Paul Tibbetts- pilot of the Enola Gay R.I.P. Nov.2,2007

[Faber]

Funny, when my friend in the Air Force told me that joke, it sounded different.

[KBCraig]

The Sailor looked at the tower, and then back at the Admiral. "Screw you, sir." He said.

And thus ended Pat K's military career.

[Pat K]

The Sailor looked at the tower, and then back at the Admiral. "Screw you, sir." He said.

And thus ended Pat K's military career.

Actualy I never told any one above the rank of
Commander that.

Also instead of career you could use the word survival
to describe my time in the Navy.

[Fragilityh14]

The promise Japan wanted in order to surrender was that the United States would not execute their emperor. Not too much to ask.

But we had to scare the damn Soviets! Let's end a war by starting another.



in all fairness though, firebombing Japanese cities killed more people than dropping the atomic bombs, and Robert McNamara stated that him and the other people who sat around a table calculating how to kill the most people for the lowest cost would have been tried for and found guilty of war crimes if the Japanese would have won the war.

[Faber]

The promise Japan wanted in order to surrender was that the United States would not execute their emperor. Not too much to ask.

Not quite . . . .  Before the bombing of Hiroshima, there were four conditions for surrender made by the Japanese government, including that Japan not be occupied and Japanese soldiers and leaders not be subject to war crimes tribunals.  After the bombing of Hiroshima, there was only one (that the Imperial system of rule be maintained).  Then the U.S. bombed Nagasaki, and the Emperor accepted unconditional surrender, whereupon the U.S. allowed the Emperor to remain in power.

I think I stated something different before; I apologize for the error.

But we had to scare the damn Soviets! Let's end a war by starting another.

The Cold War was going to happen, a fact fairly obvious from what happened in the European theater of war and what the Soviets were doing with regards to foreign policy toward Japan.  The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't start the Cold War, though they do provide a convenient point in history for pop historians and high school textbooks to call the start of the Cold War.

in all fairness though, firebombing Japanese cities killed more people than dropping the atomic bombs, and Robert McNamara stated that him and the other people who sat around a table calculating how to kill the most people for the lowest cost would have been tried for and found guilty of war crimes if the Japanese would have won the war.

Now THAT is a telling statement.  Of course, the winners never face war crimes tribunals.  There's something seriously twisted with our moral compasses if we accept that.

[Rocketman]

As for Tibbets, he was just the guy-on-the-ground. The moral responsibility falls with Truman and the higher-ups.

Does following orders take away the blame?  I would suggest that it probably makes the crime more forgivable (indoctrination and propaganda being powerful forces), but I wouldn't be so quick to absolve him of moral responsibility.

[Riddler]

Typical revisionist clap-trap propaganda perpetuated by the 'blame-Big-Bad-America' dickless wonders.....

Japan's Surrender -- Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question : What about negotiations with Russia?
Answer : As far as I can tell this is a myth.
    This note was prompted by a reader question:
"Your account of events leading up to the surrender appears fairly complete. But why did you leave out the attempt by the Japanese government to negotiate a surrender via their open diplomatic channels to the Soviets prior to the dropping of America's atomic bombs?
"Given that the civilian government knew that they had no way of continuing the war except as an act of national suicide, isn't this central to the U.S. military justification for dropping the bombs and opening the nuclear age?"

