The Amercian Soldier in ETO - WW2

[Major Tom]

I believe that dropping the Atomic Bomb does not compare to bombing the heck out of Iraqui soldiers.

The Atomic Bomb was dropped on a Civilian target, and the targets chosen were done so to maximize civilian casualties. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively untouched in the conventional bombing campaign, and refugees from other Cities went there in droves. Dropping the Atomic bomb on these cities have just about as much wroth to ending the war as did bombing Guernica in the Spanish Civil War.

The bombs themselves probably did not end the war, as, conventional bombing was more devestating, and Japan showed no visible signs of cracking under that pressure. The USAAC B-29's could fly at such a high altitude that they were out of range from both the Japanese AA and fighter cover, so, losses were very low. They could have conventionally bombed Japan and done more damage without suffering as many casualties. HOWEVER, through the bombing of England, Germany and of the Shelling of Leningrad, it was long proved that bombing alone (of any sort, be it conventional bombers, Atomic weapons or V-2 Rockets) served only to solidify the resolve of the population.

The exact reasons for Japan's surrender are hazy, but, most accounts do not support that the Atomic weapons were primary in Japan's surrender. Their merchant fleet was destroyed, leaving their population on the verge of starvation, their cities were leveled and their armies virtually weaponless. The use of atomic weapons, and the immediate destruction they created phaled in comarison to the destruction already experienced. The only thing it did, was to make America the first, and only nation ever to drop a weapon of mass destruction on a civilian population.

I have never agreed in the use of any weapon on hand should be used in order to defeat your enemy. Invariably, this use of Strategically bombing civilians, poison gas, rocket bombs, etc. only serves to piss off your enemy and make their resolve tougher, or resentment after the war long lasting. When the Germans used poison gas in WWI, the Allies were soon quick to follow, and war just became more hellish.

Also, there were plans to drop the bomb on Germany if they were still in the war when they were developed. HOWEVER, there are many more complications of dropping it in Europe over dropping it in Asia. Many allied nations and armies were located VERY near where they were dropping it, and had they miscalculated the actual effect this thing could have, they might cause the deaths of many of theirs and allied soldiers as well as enemy.

[Scrogdog]

True, Marlow, but the average american not only had no say in the decision, but was totally unaware of the bomb's existance (until it was used, of course). In any case, revenge still fits my scenario of 'no military reason'.

Consider this. Had the bomb not existed, those tens of thousands of American lives that were supposedly saved *would* have been expended, and not with any military neccesity with regards to Japan!

[Pak40]

I think the GI attitiude had a lot to do with how the Japanese treated allied POWs early in the war esp. with the Batan Death March. The ruthless acts by the Japanese pissed a lot of Americans off.

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

I believe that dropping the Atomic Bomb does not compare to bombing the heck out of Iraqui soldiers.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aside from the civilian/soldier issue, I see very little difference between dying from a bullet, iron bomb, or atomic bomb. Why is one weapon "morally superior" (for lack of a better phrase) than another? It is purely a reaction to the destructive power of a single atomic weapon when compared to the more pedestrian destructiveness of conventional explosives. Death in any form is ugly, but dead is dead.

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scrogdog:

Consider this. Had the bomb not existed, those tens of thousands of American lives that were supposedly saved *would* have been expended, and not with any military neccesity with regards to Japan! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry if I am being dense, but I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. If you are saying that additional lives would not have been lost due to a prolonged blockade of the home islands (completely aside from th lives lost if the invasion took place), I respectfully disagree.

[Marlow]

Well, this thing has really wandered a little off track, hasn't it.

BTW, I know that this can be a touchy subject, but my posts are not intended to offend, so please don't take any of this personally.

[Major Tom]

I am not out to offend, nor have been offended either. Just stating opinions.

One of my opinions is, that civilians should be left out of war. Wars are usually initiated by politicians. Wars are usually fought by soldiers (volunteers or conscripts, but in uniform). Women, children, and non-combattants aren't directly taking part in these wars (unless they are partisans). For over 200 years, since the Napoleonic wars to the end of WWI Civilians were not seen as a direct target to win wars. Only until WWII were civilians targetted again.

There IS a difference between these weapons and conventional weapons, as, their only realistic use is to kill civilians. Atomic weapons are virtually useless on the battlefield, so are heavy bombers (as was seen in Normandy). They are genocide weapons, little better than gas chambers.

