RIP Col. Tibbets, pilot of the Enola Gay passes at 92

[John Galt]

Gen. Tibbets, who was at the Fayetteville Air Show several years ago, has passed away. He was the brave pilot that dropped the 1st Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima, ending WW2. Estimates have been made that he saved over 1 million lives by ending the war, including hundreds of thousands of American soldiers- including the parents and grandparents of many Fayetteville area people.

It was unfortunate that many Hiroshima residents died because of the unprovoked tyranny their Gov't spread.

Rest in peace Gen. Tibbets, we salute your courage. Thanks for ending that terrible war that America did not start, but spent over 164,000 lives and billions of dollars so that tyranny could be defeated and the world would have yet another chance at peace.
God Bless Gen. Tibbets and the United States of America.

[Doug]

He was the brave pilot that dropped the 1st Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima, ending WW2. Estimates have been made that he saved over 1 million lives by ending the war, including hundreds of thousands of American soldiers- including the parents and grandparents of many Fayetteville area people.

He has so many detractors that he insisted on not having a funeral or a gravesite so protesters wouldn't have a place to go protest against him.

The claim that the bomb saved lives is a very dubious claim, historians tell me. A growing number of historians now don't buy it.

[John Galt]

Hey Kung fu Doug- please THINK for a change. (what a concept) It's pretty clear that invading Japan would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives- look what a few Japs at Iwo Jima were able to do to our brave Marines.

Gen Tibbets probably didn't want a bunch of "Non-Thinkers" at his grave site like you. The fact that he did not want head stone is a sad statement regarding the non- thinkers on this board.

WW2 was awful. Thank goodness for Gen Tibbets and America.

[Tony]

See Doug and Dar, here is where utilitarianism gets you every time.
The speculations on how many would have died in a full blown invasion are merely speculations. Many in Japan were beat and they knew it, hence the relatively peaceful occupation. Many were willing to die as fanatically as they did at Okinawa and Iwo Jima. How many would have died fighting an invasion, who knows.
Here's a non-utilitarian concept: One should not nuke civilain populations. Sounds like a moral precept I can stand by, to hell with all those body count utilitarian speculations.
Quick note, the deliberate firebombing of Tokyo killed more civilians then either of the two A bombs. Can't remember if the firebombing of Dresden was worse or not. But whats a few tens of thousands of dead civilians either way to us non-utilitarians.

Just a friendly elbow nudge to two of my favorite utilitarian friends.
Who is this Galt guy anyways? Have I met you?
Tred

[Savonarola]

See Doug and Dar, here is where utilitarianism gets you every time.

Not that I'm arguing with your sentiment, but somewhere there's a quote from Japan's leadership that said -- essentially -- that they would not stop sending Japanese soldiers to their deaths. Perhaps you -- claiming to be a historian (which I am not) -- know what I'm talking about without my having to find it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that (1) if they were posturing, then they asked for it, and (2) if they weren't posturing, then they asked for it. (However, please don't interpret this as saying that there was absolutely no alternative; that's probably another discussion.)

[Doug]

Hey Kung fu Doug- please THINK for a change. (what a concept) It's pretty clear that invading Japan would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives- look what a few Japs at Iwo Jima were able to do to our brave Marines.

Yes, our brave marines, compared to the cowardly "Japs," eh? A few "Japs" at Iwo Jima against many Marines, but we were courageous and they were the cowards. Right.

140,000 people died in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki as a direct result of the bombs. Thousands more died later from the radiation.

See here for an article disputing the "fewer casualties" argument as the reason Truman dropped the bomb.

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman's main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was "looking for peace". Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

"Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan," says Selden. (Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York) Truman was also worried that he would be accused of wasting money on the Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bombs, if the bomb was not used, he adds.

Gen Tibbets probably didn't want a bunch of "Non-Thinkers" at his grave site like you. The fact that he did not want head stone is a sad statement regarding the non- thinkers on this board.

And you think that people on this board would do what the protestors would have intended to do? I don't see any reason to believe that.

WW2 was awful. Thank goodness for Gen Tibbets and America.

No one disputes that WW2 was awful, but nationalism and extreme patriotism were largely responsible for Hitler's rise to power and the advent of WW2.

The true patriot who lives his or her country is one who thinks critically about the government. Blind worship of the government is not love of country but love of ignorance.

