Posted on 08/02/2014 8:08:59 AM PDT by Kaslin
This week Major Theodore Van Kirk, the last surviving Veteran of the Enola Gay that dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan, joined the rest of his comrades. His passing is a reminder of why using the atomic bomb was the right thing.
In August 1945 the Allied Powers, led by the United States, were at war with Imperial Japan in the latter days of World War II. Japan would not give up. For every ten thousand Japanese soldiers that were killed by the Allies only a minuscule amount gave up; usually in the single digits.
We were at war because Japan launched war, first against China in 1931, then with another sneak attack against China in 1937, and finally in December 1941 with sneak Japanese attacks against the US at Pearl Harbor and sneak attacks against the United Kingdom and the Netherlands in other areas of the Pacific.
It was during the war that the United States began to develop an atomic bomb, largely in response to the urging of Albert Einstein who warned President Roosevelt, in 1939, about Germany’s attempts to make an atomic weapon.
Japan was a tough enemy. Surrender was seen as more than even disgrace; it was a dishonor to the Japanese Emperor, who was the Japanese God. The Japanese were allies of the Nazis. Comparing the two, the Nazis were evil but also methodical. The Nazis were fanatical about only one thing; the elimination of the Jews, a practice they kept up to the literal ending of the war in Europe in May of 1945. The Germans were a tough enemy but they were, by World War II standards, in their military operations, somewhat practical especially when Hitler was ignored. Germans did surrender by the hundreds of thousands years before the war ended. This was not the case of Imperial Japan and in fact Japanese non surrender got worse the closer we got to the shores of Japan. The Japanese soldier was fighting not just for their buddy, their family, or their homeland; they were fighting for their God.
The United States was inching closer to Japan in early and mid-1945. The island campaigns of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, the latter an island of mere miles, resulted in tens of thousands of casualties. The Japanese began going beyond even fanatical resistance to suicidal resistance by crashing their planes into American ships. Even then there was no hope for Japan. American submarines had nearly run out of targets, having surrounded Japan, and were reduced to shelling fishing boats and even targets on land. American planes were firebombing Japanese cities into oblivion. Japan was alone and starvation was a realistic possibility but they would not give up. Japan would have to be invaded.
Operation Downfall was the code name for the invasion of Japan. It was to be the largest and deadliest military operation of all time. If you saw Saving Private Ryan, the first stage of the invasion of Japan, Operation Olympic, was projected to be twice as large and twice as bloody as the invasion of Europe on D Day. The second stage of the invasion of Japan, Operation Coronet, was to be almost three times as large as D day and with even greater casualties than the first phase of the invasion of Japan.
Unlike D Day, the topographic composition of Japan made the landing locations obvious. Japan knew where we were going to land and they were ready for this last stand. Even children were taught in the ways of the sword and the spear so they could kill at least one American before they too would die for their Emperor. This happened with Japanese children in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and throughout Japan.
To save American and Japanese lives and end the war, President Truman ordered the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. Tens of thousands were instantly killed by the bomb dropped from the Enola Gay, the plane navigated by Maj. Van Kirk. The Japanese still did not surrender. Their military council was divided on surrendering. Three days later another bomb was dropped on Nagasaki also killing tens of thousands. More would die of radiation poisoning in years ahead.
The war council still was divided on surrendering but some Japanese officers looked to end the war and asked the Emperor to use his divine authority to stop the killing. The Soviet Union had entered the war against Japan, American planes were destroying what little was left of other Japanese cities, and an American POW told his captors that the next atomic bomb would be dropped on Tokyo.
It took the personal intervention of the Emperor to end the war. Even after their God had intervened and said to the Army that the war must end, some Japanese were not ready to give up. A group of Army officers launched a failed coup against the Emperor, ostensibly to save their God from shame. After the coup failed the Emperor spoke on radio to tell his people to surrender. It was the first time the Japanese people had ever heard his voice. Many of the Japanese soldiers who did not get the word from the Emperor continued to fight in isolated Pacific pockets until the mid-1970’s, almost 30 years after the end of the war.
Any argument from leftist leadership that we should not have used the bombs, against this fanatical an enemy, shows why leftist leadership is not fit to teach our students.