Frankly, I would be rather upset knowing that my military was wasting lives and resources to destroy unimportant enemy resources (ie. unimportant to winning the war). Bombing Dresden did nothing to further the Allied victory, just like bombing London did nothing for Germany.

When France fell in 1940, or when Germany and Japan fell in 1945, they could very well have used poision gas in their V-2 rockets, or submarines, or on the battlefield, but, they chose not to. You CAN make the choice to use these weapons of indiscriminate and mass destruction.

What truely saddens me, is the knowledge that Britain was fully prepared to use Anthrax on German troops if they managed to land on British soil. Not only would it unleash the most deadly genetic warfare device into the environment, but, would probably have killed more Britains than Germans.

We were the 'good' guys. We shouldn't be the ones droping atomic weapons, or preparing to use genetic warfare. Those were something that the enemy did, at least in all those propaganda films. If we are no longer questioning the way can win the war, do we have the moral justification for winning it?

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates:

I forget how many died on the beaches on D Day, but I think it was under 10,000.

Dropping the bomb on Germany would cost more lives than save.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you fail to address the point.

What about Dresden?

How many Jews were exterminated between June 1944 and March 1945? How many American soldiers? How many German soldiers? How many sundry other nations soldiers? How many Soviets? How many German civilians?

Taking out Berlin would have killed around 100K. That many died at Dresden alone.

Of course, the issue of how many lives the bomb might have saved is not even relevant to the decision to use it. Regardless of how many Germans it killed, it would have saved Allied lives, and that was the sole criteria.

Your position is not supportable.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

I believe that dropping the Atomic Bomb does not compare to bombing the heck out of Iraqui soldiers.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You claim that you see no evidence that the dropping of the bomb had any effect on the Japanese surrender.

But you then remark how destroying Japans merchant fleet, nightly firebombing raids, imminent starvation, and the threat of invasion did not get Japan to surrender.

Yet, after all those things occurred, and Japan refused to surrender, they surrendered almost immediately upon the dropping of the bombs.

You can debate the moral implications all you like. That is a common, and cheap, past time for many who have little understanding of the conflict and the decisions that went into the use of the bomb.

But to contend that the bomb did not have precisely the military effect it was intended to have (forcing the unconditional surrender of Japan) is not even remotely supported by the historical facts, or even those you have elected to share with us. Indeed, the opposite is true.

Jeff Heidman

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence:

I wonder if it has anything to do with anger over the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, in addition to the cultural factors you mention. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you see the source of our little email exchange, Terence.

Americans that have a little better memory than just the past 10 years still hold a little resentment towards the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor 59 years ago.

And as a History Major as I said I am, even a 100 years is a drop in the bucket concerning the span of recorded history.

------------------

"We're not gonna just shoot the bastards`, we're gonna cut out their living guts, and use them to grease the treads of our tanks."

"We're going to murder those lousey hun bastards by the buschel."

"The Nazis are the enemy, wade into them,

spill their blood, shoot them in the belly."

"We are not holding our position, let the hun do that."

"We are advancing constantly, we are not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy."

"We're gonna hold onto him by the nose, and we're gonna kick him in the ass."

"We're gonna kick the hell out of him all the time, and we're going to go through him like crap through a goose."--George S. Patton

[Frenchy]

I see that a report on the GI in Europe has led to the implications of the use of the A-bomb on Japan.

For a thorough look at the decision to drop the bomb, read "Codename: Downfall". I believe that is the title and the authors escape me. I am still unpacking boxes of books from my move into a new home.

------------------

Webmaster

http://www.trailblazersww2.org

http://www.vmfa251.org

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

I am not out to offend, nor have been offended either. Just stating opinions.

One of my opinions is, that civilians should be left out of war.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An excellent goal. Sadly, not always achievable.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Wars are usually initiated by politicians. Wars are usually fought by soldiers (volunteers or conscripts, but in uniform). Women, children, and non-combattants aren't directly taking part in these wars (unless they are partisans). For over 200 years, since the Napoleonic wars to the end of WWI Civilians were not seen as a direct target to win wars. Only until WWII were civilians targetted again.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you ever heard of a little spat called the American Civil War?

No matter. Even if your point was true (and it isn't) that would show that out of thousands of years of human history, the vast majority of the time civilians were considered valid military targets.