[Tony]

Doug and Sav,
You are both correct to an extent. But the reality is quite a bit more complex than anyone usually likes to admit, especially outside academia.
From the beginning the assumption within the military and the US govt. was that the bombs would be used. The only reason the US embarked on such a hugely costly endeavor is because Britain and the US were terrified that the Germans would get one first. This fear turned out to be very exaggerated: Hitler did not put a lot of resources into developing the bomb because he expected a short war. His reasoning, almost surely correct, was that Germany could not win a long conflict, and the resources should be put into a quick victory. Yet, the Allies did not become aware of this until much later.
Going into 1945, the assumption was that the Japanese would have to be invaded. Experience at Okinawa and Iwo Jima showed that the Japanese could and would fight fanatically against overwhelming odds. Everybody knew the outcome of the war, Japan was beaten, all that was left was how to finish it.
Recall, the Allies originally demanded unconditional surrender, in part to assure that no new Hitler could come along later like after WW1 and claim that they had not really lost the war. However, this perception began to change as 1945 went along.
As the US was planning for the massive invasion of Japan, Operations Olympic and Zipper, there were signalls of a change coming from Japan. Through intercepted messages and the Soviets, the U.S. learned that there was debate going on within the Japanese govt about ending the war. This was new, prior to that, there was no signal that Japan would stop fighting short of total defeat. By the time of the Potsdam conference the Allies held, many in the US government thought that Japan could be induced to surrender short of an invasion. The hope was, that the bomb, AND the Soviets coming into the war against them as well, would convince them to surrender. Knowing that the Soviets were spying on the Manhatten project, but not to what extent, AND wanting to ensure that the Soviets understood full well the power of the new weapon, Truman told Stalin at Potsdam about the bomb (he already knew).
Around this time, nobody was even sure how powerful the bomb would be. When it was tested, it turned out to be much more powerful than predicted. The military gave the green light, Truman told Stalin about it, and the US gave Japan one more chance....issuing a demand for surrender and then waiting a few days.
The Japanese, not yet decided between those who wanted to fight to the end, and those who wanted to end the war, refused the poclamation. Thus, the bomb was dropped, and the Soviets invaded Manchuria. Now it was hopeless. The Japanese, it appears, were hoping to use the Soviets to negotiate a peace short of the terms the Americans were demanding. Instead, that hope was killed when the Soviets agreed to come into the war.
It was a combination of the bomb and the Soviets that finally got Japan to surrender. For a LONG time, US pols knew that the bomb would play a big role in the postwar world, and DID want the Soviets to understand the power of the new weapon. But this always was a secondary concern. Ending the war was the primary concern.
In hindsight, we can see, that the planned invasion was not likely.....but most in the Administration had already come to that conclusion. BUT, they did not know who or when the peace advocates in the Japanese govt would win out. The plan by summer or so of 1945 was that bombing, conventional or with the few A bombs we could then produce, and the Soviets, would be enough to end it eventually. But again, the bomb was just seen as a quicker, cheaper means of doing what we had been doing all along: Killing a LOT of Japanese by bombing their cities.
Its a bit more complex than is often discussed publicly, but two things are relevant here:
Most thought the invasion was not going to be needed, but the planning continued just in case. It was a massive affair, reguiring a lot of preparation. All evidence is that they would have gone through with an invasion even though by this time that was plan B. Most everyone assumed that if they could not stop the war short of an invasion, once began, the Japnese would fight ferociously with high casualties. Hence, they wanted to do everything possible short of invasion to end the war. It's only in hindsight that we can say with much certainty that Japan was so close to surrendering. It could have gone either way. There was a coup attempt around this time by hardliners, but there is not much evidence about what exactly transpired.
Demonstrating our power to the Soviets was always a goal, thats part of the reason Truman told Stalin about it, but the evidence leans very heavily toward ending the war quickly as the primary objective.

Tred

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Asian cultures apparently have an "on-off" switch where war is concerned. Prior to WWII the Japanese love of painting and poetry - and poor eyesight - convinced most Americans that "a few regiments of Marines" would be all it would take. Once the war started, that stereotype was replaced with the monster that wouldn't die one. The Japanese undoubtedly would have fought considerably harder than they did at Iwo Jima to defend the home island. When you consider what Churchill had been training the Brits to do under the same circumstances five years earlier... I've heard - this is a 3rd hand, guy I knew talked to a Japanese ambassador who said the A-bomb saved a whole lot of Japanese lives, because it wasn't something they could fight - like American soldiers coming ashore - so when the Empirer told them to surrender, they just found the nearest American soldier, handed over their weapon, bowed, and went home. The Ambassador reportedly said if we'd invaded the main island, we'd have had to have killed Japanese all the way down to babes in arms to have won.

As to the man who flew the plan - I hope he is resting in peace, if there is a peace to rest in, but he was just following orders, like every other pilot who flew bombers, inlcuding my daddy. He knew he had something special, but otherwise, it was just a bombing run.

[Doug]

I've heard - this is a 3rd hand, guy I knew talked to a Japanese ambassador who said the A-bomb saved a whole lot of Japanese lives, because it wasn't something they could fight - like American soldiers coming ashore - so when the Empirer told them to surrender, they just found the nearest American soldier, handed over their weapon, bowed, and went home. The Ambassador reportedly said if we'd invaded the main island, we'd have had to have killed Japanese all the way down to babes in arms to have won.

DOUG
The emperor told his people to surrender and they did. No "insurgents," no protests. No ugly occupation of Japan.

