www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall 61 years after the Nagasaki A-bomb

Dear ByzanTN you said:

I say:

I think the object of the Aztecs was to capture prisoners, and then use them as human sacrifices. I think about 50,000 were sacrificed at a time.

Zenovia

Zenovia,

Your points are interesting ones. I had not considered the European occupation of Asia as a key factor in the Japanese attacks. Of course, that still does not change the fact of the atrocities committed.

And yes - the Japanese people are indeed a lovely people. In all my travels there, I have only been treated rudely twice. My wife traveled to gay Paris a few years back and was treated respectfully by two people.

Pfffff,

Gordo

Gordo,

There were several significant differences in the bombing campaign of Japan versus Germany that led to the horrible firebombings in Japan.

First of all, in Germany the industrial centers were largely well defined and somewhat removed from population centers. There was a rail hub and an industrial center of the city that was well defined and could be targeted. The United States stuck to a daytime strategic bombing offensive, the goal being precision bombing of industry, railroads, military targets, etc. This does not mean population areas were never hit by US bombs, that would have been impossible to avoid with the technology as it existed then. The British, however, adopted a program of night "area bombing", having decided that daytime bombing was too costly in terms of aircraft/crew losses. This bombing extracted a much higher toll on population centers and the civilian population.

Dresden I am certainly familiar with, my best friend's mother fled that firestorm as a child, her family was from Dresden. The British bombed at night, and the US bombers followed during the day. Nonetheless, this was not the overall nature of the US bombing campaign in Europe.

The differences in the Pacific war were many. In the first instance, with the exception of the Doolittle raid early in the war; the Japanese home islands were out of range of bombers until late in 1944. The capture of several pacific islands along with the introduction of the longer range B-29 made the first bombing missions possible at that time. From November 1944 to March of 1945 the US tried to employ the same type of daytime precision bombing that had been employed in Europe. The results were largely ineffective, and the Japanese even joked "The Americans are trying to starve us by bombing all the fish in Tokyo Bay."

There were several reasons why the precision bombing campaign didn't work. The first two had to do with weather. The weather over Japan in the winter obscured many of the targets. Secondly, the B-29s were bombing from altitudes above 30,000 ft, considerably higher than the bombers over Europe. The jetstream over Japan in the winter can approach 200 miles an hour, and the winds of the jetstream were largely unknown at that time. The third reason for the for the failure of the precision bombing campaign was the nature of Japanese industry. The Japanese industry was not in a clearly defined industrial area, it was dispersed and mixed in with the civilian population of wooden and paper houses. Indeed, it is estimated that 30 percent of a factories production came from surrounding homes and small shops where parts of production were carried out.

General Curtis LeMay decided to go to night time low altitude area bombing, and he decided to use incendiary bombs due to the fact that Japanese cities were largely built of wood. His goal was to stop Japanese wartime production. In many cases the masonry factories still stood but the surrounding houses ceased to exist. The surviving population fled the cities and production ceased. General LeMay had achieved his goal.

I guess what always amazes me is that people focus on Hiroshima and Nagasaki due to the nature of the bombs. They don't realize that from April 1944 until those two bombs dropped, Japan was on fire on many nights. It wasn't just Tokyo, it was Nagoya, Osaka, Kobe, even Nagasaki had been firebombed prior to the atomic bomb.

People also seem to ignore what we were facing in Japan. Most Japanese industrial cities were wastelands, but still the Japanese leadership persisted in continuing the war. Leaflets had been dropped telling the Japanese citizens of the Potsdam Declaration and the call for unconditional surrender. Yet the Japanese defense ministry made plans to outfit anyone who could fight with muzzle loading rifles, sharpened bamboo poles, bows and arrows, and pitchforks.