    Best I can tell, the much-discussed Russian negotiations are a myth. There were always informal lower level conversations, but the Russian foreign minister refused to meet with the Japanese ambassador. We can imagine why some would confuse and exaggerate the facts after the war.
    Russia had secretly agreed at Yalta to enter the war and attack Japan within 90 days of VJ Day. They could make no promises of help and they could not announce their war plans, so they just shut off high level discussions and never held negotiations.
    Japan's European and Soviet Ambassadors had a more realistic understanding, but the high command in Japan had dreams. See my daily chronology 45Jun-45Jul-45Aug for the progress in Japan's delusional thinking from trying to recruit Russia to help them with supplies, up to their to failure to understand the Soviet refusal to meet before the Potsdam Conference. Japan wanted Russia to take terms to Potsdam, but the Russian scheduled a meeting for after they had left for the conference. No negotiations. The terms were ridiculous, they wanted to keep their captured territories. Over the following weeks, the cabinet reduced their absolute demands until they got down to four and the emperor canceled three of these -- and surrendered with the US getting around the emperor issue by requiring the Japanese government report to the Allied supreme commander, MacArthur.
Surrender Chronology
    This is taken from our daily chronology pages -- more of specific Russian interface may be added later.
May 8 . VE Day.
May 18. Japanese ambassadors in Europe warn of transfer of troops and material to the Pacific is underway.
June 6 . Japanese government begins 3-day conference with Emperor to discuss the war.
June 8 .Imperial Conference with Emperor : "the nation will fight to the bitter end."
June 9 . Keeper of Privy Seal, Kido, begins search for "peace with honor" within civil government.
June 24. Japan asks Soviets to extend Neutrality Pact.
June 29. Japan offers Soviets fishing concessions for oil.
July 12. Japanese inquire of Russia about terms. Not forwarded.
July 17. Potsdam Conference begins.
July 21. Allies radio Japan : "Surrender or be destroyed."
July 22. First troops from Europe arrive Philippines. Spies, no doubt, report this.
July 26. Potsdam Ultimatum to Japan : surrender unconditionally or face 'utter destruction.'
July 27. Japanese cites "bombed" with leaflets telling to surrender or be destroyed.
July 28. Japan rejects Potsdam Declaration by silence.
Aug 2 . Potsdam conference ends.
Aug 6 . Hiroshima -- one plane destroys a target.1
Aug 8 . Japanese Supreme Council demands : 1. keep Imperial family , 2. disarm own troops , 3. no war crimes , 4. limited occupation of Japan.   USSR invades Manchuria [per Yalta agreement]; declares war on Japan.
Aug 9 . Nagasaki A-bombed.2
Aug 10. Emperor concludes to Cabinet the time had come to "bear the unbearable".
August 11-12. Radio and diplomatic notes seeking terms.
Aug 13. Allied firm response.   General Ohnishi plea made to commit twenty million lives (kamikaze) to victory.
Aug 14. Japan accepts the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration and starts diplomatic process to surrender.   Coup attempt within Japanese government put down.
15Aug. (Aug 14 in U.S.3)   Emperor speaks to the nation: "... the enemy has recently made use of an inhuman bomb4 ..." Second strike of morning is canceled while en route; pilots jettison their ordnance and return to carriers. Four former enemy were shot down as background while Halsey read his "the war is ended" speech to the fleet. Three more attacking bombers were downed later in the day.5
------
1 . The point is one airplane destroyed the target -- the explosive equivalent of 2,000 B-29s.
    This replaces about four 500-plane raids or two week's of activity.
2 . This completed the use the two prototype bombs, one of uranium and one of plutonium. The design standardized on plutonium and the first production bomb would arrive in 6-weeks, target Tokyo, and one-a-week thereafter.
3 . Time is different around the world and authorities may cite it from their perspective. Therefore, any date concerning WW2 is plus or minus one day and a few hours.
4 . Let the reader judge if "the bomb" ended the war. Also start of the myth of atomic weapons as different than any other new instrument of war.
5 . Continued resistance is cited to show opposition to surrender.