So if the emperor had told them to surrender when we had invaded the island with ground troops. we would not have had to "kill Japanese all the way down to babes in arms." Whether the emperor would have told them that will never be known for sure, but the U.S. should have entertained that possibility more strongly.

If generals were telling Truman that the bomb was not militarily necessary, I think that is a huge strike against the prevailing view that dropping the bomb saved lives.

[Dardedar]

See Doug and Dar, here is where utilitarianism gets you every time.
The speculations on how many would have died in a full blown invasion are merely speculations.

DAR
That's right. And your attempt to squeeze something about utilitarianism out of this is based upon my accepting John Galt's speculation that using the bomb was necessary and the most life saving choice. I don't find that claim persuasive at all but we will never know. Because we can never know, I don't see how this has anything to say about utilitarianism and the idea that we should make decisions that are most likely to lessen harm.

D.

[Tony]

Doug wrote

If generals were telling Truman that the bomb was not militarily necessary, I think that is a huge strike against the prevailing view that dropping the bomb saved lives.

But that's not really what was going on. There was very little dissent within the Administration on dropping the bomb. One fairly obscure advisor, if I recall correctly. Everyone else was for it in varying degrees. Everyone knew the war would end eventually, it was a question for them, of nudging the Japanese that way when we learned there was debate on it.

The bomb was seen as the more desired alternative to an invasion which would have been costly, even if it went well. That million casualty figure that gets thrown around is not solid, its speculation. Truman years later threw out the 500,000 US casualty figure, but really, the military analysis was 150,000 or so. That's American casualties mind you, we were after all trying to kill as many Japanese as possible at the time, and not to worried about thier casualties.

But the point is: People like to throw around numbers. Usually ones not based on any documented thinking at the time. All this is speculative, nobody can tell which way things were going to go. There was a coup attempt at the end by the hardliners wanting to prolong the war. They could have succeeded. The invasion might have been seen as necessary. But by the time of Potsdam, most thought the bombings and the Russian entry would make the invasion unnecessary.

Regarding my nudge to Doug and Darrel on utilitarianism: They were acting wholly on utilitarian principles. One A bomb, in one B29 was very cheap compared to our 500 bomber airraids that were killing on roughly the same level, but with more cost to American lives. Despite the complexity of the issue, it did come down to a basic utilitarian choice by Truman over a principle. This is ironic, since that principle to which I refer is the pledge that FDR made early in the war that the US would not initiate chemical or biological warfare.

Cost benefit analysis won out.

Tony

[Doug]

Doug wrote

If generals were telling Truman that the bomb was not militarily necessary, I think that is a huge strike against the prevailing view that dropping the bomb saved lives.

But that's not really what was going on. There was very little dissent within the Administration on dropping the bomb. One fairly obscure advisor, if I recall correctly. Everyone else was for it in varying degrees.

General Douglas MacArthur was adamant that the ground invasion should proceed as he had planned. That's no lightweight!

[Tony]

Doug wrote:

General Douglas MacArthur was adamant that the ground invasion should proceed as he had planned. That's no lightweight!

Oh yeah, Dug out Dougie was always a super hawk. Remember he wanted to nuke China too during the Korean war. There were others like him that wanted the invasion to go ahead. But the consensus was that it could, they hoped, be avoided by Russia coming in and continued bombing both with the bomb and firebombing. It's just there were not many saying that both the invasion AND the nukes were not necessary.

Tred

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

MacArthur was well know for his visits to the aftermath of "glorius battles" his troops paid for. Not surprising he wanted a "glorius" taking of Japan.

Doug, the Emperor was not likely to tell his people to surrender to an invasion. Invasion is where leaders rally the populace and encourage house-to-house defense. Think, not only of what Churchill was training his "home guards" for, but what Stalin's people actually did in Leningrad.

As far as I've read, the only folks who had any doubts at all about using the bomb were some of the scientists who worked on it - and they didn't get vocal about it until after the war, when we saw what it actually did.

Tony, I am not at all in favor of nukes, but considering the time - and that the weapon was totally new - I don't think it could be classed under chemical or biological warfare. (The depleted uranium we are using today is a different story - we KNOW what this stuff does now, and have no excuse.) Still you are correct - 1 bomb and 1 bomber (and crew, and whatever fighter protection they had) v. nightly 500 bomber raids combined with boots on the ground invasion - cost benefit (in American lives and material) won out.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

I just finished reading about the last surface sea battle (Battle of Leyte Gulf, in WWII, but there hasn't been one since, so it really has been the last) - "Sea of Thunder" by Evan Thomas. Thomas tracks four of the main commanders, 2 American and 2 Japanese. One note in there was that as of Spring 1945 Japan declared every adult, male and female, starting at 14, to be a member of the militia. By Summer, 1945 the Allies basically said, "the entire country of Japan is a military target". As usual, leaders tend to forget about children (and I'd call 14-year-olds children - but they were being taught to kill) - still, it does put a slightly different complexion on the "bomb or not bomb" argument.