In the first four decades of the twentieth century the Japanese leadership had corrupted and turned the ancient (and isolationist) samurai culture into a militaristic colonial culture that preached death and suicide rather than surrender. A culture that saw others as racially inferior and resulted in the well documented atrocities in conquered lands. Fully 33% of allied prisoners died in Japanese custody versus about 5% in German custody. But only 40 years earlier captured Russians in the Russo-Japanese War had been well treated, that is how far Japanese culture had changed in 40 years. What happens when the civilians are the enemy, when they are expected to fight to the death? What happens when the culture has become so evil as to build death camps as in Germany, or commit the atrocities throughout Asia as Japan did? What measures are justified in ending such evil?

Many of the US generals thought that Japan would have surrendered by November or December of 1945 even without an invasion. But that assumes the firebombing campaign and a starvation blockade. Not exactly humane. If we hadn't bombed Japan at all, war productivity would have remained intact and Japan still had a big chunk of China. The Kamikazes would have kept on coming, there were plans for suicide ships as well. (Kamikaze meaning "Divine Wind", taken from the "Divine Wind" that turned away Kublai Khan and his invaders from Japan in the 13th century. The typhoon was believed to have been sent by the gods). Without a bombing campaign, who knows when the war would have ended. And precision bombing didn't work. General LeMay stopped production and shortened the war.

As an aside, many churchmen in the United States, including the Jesuits in America magazine, condemned the bombings at the time. However, I don't recall anyone offering any good alternatives.

At any rate, I am glad that I didn't have to make the decision President Truman made. Likewise, I am sure there were many B-29 crews that had many sleepless nights after the war. And there were also a lot of American mothers who didn't become Gold Star Mothers because of the bombing campaign, mothers who got to welcome their boys home.

Zenovia said:

The Japanese had decided that they wanted to be a colonial power, and felt that Asia should be their territory. It was to be known as the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The western nations did not wish to admit Japan to the colonial club. The Japanese forced the issue, but were extremely brutal to those they conquered. Continued Japanese conquest of China with the attendant atrocities led FDR to cut supplies of raw materials to Japan. The situation escalated from there.

There is an excellent book, the title of which is "Flyboys", by James Bradley. It is the story of the execution of several captured US airmen during the latter stages of World War Two, some of whom were squadron mates of the elder President Bush. But the story is much more than that, it traces the development of Japanese-Western relations and how Japanese society came to be as it was during World War Two. It also looks at the US firebombing campaign and doesn't pull any punches in that regard. It basically speaks to how Japanese and Americans came to view and treat each other during the war. While it is not pleasant reading, it is extremely informative, and it is one of the best books I've read on these subjects. It will horrify you and make you think, it will bother you. But war is horrible and it should bother us, it should make us think how do we avoid the mistakes of the past? And how do we deal with the evil that confronts us today?

So it appears we have not learnt much as the years pass but we remain optomists.

Just got this from my buddy, on flight duty in Iraq, we're going to have to be very optimistic:

A sad state of affairs. If we build the mosque they can bring their own radical Imam. What a deal.

Dear John you said:

Dear John,

Before the First World War, the Germans not only spoke German as their first language, but conducted their business in German. That ended when the Lusitania was sunk. Germans then had their own 'crystal nacht', when their businesses, as well as they themselves were being stoned. From then on they stopped speaking German, and changed their last names.

But to put them in concentration camps would have been another matter. The amount of German immigrants to this country was equal only to the English. They began to come at the time of Benjamin Franklyn, and he was worried as to the change of culture. There was also a time when The German language was considered by Congress as an official language. If I am correct in what I heard, it lost out by one vote.

That they continued to intermarry with Germans from Germany, insured that their culture would not be lost. The amazing thing, if one was to consider it, is how did this nation end up in the First World War against Germany, after all the Irish were certainly no lovers of England, and there were quite a few here. :rolleyes:

I guess it had to do with the amount of Anglophilia that existed here, not only among the Americans of English descent, but by the Scotch, and Scoth Irish. And then there were quite a few French...and they were allies in the war.

Now you mentioned the Italians. Actually, I did hear that there was a concentration camp for some Italians that were born in Italy.