Additional Notes:
    The Soviet Union had no incentive to negotiations with Japan. The Soviets had just defeated German with a war machine at it height in power. Her industry was being augmented by advanced repatriations from Germany. They had agreements with the Allies from Yalta for positions of influence in Manchuria, Korea, and Kurils. Japan had withdrawn her best troops to Japan and these areas could be taken easily.
    Japan considered that she had large tracts of conquered land with which to bargain. Yet, this land could not be defended, there is little incentive to grant any terms when the whole empire was about to fall. In fact, the US blockade of Japan was so tight, the home islands could be turned into a starvation center, as was happening on the many of the islands bypassed by Allied forces and allowed to wither -- Rabaul, Wake, and other islands. But the US wanted the war over with, preferably before August 5 when the Soviets were to enter the war.
   The U.S. government knew the thinking of the Japanese Cabinet because almost every message sent to and from ambassadors was intercepted and decoded. The U.S. knew that Japan was in her final throws and also that the miliary was adamant about continuing the fight for national identity. There was nothing to negotiate diplomatically except unconditional surrender.
    On the military front, the Japanese strategy at both Iwo Jima and Okinawa was to make American losses so great that the US would gladly allow Japan to keep her conquests, rather than suffer similar or even greater loses to invade the home islands. On the American side, the military power was increasing every day and the influx of redeployed power from European war had not yet begun. The build up of equipment with which to shatter Japanese defenses is almost unimaginable. For example, 1,000 P-51 Mustangs were noted assembled in the Marianas waiting for pilots from the European theater to arrive and move them to Japan. The B-29 destruction of Japan was increasing by over 100 effective bombers each month, when all major cities had already been destroyed and the same targets were being repeated. Atomic bombs were scheduled to arrive one each week, but few knew this.
    Conversely, a General was disappointed to be assigned to the second wave for the invasion of Kyushu; then he noted his objectives were identical to that of the first wave -- the first wave was expected to be wiped out. Japan had half a million soldiers on Kyushu and the U.S, would receive an equal number of casualties if the example of Okinawa was continued, but only 1 in 5 to die, whereas virtually all the Japanese would die, plus civilians. Twelve million Americans were in uniform and wanted to see Japan totally defeated and U.S. industry was supplying materials with which to move the odds even more in their favor. Japan was defeated and had been for months, the only thing left was to hurry it along, to minimize the American death toll and go home. One hundred aircraft carriers would support the invasion of Japan, when once, the US had only three at the attack on Pearl Harbor. The end of the war was being addressed with military technology, not by talk.
Reference:
"Japan's Decision to Surrender" by Robert J.C. Butow.  Stanford University Press, 1954.
"Last Great Victory:July/August 1945" by Stanley Weintraub, 1995.
"The Official Chronology of the U.S. Navy in World War II', by Robert J. Cressman, Naval Historical Center, rev 1999.

[Riddler]

And there's more:

The war in the Pacific had been raging for almost four years. The two battles immediately preceeding the bomb decision were Iwo Jima and Okinawa, two battles where the Japanese fought to the death and the cost in American casualties was horrific. It was predicted that the invasion of the Japanese mainland at the Island of Kyushu -- scheduled for November of 1945 -- would be even worse. The entire Japanese military and civilian population would fight to the death. American casualties -- just for that initial invasion to get a foothold on the island of Japan would have taken up to an estimated two months and would have resulted in up to 75,000 to 100,000 casualties -- up to 20,000 dead! And that was just the beginning. Once the island of Kyushu was captured by U.S. troops, the remainder of Japan would follow. You can just imagine the cost in injuries and lives this would take.

Estimated US casualties for Operation OLYMPIC & CORONET were 250,000 along with 1,000,000 Japanese civilian casualties. In the parlance of the young, "this is a no-brainer."

It is not beyond the possibility that a million or more Americans could have been killed had we landed. The Japanese had correctly guessed where we intended to land, and were ready and waiting for us. The casualties would have been high. One American tanker walked around the area he was to have assaulted had we landed. According to him most of the "roads" marked on his map were not roads, but simply foot paths. He felt that tanks would have played a very small part in the fighting. It would have been more fighting against caves, and suicide attacks.

The bomb was dropped with a desire to SAVE LIVES. It is a matter of math. How many Americans lost their lives fighting how many Japanese at Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa. The mathematical formula showed the closer we got to Japan the more we lost. Next, one must calculate how many Japanese military people were still in Japan. Add to that figure the fact that women were being trained to fight. Before you say the women would not fight please remember that many women on Okinawa committed suicide fearing all the stories they were told about what the Americans would do to them if they surrendered.

Perhaps your grandfathers were among the 18-26 year old American GI's who had managed to survive the war in Europe. If so, on August 6, 1945, they were with approximately a million other boys on the way to the Pacific. At least 50-80% of them were expected to die in the invasion of the Japanese home islands. Since most of these young men were not yet married, your grandfathers had not yet married your grandmothers, so if they did not come back, then your parents would never be born and therefore you would not be here to second-guess historical decisions.

