Goodbye General Tibbets
 

Another member of the greatest generation passes into history at 92. I know my own grandfather isn't far behind there. He was part of the invasion of Iwo Jima and Tibbets actions may have saved his life as he was on transport preparing for the invasion of Japan where they were estimating 300,000 US casualties and upwards of 2 million Japanese dead.

Goodbye General and thanks, there is a good chance I wouldn't be here without your actions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/...DIc5HRCTqs0NUE

Let's hope for his sake that he wasn't a christian man. Unless it was one of those heathen liberal christian denominations.;)

Don't be a troll.

Had to expect something in this vein.

Depending on perspective, he either killed millions (indirectly) or saved the lives of millions. In my view, he did both.

One could argue that he was only following orders, but then again, no order, large or small can be followed if you believe that the people giving the orders are nuts. He knew the risks, he knew what he was doing, and I think he did the right thing.

Must have been hard though, knowing that you are killing so many, in hopes of saving your countrymen and winning a war.

Well said.

Oh come on. So i'm supposed to be solemn in respect for a man who seemingly had no qualms about carrying out the largest mass killing of civilians ever in human history?

How about a man that saved the lives of just as many of his countrymen?

If we really wanted to argue the points here, lets be fair.

First read this..
http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

Secondly, yes filtheron you should.

If not it shows a supreme lack of understanding of the war in the Pacific and I suggest you do some reading.

Actually more, and if even the conservative estimates are to be believed far more Japanese lives than were lost in both bombings combined.

The Japanese civilians were committing suicide on Okinawa in order to avoid capture. Mothers threw their children off cliffs and then themselves lest they be captured by the barbaric Americans (Japanese propaganda was strong).

Imagine that on the mainland.

Guys guys come on. If he was a Christian I'm sure he's asked for forgiveness so he'll be OK.

RIP courageous pilot.

If we really wanted to argue the points here it would quickly devolve into a case of "the historian i agree with versus the historian you agree with" which doesn't ever really amount to much of anything.


And ustwo, that's just catholics that that link applies to. Was this guy catholic?

My father and uncle were in the Pacific during WWII and my uncle was a POW. They were both very grateful that the war did not drag on.

did you really hit the enter button after you typed this?

My apologies. The collective cock of the greatest generation must have momentarily slipped out of my mouth.

I take back the part about him having no qualms about killing innocent folk.

ahem. may he rest in peace.

Well, look, it can't have been an easy choice. Is the world better off for having done it? I guess probably. Hell of a thing to roll the dice about, though.

To armchair-quarterback this thing, I've often wondered why they didn't lay one bomb just off the mainland, far enough at sea that it didn't directly harm anyone. The point was the threat, not the deaths. Japan didn't say, "Ah, well, see, you've killed many of us in one shot. Darn, I guess we lose." It was the existence of the weapon itself that ended the war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were demonstrations. And I wonder if there mightn't have been a less massively lethal way to demonstrate the thing.

Rest in peace, General Tibbetts. Dropping the atomic bomb was the right thing to do.

..

IIRC, the Japanese government tried to contact the U.S. after the first bomb in order to discuss surrender. They were ignored until after the second bomb was dropped. Of course Tibbets probably wasn't told about this at the time.

I grew up reading my grandfathers books on the subject and listening to his first hand accounts. My first term paper I did was on the use of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima where I read pretty much every volume available on the topic of the war.

I knew as much as anyone who wasn't there about every battle, every move, every atrocity committed.

Most know about the atomic bombs but nothing about the firebombing of Tokyo, which were conventional, killed more people than both atomic bombs and did not deter the Japanese military from continuing the fight. They lost around 125,000 people in that bombing and it was written off. In fact the Japanese high command wrote off Hiroshima in much the same way after the atomic bombing, and only more rational minds said 'enough is enough', as it was they military tried to mount a coup instead of allowing the surrender, something which to them would have been an actual sin against the will of the divine emperor, who they felt was bring tricked into surrendering.

A blast at sea where a few Japanese observers could witness it I doubt would have changed any minds, this was not the Japan of today but a fanatical Japan where suicide for failure in battle was expected.

I'm convinced that it was the shock that a single plane in a single instant could do the damage of an entire airforce that led a government that was determined to fight till the death of all rather than surrender that surrender was better than extermination as a people.

Put me in his shoes and I would do the same, it would have been immoral not to in hindsight.

no matter what your opinion, you can't really blame him, he was just a pilot

if he hadn't flown that plane, someone else would have.

Ummm, Auschwitz, anyone? How about Nanking (courtesy of Japan)? The Khmer Rouge? There are quite a number of others to choose from, too. I don't seem to recall General Tibbets having been involved in any of these.

Well, if you look at it from an efficiency standpoint- 80000 in roughly an instant is pretty difficult to beat. This isn't to mention all the folks who consequently developed cancer.

But since you seem to be counting, how many hiroshimas equals one auschwitz?

I was looking at it from the point of view of "the largest mass killing of civilians ever in human history", in your words.

Auschwitz? Around 1.2 million dead - that's between 9 and 15 Hiroshimas, depending on which figures you accept. In total, the Germans systematically exterminated around 11 million people in their 'Final Solution' program - 6 million Jews and 5 million others.