The leftists are fools when it comes to the atomic bomb debate. They argue that the bomb was dropped because of Soviet entry into the war on Japan on August 9, the day Nagasaki was bombed. What the leftists conveniently leave out is that the bomb was shipped to the Pacific before the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan and that the United States asked the Soviet Union to enter the war against Japan.
Another common leftist argument is the bombs were dropped in quick succession in order to stop the Soviet Union from invading Northern Japan. This argument is laughable because the bombs were dropped three days apart and then Truman put a halt on further usage after August 9, leaving five days between the dropping of the second bomb and the end of the war.
Finally, leftists say how could you kill so many people? This is a typical argument from those who have never had to make such a decision as Truman did or other decisions of life and death. Truman was faced with kill now and hopefully end the war or have even more killed on both sides by not using the bomb. (Leftists apparently forget that even their beloved Soviet Union entered the war against Japan. Soviet lives were saved too by Truman.)
This is what leftism does; it plants seeds in people leading them to believe that America is somehow responsible for all the evils in the world, even when America has achieved victory and done well. They will even do it even with World War II, which no sane person can argue with our participation in. They are shameful and are a disgrace to the generation that made it through the Depression and fought, and won, World War II.
Knowing leftist emotion, if the bomb had not been used on Japan, and millions of American casualties occurred, along with tens of millions of Japanese casualties, the leftists would say that we should have used the bomb to alleviate the suffering of the war. Such as the argument of those who were protected by the Enola Gay.
Ask any living soldier from the Pacific, and those were ready to be shipped there from Europe and the USA, who is still alive whether they were happy the bomb was dropped they will respond with “Thank God the bomb was dropped.”
President Truman was an independent thinker and not a man to be pushed around. His desegregation of the armed forces and recognition of the new State of Israel were evidence of that. He was also a combat veteran. He knew the carnage of war and understood that hard decisions need to be made in war.
It will be interesting to see where the history books, backed by their common core allies and government employee teachers, go with teaching the atomic bomb in years ahead. Before all the Veterans of World War II had even begun to die in large numbers, the leftist jargon against usage of the bomb began. They have spared not even Truman, though Truman was a democrat, for their blind rage knows no bounds. It will get worse once all of the generation that made it through the Depression, and won the war, have passed away.
This is why we should, loudly and boldly, teach that it was right to drop the bomb and why. This is why we should honor the military service of Theodore Van Kirk and those who dropped the atomic bombs. They saved the lives of many of our readers, in America, Japan, and elsewhere.
To Major Theodore Van Kirk we say thank you. It was a tough mission, but you can rest well. You saved countless lives. Welcome home from your final mission. Your comrades are waiting.
Yeah, after that imagery, how many V-1s and V-2s were launched? The V bombings ended when the firing positions were overrun, they weren’t halted by Allied bombing raids. Although to your liking, hundreds of Allied planes were destroyed in the effort, mostly by AA guns. And that even after they scoured the AARs.
Well, that's part of the beauty of the PC blockade plan. We would have never had to fight the Korean war, South Korea would have never emerged, the whole peninsula behind the Iron/Bamboo Curtain. If the blockade took long enough, the Viet Minh would have owned all of Vietnam so we would have been spared that as well.
If they starved, we did not kill them.
Their government chose not to surrender.
If they do not surrender, and we simply blockade them, their deaths are on the hands of the Japanese leadership.
Interesting & thanks, but if that figure of 20 million is correct, then it certainly confirms my claim that A-bombs were the most merciful way possible to end the war, quickly.
But a 20 million number also assumes a US willing to maintain its 1945 war effort indefinitely -- keeping 12+ million in the military, suffering daily casualties, piling on a $billion per week in new debt, for weeks? months? years?.
And that was a time when 12 million soldiers equated to 30+ million today, and a $ billion was real money -- about $70 billion in terms of today's GDP.
So, having amphibiously invaded many Japanese strongholds in the Pacific, as well as landings in Western Europe, the US would now just sit back and wait for Japan to "see reason" and negotiate a less-than-unconditional surrender?
