders
(Partial listing:
See Chapter 28 for an extended discussion)
On the 40th Anniversary of the bombing former President Richard M. Nixon reported that:
[General Douglas] MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off. . . . (See p. 352, Chapter 28)
The day after Hiroshima was bombed MacArthur's pilot, Weldon E. Rhoades, noted in his diary:
General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster [the bomb]. I had a long talk with him today, necessitated by the impending trip to Okinawa. . . . (See p. 350, Chapter 28)
Former President Herbert Hoover met with MacArthur alone for several hours on a tour of the Pacific in early May 1946. His diary states:
I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria. (See pp. 350-351, Chapter 28)
Saturday Review of Literature editor Norman Cousins also later reported that MacArthur told him he saw no military justification for using the atomic bomb, and that "The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." (See p. 351, Chapter 28)
In an article reprinted in 1947 by Reader's Digest, Brigadier General Bonner Fellers (in charge of psychological warfare on MacArthur's wartime staff and subsequently MacArthur's military secretary in Tokyo) stated:
Obviously . . . the atomic bomb neither induced the Emperor's decision to surrender nor had any effect on the ultimate outcome of the war." (See p. 352, Chapter 28)
Colonel Charles "Tick" Bonesteel, 1945 chief of the War Department Operations Division Policy Section, subsequently recalled in a military history interview: "[T]he poor damn Japanese were putting feelers out by the ton so to speak, through Russia. . . ." (See p. 359, Chapter 28)
Brigadier Gen. Carter W. Clarke, the officer in charge of preparing MAGIC intercepted cable summaries in 1945, stated in a 1959 interview:
we brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (See p. 359, Chapter 28)
In a 1985 letter recalling the views of Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall, former Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy elaborated on an incident that was
very vivid in my mind. . . . I can recall as if it were yesterday, [Marshall's] insistence to me that whether we should drop an atomic bomb on Japan was a matter for the President to decide, not the Chief of Staff since it was not a military question . . . the question of whether we should drop this new bomb on Japan, in his judgment, involved such imponderable considerations as to remove it from the field of a military decision. (See p. 364, Chapter 28)
In a separate memorandum written the same year McCloy recalled: "General Marshall was right when he said you must not ask me to declare that a surprise nuclear attack on Japan is a military necessity. It is not a military problem." (See p. 364, Chapter 28)
In addition:
- On May 29, 1945 Marshall joined with Secretaries Stimson and Forrestal in approving Acting Secretary of State Joseph C. Grew's proposal that the unconditional surrender language be clarified (but, with Stimson, proposed a brief delay). (See pp. 53-54, Chapter 4)
- On June 9, 1945, along with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marshall recommended that a statement clarifying the surrender terms be issued on the fall of Okinawa (June 21). (See pp. 55-57, Chapter 4)
- On July 16, 1945 at Potsdam--again along with the other members of the Joint Chiefs --Marshall urged the British Chiefs of Staff to ask Churchill to approach Truman about clarifying the terms. (See pp. 245-246, Chapter 19)
- On July 18, 1945, Marshall led the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in directly urging the president to include language in the Potsdam Proclamation allowing Japan to choose its own form of government. (See pp. 299-300, Chapter 23)
In his memoirs President Dwight D. Eisenhower reports the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:
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. . . . (See p. 4, Introduction)
Eisenhower made similar private and public statements on numerous occasions. For instance, in a 1963 interview he said simply: ". . . it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (See pp. 352-358, Chapter 28)
Wrong,cowardice-breath.There was NO debate about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.The Manhattan Project was the blackest of black ops, and the public knew nothing about it.
Truth,your postings show everyone what to expect from those who have a liberal education and why we should do away with the university system.
Truth,
Did anyone actually order the bombing?
It appears everyone short of the lowest private was opposed to using the atomic bomb.
And to think we could have just walked into Japan and we would have been greeted with open arms and flag waving civilians.
Posted by jgd777 on November 12, 2007 08:50 PMHey Ben,
I always wonder how many abortion doctors sleep well at night ?
I wonder if they do now?
ADS
Clarence, I"m here. We (Michael, Peter and I) get a real kick out of reading what some fools write about me on RMN!
I would butt in more, but I'm not really computer savvy.
By the way, what is up with all those "reality" shows? I liked "Joan of Arcadia" better.
TRUTH/
GAR ALPEROVITZ IS A FLAMIN' MOONBAT OF THE NEW PROGRESSIVE PEACENICS!!!! DONT EVER POST THAT CRAP AGAIN YOU AMERICA HATING PINKO COMMIE TREE HUGGER WUSS !!!!!
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
the atomic bomb,
there are a few things people should know about the bomb,
1: Japan was working on nuclear tech when we were and a little before as well as Germany, the Japanese decided to work on a death ray using radio waves and abolishes their nuclear program in further pursuit of their weapons program.