I am not arguing that that should be the case, but merely that it was the case.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

There IS a difference between these weapons and conventional weapons, as, their only realistic use is to kill civilians.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not even remotely true. The vast majority (>95%) of nuclear weapons were and are aimed at purely military targets.

Dropping a 5 kiloton bomb on an armored divisions does wonders for reducing its ability to wage a war.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Atomic weapons are virtually useless on the battlefield, so are heavy bombers (as was seen in Normandy). They are genocide weapons, little better than gas chambers.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you are just trying to be inflammatory. You should get a dictionary and look up the word "genocide".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Frankly, I would be rather upset knowing that my military was wasting lives and resources to destroy unimportant enemy resources (ie. unimportant to winning the war).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yet, the war ended shortly after the use of the A-Bomb. Seems like a pretty effective strategy to me.

[Guest grunto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scrogdog:

The bomb may have been developed to end the war, but it was *used* to curtail Soviet expansion. The Soviets, after declaring war on Japan, were quickly redeploying to the East for a land grab.

Japan could have been starved in to submission quite easily. They had no navy left. Further, I don't buy what most people say about the threat of kamikazes at that point. Even if you disagree, utilizing subs and long range air for surveillance, we could have kept our fast carrier groups out of land-based air range using them to pummel anything that sortied (a moot point, since there was nothing).

There was no military reason to invade Japan, IMHO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My theory is that the use of the a-bomb was really a demonstration to the soviets that they'd better stop gobbling up manchuria.

I agree that by the summer of 1945 the Japanese would have been starved out if they'd simply been blockaded and bombed... but the Americans didn't have the time to wait for that once the russians were running rampant through manchuria.

andy

[Major Tom]

Civilians got off pretty lightly in the American Civil War. Rarely were civilians rounded up and shot. Property was targetted over people. There were bruital massacres in human history with entire cities sacked and cultures destroyed. I don't deny this. But it is not a valid moral excuse to explain warfare today.

Military targets for nuclear weapons range from Armoured Divisions to Ball bering factories. The definition of a military target has changed over time to include civilian production (which can, in the case of war, be changed to a military purpose).

If we deem it illegal for a military force to shoot civilians, then why do we deem it OK to intentionally bomb them? Why have laws in war at all?

You are definitely correct about why Germany and Japan did not use chemical weapons against the Allies. We won't ever know if England would have used anthrax or not, so, our points here are really speculative.

Did the war end because of the bomb, or, was the bomb used at the end of the war? We will never know that for 100% sure either.

So we can't say for sure that it ended the war. I accept it as another unfortunate incident of a horrible war, however, I don't believe that just because we did it to end the war, that it is morally acceptible.

I do believe that we do retain the right to question any difficult choice in history. This is what historians. If we stop questioning history, we stop questioning everything.

Genocide / the mass extermination of human beings, esp. of a particular race or nation.

Are 100 000+ deaths in one afternoon considered to be a mass extermination?

[Bozza]

Only one thing comes to my mind here and now:

"When you go home, tell them of us and say,

For your tommorrow we gave our today."

I believe it goes something like that.

[Splinty]

Two important points are being left out of this disscussion:

1. The Allied island hopping strategy of the whole Pacific War was aimed at the Invasion of Japan,if not for the Bomb we WOULD have invaded without doubt.

2. The estimated human cost of that invasion was 4,000,000 lives.

Having said that I think the Bomb as a weapon of war and of deterrence was the most dangerous and foolish thing humanity has ever devised.

------------------

Nicht Schiessen!!

[Guest AbnAirCav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marlow:

... Imperial Japan was one of the most brutal military dictatorships of modern history. E.g. Nanking(there is a story from Naking where a SS officer who was there as an advisor was sickened by what he saw), Bataan, the human medical experiments, etc…. Americans were well aware of this, and to suggest that we should have either prolonged the war, and risked additional America lives (even without the invasion, lives would have been lost), or negotiated a less than complete surrender is ignoring the reality of 1945. ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent point, along with the point on the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. It's interesting, if you ever have a chance to converse with a veteran from the Pacific side of the war, how vehement their feelings were/are about the Japanese (in my limited experience).

I feel compelled to say that some folks have some "creative" views of history, from what I see in this thread ...