People can argue all they want about what the true U.S. government estimates of U.S. casualties in an invasion of Japan were. Doesn't matter. I can guarantee you that 99.9% of the soldiers, sailors and airmen involved in the actual combat, or training for the upcoming invasion were convinced that the invasion of Japan would be a bloodbath. I have never heard or read of any American military person who was involved in the late stages of fighting in the war with Japan who was not glad that the atomic bombs were dropped to end the war.


Japanese civilians died


Yes, war is war, and death in war is redundant, you must realize, that death in war is only legal if it is military death and not civilian death, unless the civilians pick up arms and fight back (then in that case they would be considered combatants).

To say that the U.S. was justified in dropping the bombs, one would have to believe the maxim "the end justifies the means."

Bombs in general should seldom be used especially those of this magnitude.


Fewer Japanese civilians died


The largest number of people killed in a single B-29 raid was not at Hiroshima, but at Tokyo, with conventional firebombs. Some 80,000-100,00 people killed. The problem was that even with the savage firebombing, the pathetic idiot military elite that was in charge of Japan DIDN'T CARE! They didn't care how much suffering their people had to endure. Surrender was NOT going to happen! Real men, real samurai NEVER SURRENDER! The voices of reason calling for surrender, for beginning negotiations with America were shouted down. Thus, more than anything else, the atomic bomb gave Emperor Hirohito the "face-saving" boost that he needed to tell these idiots that the time had come for Japan to surrender. It was one thing to surrender in the face of battle against an enemy with conventional bombs and weapons. It was another thing to face the seemingly supernatural force of atomic weapons. No matter that the atomic bombs actually killed fewer Japanese per city and were thus LESS EFFECTIVE than conventional firebombs. No, atomic weapons were a supernatural force that the Americans now controlled and so this was a good reason to stop fighting finally.

When you compare with simple math, the dropping of the bombs took less lives than if we had tried to invade Japan. That's true for Japanese lives as well as American lives. Japanese lives were saved as a direct result of those bombs.

The Japanese casualties (not including mass suicides as seen on Okinawa) were expected to be 5 to 10 times that of the Allies in an invasion. As many as 20 million Japanese men, women and children might have died in a bloody invasion. Saving lives in a worthy goal. Sadly some had to die that others might live.

While the atomic bombs, just as ANY bombs, were an unpleasant way to die, in the long run it saved lives and brought WW 2 to an end. Six long and costly years of world-wide death and destruction came to an end, thanks to the courageous decision made by President Truman.

How many Japanese would have died as we invaded the islands of Japan? Every city could have been leveled, every rice paddy, all utilities, sewers, etc. What bullets and bombs didn't kill the diseases that followed would finish. Certainly that figure would have exceeded those that died BY FAR all those that died from the two bombs dropped.

After having fought through Iwo Jima, Saipan, Guam, and Okinawa, there was no doubt that the Japanese people and their leaders would fight until the last man, woman, and child. If the Emperor had not instructed his subjects to stop fighting after Nagasaki they were prepared to resist tanks and artillery with sticks and stones until the last man, woman, and child perished.

An invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been a blood-bath for both sides. One could ask if cutting off the arm of a man is just. If that arm has gangrene and will kill the man slowly if not amputated, then it is indeed just. It does not matter that the arm is "innocent."

You can ignore the facts and continue to be part of the hand-wringing, bed-wetting, ultra-liberal ,apologistic whiners that make up the camp of revisionistic historians...or be thankful that men like Paul Tibbetts were there "on the ground" , to do the shit-work that needed to be done.

[brandon dean]

Would you salute the Japanese kamikazes for their bravery at Pearl Harbor?

no jackass, they were the agressor...they instigated the war.

hmmm... so the US sanctions against japan weren't aggressive at all?  what about the blockade of the phillipines?  that's not agressive, right?
what about roosevelt freezing japanese-american bank accounts?  that's not aggresive, right?