2: Britain started where the Japanese left off and discovered how to use radio waves as a radar
3: the Germans were also working on a nuclear device as well, we captured and freed some of their scientist and used them to have America build the first radioactive bomb,
so it was either us or them , and i am actually glad that it was us and not them due to the fact we might have been decimated if either one of those countries had created the bomb before us as Germany was also working on intercontinental missles at that time as well.
here is a link explaining what i have said
http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=9329
watch this video and you might understand also another great movie to check out is "trinity and beyond "
my grandfather was in the army corps of engineers and was used as a test monkey for the nuclear age from the first drop at trinity site to the many atmospheric test done in Nevada, he was also on land in Hiroshima 5 hours after the bomb was dropped on clean up , he passed on in his 80's in the early 90's.
your local friendly atheist
Hoimaha C.
Boy, if you really want to upset the hotheads, all you have to do is to post the Truth. It makes some people free and it makes other people mad as hell. signed, Truth
P.S. Hoimaha. you've been reading too many comic books. You can also watch some of the Sponge Bob series on that website.
Posted by Truth on November 13, 2007 06:57 AMThanks, 10:13 PM, you are one good comedian.
Posted by Truth on November 13, 2007 07:01 AMNamby pamby Truth or Toothless as I prefer to call him/her/it, just LIVES to disagree with any and all people who post on these letters to the Editor. That includes all subjects.
The Letters to the Editor provides starved Toothless an agenda for his/her nauseating liberal views and gives him/her/it a much need power surge for the day. Bon appetit Toothless!
Hi, 10:48AM. I hope you feel better now. And it's cheaper than going to your psychiatrist.
Posted by Truth on November 13, 2007 11:04 AMI REALLY have to apologize directly to Truth.Dude,I'm sorry.You got me all riled up because I took you seriously.This morning I realized that while your politics are probably the usual college-leftist type,that's pretty innocuous.You have considerable writing skill that have been superbly developed in whatever your education has been, and if I can ever figure out an Internet equivalent of offering to buy you a beer,I'll be happy to do it.
What you ARE doing is just youthful hi-jinks,a sort of Internet equivalent of TPing the neighborhood,although it might be more proper TP etiquette to refrain from doing it with used TP.
And I should also retract what I said about doing away with the university system.I think we should leave the science and military curricula in place.
Posted by Jimminy on November 13, 2007 11:54 AMToothless...er Truth, I see you have first-hand knowledge about covering the expenses of a visit with your psychiatrist. No wonder you are an advocate for socialized medicine.
Posted by on November 13, 2007 12:02 PMTruth,
All these generals say the war with Japan would be over in 2 weeks.
Didn't the generals in the European theater say the Germans were defeated and the war would be over by Christmas of 44. I guess the generals forgot to tell the Germans that before the Battle of the Bulge.
What do the Japanese history books say about the war ending. Everything I've seen said the Emperor had to tell the military the war was over.
If we did a naval blocade, how long do you think it would have lasted? How many civilians would have died?
Sadly, dropping the bomb was the right thing to do.
Posted by fred on November 13, 2007 04:25 PMThe emperor was ready to surrender but the military was not and had coup of the emperor. Were the military took over and gave oreders to fight to the end which every man,woman,and child were to fight no matter what age they were to fight to the death. When FAT MAN and LITTLE BOY were drop on Japan and stoped the military and they returned power back to the empoeror and signed a peace treaty on the U.S.S. MISSOURI.
Posted by brad on November 13, 2007 06:35 PMBen Tucker of Lone Tree, commenting on the passing of Gen. Paul Tibbets, wondered if the leader of the World War Two mission on Hiroshima had any regrets.
Tibbets didn’t regret his place in history during his life. And I don’t think his place in heaven would allow for any regrets in death. I know that tens of thousands of servicemen, who would have been needed to invade the Japanese mainland, don’t have any regrets about Tibbets’ flight either.
I certainly don’t!
I only regret that Mr. Tucker could not have been in Nanking or on Battan or at Pearl Harbor when those places were visited by the Empire of Japan. If he had, I’m sure he’d be a whole lot less curious about what Paul Tibbets regrets.
truth , you should really get an education and learn how to read, especially a history book on the subject of the weopons that were developed in the wwII era.
Posted by Hoimaha Coin on November 14, 2007 01:59 AMYou can tell that fred's statement is born of hysteria. "All the generals". Yeah, fred. "in two weeks", from when? Sure, fred. So there was unanimous agreement by all the generals at some undisclosed time that the war would be over in two weeks. Ye, gods. You can bet the farm that fred will not produce any evidence that even one general said that.
All that Mr. Tucker said is that he wondered if Paul Tibbets now has any regrets. I perfectly understandable question. Ray Hicks criticism of him is absurd.
Posted by Truth on November 14, 2007 06:54 AMTurdth you are absurd!!
Posted by on November 14, 2007 07:28 AMWhats absurd about the criticism that Mr. Hicks brings foward. Mabey we should be asking the guards of Japan,Germany, and Itaily if they have any regrets of how they treated POW and private citizens and while were at it how about those doctors and scientist that preformed procedures on the unwilling during ww2 before we ask about Mr. Tibbets. How about that Mr.Tucker and Truth
Posted by brad on November 14, 2007 09:36 AMTruth, two words: Pearl Harbor.