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Civilians got off pretty lightly in the American Civil War. Rarely were civilians rounded up and shot. Property was targetted over people.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The people were the target. They may not have been intentionally killed, because a rifle and torch is a lot more discrimante than a B-17 at 15,000 feet, but the goal was the same. To make it impossoble for the civilians to continue the war effort.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

There were bruital massacres in human history with entire cities sacked and cultures destroyed. I don't deny this. But it is not a valid moral excuse to explain warfare today.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought we were talking about warfare 60 years ago?

That is the point. You are applying todays standards to a war that heppen almost 6 decades ago, and then having the gall to make a moral judgement on people in whose shoes you are incapable of walking.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Military targets for nuclear weapons range from Armoured Divisions to Ball bering factories. The definition of a military target has changed over time to include civilian production (which can, in the case of war, be changed to a military purpose).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SO you are conceeding that nuclear weapons are not purely used for targetting civilians. Good.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

If we deem it illegal for a military force to shoot civilians, then why do we deem it OK to intentionally bomb them? Why have laws in war at all?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not think it is ok, I just think that it is ignorant of me to apply my moral standards to a situation so far beyond my ability to appreciate at the meaningful level.

WW2 was a total war. How it became one is irrelevant. The fact is that it was. Under those circumstances, I do not find most of the actions taken to be morally indefensible. That includes the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Did the war end because of the bomb, or, was the bomb used at the end of the war? We will never know that for 100% sure either.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We know it to a level of surety as great as we know anything about history. The casual relationship is crstal clear. Prior to the bomb, the Japanese stated time and again that they were unwilling to accept unconditional surrender. The ruling council was divided along the same lines it had been divided for over a year. The Hawks wanted to continue the war in the hope that the cost of invasion was high enough that the US would agree to terms leaving them in power and Japan in control of some of her posessions. The doves wanted peace at whatever terms the US offered.

But, like you said the fire-bombings, the starvation, the abject military defeats, their total inability to protect their populace, and the slow and inevitable strangulation of their population was insufficient to move even one hawk to consider peace.

In the end, it was only the intercession of the Emperor that broke the impasse, and he did that directly based upon the dropping of the atomic bombs. That is history.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

So we can't say for sure that it ended the war. I accept it as another unfortunate incident of a horrible war, however, I don't believe that just because we did it to end the war, that it is morally acceptible.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not consider you qualified to judge men who made those decisions. Your idea of morality would have resulted in people lives being lost. When morality takes such a lofty stance that it results in the deaths of human beings, morality becomes a farce.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I do believe that we do retain the right to question any difficult choice in history. This is what historians. If we stop questioning history, we stop questioning everything.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are not questioning, you are drawing conclusions based on a narrow world view.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Genocide / the mass extermination of human beings, esp. of a particular race or nation.

Are 100 000+ deaths in one afternoon considered to be a mass extermination?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Exterminationis an effort to wipe out a certain race or racial group. The intent drives the definition, not the number.

Otherwise, how many people have to die to measure up to your "genocide" yardstick?

Jeff Heidman

[Scrogdog]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Sorry if I am being dense, but I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. If you are saying that additional lives would not have been lost due to a prolonged blockade of the home islands (completely aside from th lives lost if the invasion took place), I respectfully disagree. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for not being clear. I’m not saying that NO lives would have been lost in a blockade, but certainly this number would have been miniscule compared to full-scale invasion. Japan had no ships! Further, there was no reason to keep the fleet in range of kamikaze attack. Long-range air recon and subs would have alerted us to any sortie (there would not have been one anyway, and if there had been, it would have been easy enough to pummel them with fast carrier groups as they wandered out of LBA cover), and military targets could continue to be bombed without interference from enemy aircraft (lack of trained pilots and planes). Think about it. What would be the benefit of keeping our fleets close enough to be kamikazed (is there such a word? )? We needed fighter sweeps? Tactical bombing raids? I don’t think so.

Given that scenario, invasion was not required to end the war.

As grunto correctly (IMO) points out, the bomb was dropped not only to send a message to the Soviets, but to halt their land-grab (performed under the auspices of helping us defeat Japan – what crap).

My follow up point, then, was that lacking the bomb, those tens of thousands of US lives *would* have been expended. Not because it was necessary to defeat Japan, but because of the reasons with regards to the Soviets as stated above. We would not have been able to send the powerful message that was historically sent, but it still would have been necessary to end the war as quickly as possible.