My grandfather was going to be in the first wave of the invasion of Japan had the bombs not been dropped. Would he have died? Who knows? It certainly sheds light on my perspective of the legitimacy of the bombings, though. I might not have been here had they not been dropped.

What it really comes down to, though, is an "us vs. them" mentality. That, ultimately, is the terrible mentality that war dictates. I'm glad to be alive. I'm glad that it wasn't them that survived instead of my grandfather. Could it have been avoided? Perhaps. But there's no doubt that they started it.

One of the less-remembered contributions to the decision to drop the bombs is the demonstration to the Soviets. There was a sizeable group in the military that wanted to continue the war into the Soviet Union and push back the Reds. Obviously, the Japanese were THE primary target here, but the consensus was that the US would eventually win even in the event of an invasion of the Home Islands. Demonstrating US military might to the other new, very obvious superpower was pretty important to the planners.

Regardless, if Tibbets hadn't done it someone else would have. He gets the commendations for being The Guy, but it just happened that he was chosen.

As far as claim that this is the largest slaughter of civilians ever, I suppose if you limit it to a single day, if it's not the largest (hint: read Ustwo's post), it is on the list. However, let's remember that the Soviet Army had just finished raping, pillaging and slaughtering their way across Eastern Europe in 1945 and that the US and British forces firebombed Dresden and Hamburg. If we're talking about atrocities commited against civilians in WWII, this doesn't even make my top 5.

My father was a scared to shit, teenage paratrooper on his way to participate in the invasion of Japan when the bomb dropped. There was never any doubt in his mind that the bomb saved his life.

I'd be hard pressed to second guess the decision to drop it over Hiroshima. They only had 2 bombs.

I agree. I don't think tibbets by himself is that important- he was a cog, any other cog probably would have done just as well. I think his death is another reason to remind ourselves of the bomb, and what it represents.

As for whether it was justified, if it was, than good for us, if it wasn't, then it wouldn't be the first time innocent people unnecessarily caught hell for things in which they had no control. I'm not in a position to judge- this event is pretty fucking emotionally charged and one's opinion depends on which experts one chooses to trust, which generally depends on what one wants to believe. I don't know either way, i don't know that i care. It happened, for better or worse, and speculating about the what-ifs only serves the purpose of soothing consciences. I had nothing to do with it- my conscience is clear. If i was someone with StanT's father on the way to Japan, regardless of whether i thought the bombing was the right thing to do, i would have been thankful for it.

I can't believe that we've actually gotten to the point where we're creating a hierarchy of wartime atrocities. It's completely beside the point.

Apparently, some people look at the phrase "largest mass killing of civilians in human history", and think, "well, but what's the time scale on that?" I agree the implied timescale is omitted. Did i mean day? Did i mean week? Am i talking about a scale other than time? Did i mean per gallon of gas sold in europe in 1984? It doesn't fucking matter. There's no amount of selective qualification that could detract from the fact that 80,000 people died, none, sorry to disappoint you, folks.

there are obviously two issues getting tangled up here. one concerns tibbets himself--who i dont regard as anyone of particular interest either way (that is either good or bad)


i dont think that alot of americans have come to terms with hiroshima and even more with nagasaki. the latter because even if you can make an argument that hiroshima shortened the war (debatable) made unnecessary a land invasion of japan (debatable as to whether that would have been necessary) and sent a clear message to the soviets about the post-war dick-size competition (less arguable), you cant say anything like that about nagasaki. it was thursday. the weather was nice. try out the fat boy. no matter that it was already obvious that japan would surrender.

you could argue that there was no clear understanding of atomic weapons, that they were understood as really big conventional bombs and that this misunderstanding opened the way to using two of them on japan. its not like there had been any previous experiences with atomic weapons use. the americans are the only ones to have used them.

in many ways, what makes less sense to me is the cold war and the centrality of "strategies" like mutually assured destruction AFTER hiroshima and nagasaki. this is a place where the ethics-challenged characteristics of the political and military systems seems clearer.

but then again, it seems that when it comes to dealing with problematic actions, the americans are not so good. people still prefer to think about "manifest destiny" and not genocide for example.

nice, man. lol.

i read some of the posts here, not all, and i'm surprised that everyone is just buying lock stock and barrel the idea that the bomb was dropped to end the war early when it's just as likely it was done as a big up-yours to the soviets. the japanese goose was pretty much cooked by that point and from what i read some factions in the japanese government were already negotiating with other factions of the japanese government to arrange a surrender. i think the only sticking point was that the truman admin didn't want to leave the emperor in power -- but that after they dropped the bombs they left the emperor in power anyway. and if they wanted to provoke the japanese to surrender why not a demonstration strike on an unpopulated area? if that didn't kowtow the japanese there was always a bomb in reserve to drop on a populated area to drive the point home.

anyway, once the bomb was successful conventional invasion of japan was just as likely as not to be off the table. that charmer macarthur had plans drawn up to systematically bomb japan with more than a dozen atomic bombs, it was only a matter of manufacturing them -- which would have been a fairly simple matter, i'm guessing, as opposed to marshalling another normandy-style mobilization effort.

nah, as the saying goes -- i think the a-bomb wasn't the last shot of world war ii so much as the first shot of the cold war. as for tibbets, i dont mean to harsh him out but he had some strange compatriots -- i've always associated him with macarthur and with that weirdo edward teller. he used to fly re-enactments of the hiroshima bombing, which always struck me as more than a little morbid.