If Japan wanted to mess with us, don't complain when your lunch gets eaten.
From what you posted,
On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in The New York Herald Tribune) publicly:
said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 336, Chapter 27)
The other quotes were from generals who all said Japan was finished and no need to drop the bomb.
I was saying that generals in Eupore thought the Germans would end the war by Xmas which didn't happen.
I need to see something from the Japanese military that said they were ready to surrender. All I have from them was they expected to fight to the last man, woman and child.
You realize the navy blocade would have failed. October of 1945, Japan had a typhoon Louise which hit.
"On 4 October 1945, a typhoon was spotted developing in the Caroline Islands and tracked as it moved on a predictable course to the northwest. Although expected to pass into the East China Sea north of Formosa on 8 October, the storm unexpectedly veered north toward Okinawa. That evening the storm slowed down and, just as it approached Okinawa, began to greatly increase in intensity. The sudden shift of the storm caught many ships and small craft in the constricted waters of Buckner Bay (Nakagusuku Wan) and they were unable to escape to sea. On 9 October, when the storm passed over the island, winds of 80 knots (92 miles per hour) and 30-35 foot waves battered the ships and craft in the bay and tore into the quonset huts and buildings ashore. A total of 12 ships and craft were sunk, 222 grounded, and 32 severely damaged. [for listing of vessels] Personnel casualties were 36 killed, 47 missing, and 100 seriously injured. Almost all the food, medical supplies and other stores were destroyed, over 80% of all housing and buildings knocked down, and all the military installations on the island were temporarily out of action. Over 60 planes were damaged as well, though most were repairable. Although new supplies had been brought to the island by this time, and emergency mess halls and sleeping quarters built for all hands, the scale of the damage was still very large. If the war had not ended on 2 September, this damage, especially the grounding and damage to 107 amphibious craft (including the wrecking of four tank landing ships, two medium landing ships, a gunboat, and two infantry landing craft) would likely have seriously impacted the planned invasion of Japan (Operation Olympic)."
Operation Market-Garden was launched in mic-September. It was considered a high risk tactic which some in the high command HOPED might bring the end of the war by Christmas. It lasted only about eleven days and did failed to achieve the results HOPED for. It was known over three months before Christmas that the plan failed.
You won't find a single general saying that the war would be over by Christmas. The generals were not idiots. They knew the plan was a long shot.
The fact is that General Eisenhower opposed Montgomery's Market-Garden plan but was pressured into accepting it.
"When, on 23rd August 1944, the Supreme Allied Commander, General Eisenhower, visited Montgomery’s HQ for lunch, followed by a private conference, Montgomery argued that German forces were in complete disarray and that a decisive thrust into the Ruhr would result in the end of the war before Christmas 1944. At Montgomery’s insistence, Eisenhower’s Chief of Staff, General Walter Bedell Smith was excluded from the meeting, causing rancour.20 Eisenhower left Montgomery’s HQ unconvinced and wavering."
"Montgomery wanted Allied resources concentrated into a ‘narrow front’ advance into
the Netherlands. Though his superior, General Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of
Allied Expeditionary Forces, opposed this view, he had to scale down his ideas towards
Montgomery’s plan because of the supply problems slowing down his troops. The plan
became known as Operation Market Garden."
"The Plan
Promoted to Field Marshal on 1st September 1944, Montgomery believed that the battles in the West could be won by Christmas. He advocated a thrust on Berlin, supported by all available resources. This was considered preferable to advance on a broad front, which would be difficult to supply from the few ports in Allied control.
The Military leader of the Allied forces, Dwight Eisenhower disagreed with this plan of action. Believing that Germany would use their remaining force to defend the industrial regions of the Saar and the Ruhr, he proposed a double attack on those areas."
"I shall never forget the speech made by General Taylor, the Division Commander, in one of the hangars. "Men, this MAY be your last jump in the ETO (European Theater of Operations) IF this mission is successful we should all be in New York for Christmas."
Some officers did make reference to the possibility of ending the war by Christmas in order to encourage morale.
As to Japan's intention, it looks like it's fred's word against the word of all those generals. And fred wasn't there.
Has fred cited a single source of support for his contentions? No. I think he is relying on his imagination and not his memory.
Posted by Truth on November 14, 2007 07:54 PMMy dad (LCDR,USNR) was one of the millions included in the planned invasion of Japan.Thank you,Paul Tibbets.May your name always have a place of the highest honor in the national memory,as it does in my family's.
Posted by Jimminy on November 14, 2007 09:37 PMNo one should dishonor Paul Tibbets. But that is not really the important question. Paul Tibbets had nothing to do with the decision to drop the bomb. A lot of military people have done things in wartime which they later regretted. It's not a criticism of them but rather of the way wars are sometimes conducted. The military was not consulted in the decision to drop the bomb. I think they should have been.
Posted by Truth on November 16, 2007 10:27 AM