I agree it is tough to argue the morality of this issue 50 years later. However, I must point out that with all our high sounding rhetoric regarding the ‘evil’ Soviets, they at least were willing to expend their own lives in pursuit of their goals. True, we would have as well if we did not have the bomb. But we did have it. And we used it to send a message at the expense of civilians.

[sarcasm] ...but we had to stop those bad guys, because we all know what THEY do to people! That’s why we don’t like ‘em, right? [/sarcasm]

Please.

Am I arguing that it should not have been used? No. Am I saying we ought to examine our true motivations instead of some comfy conscience-soothing rhetoric? Yes.

[This message has been edited by Scrogdog (edited 12-15-2000).]

[Major Tom]

Who is qualified? Can we not judge anyone in the past just because we haven't walked in their shoes? We feel free to judge the Japanese, and the Germans, even though they were under the same stress to make these important choices. We can't just sit back and look throughout history and accept the actions of everyone based on the fact that we weren't there or we weren't them. We deserve the right to second guess, to question, and when we don't we just blindly follow, agree and become ignorant. Asking questions and second guessing doesn't hurt, especially after 60 years.

Everything else I am flexible on, I don't think that dropping the bomb SHOULD NEVER have happened, I just don't believe that it is a morally correct choice. Do I lose sleep knowing that atomic bombs have been used and are still around? No. I just don't see any way to morally justify. They were militarily justified, but not morally.

Possibly the US, Britain and Canada never had the intent of a genocide, but, it is at least an unintended one.

[UniversalWolf]

It might be worth noting that in 1945 only a handful of people knew exactly what an atomic bomb was, or what it could do. How many had seen an atomic blast firsthand? Not Truman, certainly. They may have had its effects described to them, but can that possibly compare to the knowledge we have of nuclear weapons today, having seen pictures of mushroom clouds and having heard about the effects of fallout innumerable times in our lives? Even decades after WWII there was a lack of understanding about the long-term consequences of radiation.

Be careful not to assign omniscience through the rear-view mirror.

[Hiram Sedai]

I think I see where this thread is heading, so I must declare a hearty "Hi, Mom!".

thanks

------------------

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hiram Sedai:

I think I see where this thread is heading, so I must declare a hearty "Hi, Mom!".

thanks

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hiram, who let you out into the main board? Back to the pit with you.

Since this thing is still going, and I believe that Sir Hiram is right about le padlock of doom, just a few final thoughts:

- I seem to recall that there is still considerable discussion on whether the targets that were picked were appropriate military targets. Definitive statements that we intentionally bombed civilians are not supported.

- If a blockade was used, and ultimately successful, it would seem likely that the death toll on the Japanese population would have also been as high id not considerably higher (lack of food, fuel to power hospitals, collateral damage from non-atomic bombing, etc …). Therefore, it appears that the real issue is that some believe (consciously or not) that death by atomic bomb is somehow worse than by other means.

[Scrogdog]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Everything else I am flexible on, I don't think that dropping the bomb SHOULD NEVER have happened, I just don't believe that it is a morally correct choice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I can only hope that you have reached your conclusions with a full understanding of what a Soviet/Communist Chinese co-prosperity alliance would have meant to East Asia and the world.

Take two presidents; one a highly upstanding and moral individual, and the other a morally bereft individual. My belief is that each of these men would have made the exact same decision as was historically made. The only difference is that the morally deficient one would not have cared less, and the other would have gone to his grave regretting the decision.

The point of my posts was simply that we should realize that what we were taught in history class is not exactly the way it was IMHO.

[Major Tom]

I seem to remember that China did eventually become Communist, and did ally with Russia in 1949, even with the bomb... But, due to cultural and historical differences, they could not remain as allies.

I sort of don't understand how the use of the atomic bomb coincides with curbing the spread of Communism in South East Asia...

I am sure that most people didn't know of the effects of the bomb, I am sure most people today don't know the full effects. However, they were fully aware at the awesome potential for destruction, and knew that virtually nothing could survive its impact. They knew it was big, thats why they dropped it then demanded Japan's surrender.

You may have to do something that is the right choice for that certain event, but, that does not make it morally right. There is a difference. Do I believe that Truman is evil for proposing to drop the bomb? No, he heard of a weapon, and decided to use it. But, do I think was it morally right? No, because nothing in war is morally right, unless it is something like refusing to do something extremely morally wrong (ie. killing POW's).