I don't hear anyone blaming "big bad america."  everyone inside "big bad america" are individuals, subject to their own triumphs and defeats.  each person decides every moment of every day whether to act honorably or not.  a group of people with military or political careers who make decisions (like tricking the japanese into attacking pearl harbor in the first place to trick the american people into joining WWII) do NOT represent me or the united states.  they represent themselves, and their actions do the representing.  they were not acting in the name of the united states.
roosevelt was nothing but a communist thief.  he represented big money which profits from financing both sides of major or minor wars. 
the japanese were most certainly aggressive, but I'm afraid in this case they were acting in self-defense.  their only other choice BESIDES attacking the US to gain back access to their much-needed natural resources in the phillipines and other places was to sink back into medieval squalor with no oil, no gas, no rubber, etc.  obviously they decided they needed to stay up with the times. 
from the perspective of the US, all WWII accomplished was to turn our people into debt slaves.  supposedly the economy thrived after WWII, but how is an economy thriving when it's all based on debt?  I don't think many people realize that when all you are producing goes to destruction (ie war production), you don't have a circular economy.  everything you make is being blown up or is blowing other things up, so it's not contributing back to the economy.  the only way to keep war production up is to borrow money.  the bankers loaned the US money so roosevelt could print over 200 billion dollars in fake currency as a loan to be paid back to the federal reserve with interest.  but that 200 billion didn't just disappear into the post-war "healthy" economy.  it devalued the rest of the currency while raking in the interest on the original loan.  an added plus was the income tax.  people seem to know when the IRS was formed, but it wasn't until WWII when the income tax was implemented for ordinary people to fund "the war effort." of course the income tax didn't fund the war effort at all. it funded the federal reserve and those who own it.
WWII was a business deal that went exactly according to plan, just like WWI.  prescott bush, grandfather of dubya, was on the board of directors of a company who was found GUILTY of treason under the Trading with the enemy Act for FUNDING HITLER for years.  for years!  and this was during the war, not before.  prescott bush founded the USO to gain back his good public name, but he was a nazi through and through.
the following is a direct quote from douglas macarthur (commander, pacific fleet during WWII):

"I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within."
---Douglas MacArthur

doesn't sound like he was too worried about germany, japan, russia, china or anyone else.  sounds like he was worried about the bankers to me...

"we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match."
---john f kennedy


it goes much deeper than the history books tell it. 

[Riddler]

Would you salute the Japanese kamikazes for their bravery at Pearl Harbor?

hmmm... so the US sanctions against japan weren't aggressive at all?  what about the blockade of the phillipines?  that's not agressive, right?
what about roosevelt freezing japanese-american bank accounts?  that's not aggresive, right?

....................(like tricking the japanese into attacking pearl harbor in the first place ........
the japanese were most certainly aggressive, but I'm afraid in this case they were acting in self-defense.  their only other choice BESIDES attacking the US to gain back access to their much-needed natural resources in the phillipines and other places was to sink back into medieval squalor with no oil, no gas, no rubber, etc.  obviously they decided they needed to stay up with the times. 






Oh, stop it already.....

The japs had overrun manchuria in '31, and china in '37....long before the embargo by the U.S.
Japan had grand designs, it's 'manifest destiny', to drive out all western colonial powers & dominate asia & the pacific.
it needed resources from other countries, taken by naked aggression, to feed it's war machine....so stop it w/ 'the poor japanese', like they were only trying to feed their hungry children, BS excuses

[brandon dean]

Would you salute the Japanese kamikazes for their bravery at Pearl Harbor?

hmmm... so the US sanctions against japan weren't aggressive at all?  what about the blockade of the phillipines?  that's not agressive, right?
what about roosevelt freezing japanese-american bank accounts?  that's not aggresive, right?

....................(like tricking the japanese into attacking pearl harbor in the first place ........
the japanese were most certainly aggressive, but I'm afraid in this case they were acting in self-defense.  their only other choice BESIDES attacking the US to gain back access to their much-needed natural resources in the phillipines and other places was to sink back into medieval squalor with no oil, no gas, no rubber, etc.  obviously they decided they needed to stay up with the times.






Oh, stop it already.....