Zenovia

Dear Padraig you quoted your friend as saying:

I say:

It seems they are blowing them up in order to insure that they will continue to have work. How shortsighted on their part. Then again, the Muslims tend to follow their leaders blindly, and their Mullahs are more concerned with the progress of Islam, than individual needs.

These Mullahs believe that if they keep their people in poverty and misery, they will continue to fight, and maybe even become suicide bombers...after all, they have nothing to live for. I guess it's a war against the West and it's values of individual rights. What a pity? :rolleyes:

Zenovia

I see the photos of your war dead on the end of an American news program that we get 24 hrs later. I can't get over that there are not riots in the streets seeing the numbers of your young men coming home in coffins. They are mostly so very young.

Dear Pavel,

There are not that many Americans dead. The dead are predominantly Muslim Shia's and Sunni's that are blowing up one another.

As for CNN, it's purposefully showing those pictures in order to arouse the American people's passions. Most Americans watch FOX News... or so I hope so.

Frankly I don't know what they hope to gain from that propaganda, other than the defeat of President Bush and the Republican party. I don't believe that the Democrats would stop the war. It would be catastrophic. The Democrats have other internal liberal agenda's, and in order to get into power so that they can be forwarded, they have to harp about the war.

The situation in the Middle East is a mess...sort of like what was going on in the Far East with Japan and in Europe with Germany before WW II. We can't pull out now, and yet we are avoiding a major war. In the meantime, the Europeans are overwhelmed with Muslims, while their populations are lessening.

Problems! Problems! Problems! :rolleyes:

Zenovia

Zenovia,

I ordinarily avoid, like the plague, participating in threads on topics such as these because they are, inevitably, ugly and divisive. However, I cannot let the above comment stand unchallenged.

In Vietnam, the US suffered a total of 58,209 combat deaths, memory eternal. From December 1961, when US combat troops were first assigned to VietNam, and December 1965, a period of 37 months, there were 1,864 combat deaths, an average of 50 deaths per month.

In Iraq, there have been 2,109 American combat deaths to date, may their memories be eternal. That number represents deaths since 19 March 2003, when the war began, through 20 August 2006, a period of 41 months. It is an average of 51 deaths per month.

Tell me, when next I visit the VietNam Wall and read the names of those with whom I served that the numbers "are not that many".

Btw, US deaths in VietNam as a result of hostile action increased, in 1966, to 5,008 for the single year; is that the type of escalation in statistics to which we can look forward?

Finally, I suspect that it was of little or no consolation to the families of the 5,008 American men and women killed in Vietnam in 1966 that the number was exceeded by the 83,426 (South and North) Vietnamese killed in that same year. I suspect that the number of Sunni and Shiite Muslims killed in this instance will, similarly, offer little solace to the dead Americans' families.

Lord, I hope so - had not Americans been forced to see the virtually real-time horrors of VietNam, we might well still be there.

Be not quick to roll your eyes and glory in war's noble ends, until you've held the bloodied dying in your arms and whispered prayers over them.

Many years,

Neil

Neil,

AMEN!!!!!!!!!

Dear Neil,

I refer you to the following posted on another thread by Carson Daniel Lauffer:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell082306.php3

After reading that, and knowing the consequences of what we are up against, what do you propose we do?

Of course the best thing would be to stop using oil. Right now though, if we were to stop using it, we would undoubtably fall into a depression, and that would undoubtably cause famines throughout the world...and famines cause wars. No nation sits back and allows it's people to starve to death.

Can we leave Iraq the way it is? Do you believe that the Democrats if they were to win the election would pull our troops out? I don't think so, for in this point and time it would be catastrophic.

It seems to me we view things differently. Some view this war at similar to the Vietnam war. There is no similarity to Vietnam, but rather a great deal of similarity as to what was occurring before WW II. The hope is that the same mistakes will not be made...as when Chamberlain came home from a visit with Hitler, and said we will have peace in our life time. A few days later, Poland was attacked.

As for the deaths of American soldiers, I was not aware it was that high. Yet what if it did turn into a full scale world war....then what? Wouldn't the death and destruction be similar to what had occurred during WW II. Certainly you don't believe that these extremists are going to respect anyone or anyplace, if that respect and concern is lacking towards their own people?