The japs had overrun manchuria in '31, and china in '37....long before the embargo by the U.S.
Japan had grand designs, it's 'manifest destiny', to drive out all western colonial powers & dominate asia & the pacific.
it needed resources from other countries, taken by naked aggression, to feed it's war machine....so stop it w/ 'the poor japanese', like they were only trying to feed their hungry children, BS excuses

interesting... so it's ok for "us" to plunder the world's resources by taking over all the possessions of imperial japan after the war, by word, law, or action?  but when anyone else does this, you are just as quick to jump to the defense of stupid or genocidal decisions made by american INDIVIDUALS in the military and government.
how do you get the whole me "defending the poor helpless japs" from what I said?  did I say they were innocent?  were there any acts of aggressions by the japs towards the US before we started these embargoes and such?  yes they invaded china and the phillipines and elsewhere, they were no angels, and I never implied they were.  excuse me for just looking at reality, not from a US or Japanese perspective.
yes, I am inherently against US aggression and meddling in the affairs of other countries.  any person with aspirations for an empire is evil in my opinion, and that includes all american apologists who don't understand that we have troops permanently stationed in permanent bases in over 60 countries around the world, and believe we are the police of the world.  the politics were so much more complicated than japan OR germany just trying to take over.  there was money behind both countries, and there was money behind our country.  and the money is what it took to convince the US to finally enter the war. 
that is, they convinced their shills in government to convince the japanese to attack pearl so they could loan out millions to make billions.
that is the sobering reality behind WWII.  you can get as emotional or not as you like, it doesn't change the fact that money powers influenced the crown of japan and the crown of england and all the others, and that money powers had the interests of neither of those countries or any other in mind.
and what the japanese did to china was nothing compared to what the chinese did to china afterward, with the full financial support of the CIA.  and sorry, I don't view the CIA as american, so I'm not taking a potshot at america by saying that.  it's been officially admitted through the freedom of information act.

[PattyLee loves dogs]

Third, the US sanctions did not affect, for example, oil, steel, rubber, etc. from Dutch and French colonies,

Actually I think the US did manage to finagle a deal to cut off the Japanese from the Indonesian oil.

To bring up another kettle of worms, you could make the case that blockades and sanctions are actually worse than direct fighting... they have the maximum effect on the least powerful (it isn't the Party and Army that were affected in Cuba, Iraq, etc.)

Clearly the Imperial Japanese were a toxic regime... but one has to suspect that a society whose defense was run by insurance companies or godords would have taken out Tojo with ninja, not killed millions of civilians and draftees.

[PattyLee loves dogs]

There were no "fast battleships" at Pearl Harbor simply because that was a new type of ship, most of which had not been built or even laid down yet, and the few delivered by that time were still working up and not yet in regular service.

Hey, you're right... there were just the two North Carolina class. I had the South Dakota class chronology wrong. (The absence of the carriers is still interesting, though of course it would have made no difference except to lengthen the war).

[David]

Just 'doing my job' was the excuse the germans gave for their atrocities, yet they were convicted of crimes against humanity for actions that were legal in germany.  The jihadis are called terrorists for killing innocents.  Sept. 11 was so tragic because it was a completely nonmilitary target.  The usa got into world war one because the germans sunk a cruise liner that was said to not be militarily connected, (it was actually being used to smuggle weapons) and thus an attack on innocents. 
Paul Tibbets was undoubtably told he was flying a very powerful bomb, so he knew he would be dropping a bomb that would with certain kill noncombatant men, women and children.  For that he is a war criminal. 

[Riddler]

Just 'doing my job' was the excuse the germans gave for their atrocities, yet they were convicted of crimes against humanity for actions that were legal in germany.  The jihadis are called terrorists for killing innocents.  Sept. 11 was so tragic because it was a completely nonmilitary target.  The usa got into world war one because the germans sunk a cruise liner that was said to not be militarily connected, (it was actually being used to smuggle weapons) and thus an attack on innocents. 
Paul Tibbets was undoubtably told he was flying a very powerful bomb, so he knew he would be dropping a bomb that would with certain kill noncombatant men, women and children.  For that he is a war criminal. 

With more people like you, we'd all be goose-stepping & speaking japanese. Liberal-revisionistic hand-wringing. Paul Tibbetts was 'the bomb'