We are once more against a terrible system. By that I mean the religious/political system of Islam. This time though there is no way out, other than quickly adapting to other means of energy, and doing it without throwing the world into a depression.

Zenovia

Dear Neil,

There is another way of ending the conflict, a way that was done throughout history. A method that was used by the Greeks, from ancient times and throughout the Byzantine era. It has been used by the English quite successfully, although the consequences continue to this day.

The method is to pit one group against the other. Give the Arabs a chance at the Iranians, but as my grandson said, (who had some highly wealthy Saudi friends at college), they would massacre the Iranians.

Zenovia

Dear Neil you said:

I say:

I am neither a Spartan nor a Prussian. I neither worship Aries nor Mars, (whichever name you prefer). I am not an idolator but a Christian and certainly do not glory in war's noble ends.

I do know though that had France not avoided war, and shot at the Germans when they marched into the Rhineland, the Germans would have retreated. The Germans were not in a position to fight, and were given orders to retreat if one shot was fired. That would have destroyed Hitler then and there. He would not have been able to retain power with that humiliation.

Had France done that, WW II would have been averted...but if it was averted, no one would have know that. We only know that France did not fire that shot, and Europe was destroyed, and with it over sixteen million people.

They say that those that do not know history, will repeat it. In that sense we can only go on what we know. As I said, we do know that the war would have been averted had France fired that shot and going by that, we cannot repeat a lack of action.

Of course that does not mean that another war might not have occurred. But again I state, WW II would have been averted and we would not have armed The Soviet Union a communist state, in order to fight the Germans, and thereby turning it into a super power. Nor would great architecural works been destroyed...nor Warsaw nor Dresden, etc.

Germany would not have lost all her youths, nor would she have been bombed into the stone age. We would not have lost so many men, nor would have England, France, Austria, Poland, Czeslokovakia, (mispelled of course), Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway, Holland, and so on and so forth.

Israel might not have existed, since there would have been no guilt feeling over the holocaust. The U.N. itself might not have existed.

The atomic bomb would not have been invented, and the world certainly would have been different. England might still have been an Empire, and who knows what other European nations might have been as powerful as us.

As for the war in Vietnam, I do not know all the reasons for it, but I do know that it would not have come about if France would have shot at the Germans when they marched into the Rhineland.

What I do remember was the TV's during Kennedy's administration showing the horrors happening to the Vietnamese before that war, in basically the same way that CNN showed the horrors of Kosovo, and how the people were being forced to leave, and so on and so forth. Today the ancient monasteries and churches have all been destroyed, the U.N. cannot protect the Serbs from Albanian Islamic terrorists and they are leaving, (as the Christians always do), and that soon we will have an Islamic state in Europe... no doubt uniting with Albania. I foresaw at one time a future Ottoman Empire coming into fruition. I do hope I am wrong.

We had no reason to go into a country, (Yugoslavia), that was fighting a civil war and imposing our will on it. We have every right to go into a country, (Iraq), that was shooting at our planes everyday for years, and that had over ten resolutions at the U.N. that it refused to comply with. What was wrong was that the right to go to war should have been given to us by the U.N. It did not, and so I ask why?

When reading the Alexiad, Anna Comnena wondered why her father the Emporor, on returning from one war, always had to immediately leave in order to protect some other part of the Eastern Roman Empire. The only answer she was able to come up with was that they were the 'Empire', and everyone else was jealous of that fact. I think the same situation exists with us. Either we believe in our system of government, or allow another one to take us over.

Zenovia

You keep saying 'England' Zenovia. What about the rest of Britain? The current head of government in that country is Scottish. The head of State is 1/2 Scottish. England cease to be a stand alone country centuries ago, when the Scottish royal family united their 2 kingdoms.

I think most historians blame the rise of the nazis on the terms imposed on Germany after WWI, hence after WWII the victors did not repeat the same error.