And all this to avoid using a new weapon (A-bomb) whose short & long term effects nobody then understood?
I think President Truman would not have survived politically if it could be charged that he delayed victory by even a day, much less weeks or months, in order to prevent problems nobody, including Truman, then anticipated.
And the subsequent Allied deaths are whose responsibility? The geo-political changes in a drawn out end, whose responsibility? Korea lost, Japan partitioned, whose fault? No, the stupidity of not using the bomb is manifestly evident in hindsight. As evident as it was when the decision was made.
That you had none was self-evident in the first post. You did go on however.
I used to feel exactly the same as you up until a few years ago regarding this topic,
I don't doubt it, but like your arguments today, that 'feeling' was based on emotion, not the facts in evidence.
It's important to remember, first, that the entire death toll for WWII was in the neighborhood of 75 million, most of them civilians, and most though far from all, killed by Axis powers.
In Europe the number of Allied civilians killed by Hitler's bombings roughly equaled the number of German civilians killed by Allied bombings.
In Japan, US bombing killed 350,000 civilians, but at the same time 7.5 million Chinese civilians died in Japan's invasion of the mainland.
A second point to remember is: after the war many war-crimes trials were held, but none for the "crime" of bombing civilians.
At the time, all sides recognized that as military necessity.
Finally, today's standards may be different -- I don't know for sure -- but the whole idea of "Mutual Assured Destruction" with nukes was/is -- if you nuke my civilians, I'll sure as h*ll nuke yours.
No, it was based on what I was taught, read, etc.
I love WWII-era airplanes and was always interested in the topic. I still prefer watching films from the ‘40s, WWII documentaries, listening to music from that era, etc.
I used to absolutely love the airshow at Sussux, NJ every year; got to sit in B-17 one time.
If I could afford a plane for personal transport I think it would be a B-25.
It always made logical sense to me that the atomic bombs needed to be dropped to convince Japan to surrender as soon as possible.
Maybe 8 or 10 years back I had read the bio of JD Rockefeller, Sr, “Titan”. I loved the book, as I’m into entrepreneurialism. I never suspected a thing about any conspiracy theories; in fact, reading that book really convinced me that there was no such thing.
Ah, if I only didn’t find out what I found out.
None of which influenced the outcome. To much 'light' as it were for the 'shadowy' organizations. One-world types, sure, influenced the use of the bombs, no. Exist today, sure, and probably have too much influence as a result of how we fight today. Had all the battles we joined since WWII been fought like WWII the world would be a better place.
Different estimates put the total WWII death toll higher or lower, but here is a typical estimate.
It shows a total of Axis power civilians killed: 1.7 million -- one million seven hundred thousand.
The total of Allied civilians killed was 26.7 million.
That's a ratio of 16 to one, and most likely explains why Allied leaders were not over-eager to prosecute themselves for "war crimes".
PieterCasparzen: "His words would have been found to be morally repugnant to I would think most of America’s founders."
Our Founders were realists.
They did not tolerate loyalists to Britain, drove many thousands out of their homes to Canada & elsewhere.
Yes, they were generally quite civilized about it, but our Founders never faced enemies as murderous as the Axis powers' leaders.
PieterCasparzen: "...keep removing generals for not “achieving results” until you find one that will do whatever it takes, morality be damned."
The war's results speak for themselves -- one million seven hundred thousand Axis civilians died, twenty six million seven hundred thousand Allied civilians died, at least according to this tabulation.
So what, exactly, is the purpose of all your ridiculous hand-wringing?
I'll repeat, first: the civilian death toll (about half a million) from German bombings of Allied civilians -- mostly in the first half of the war -- roughly equaled the civilian death toll from Allied bombings of German civilians, mostly in the second half.
Second, nobody in those days considered bombing civilians a "war crime".
Nor would "bombing civilians" be a war-crime today, in the event of a nuclear WWIII -- that is the whole premise behind "Mutual Assured Destruction", which kept the peace ever since.
Finally, my understanding of "international law" (whatever that is) today says civilians must not be the primary target.
It also says that civilians must not be used as "human shields".
But I don't know what "international law" says to a country whose enemies disobey all other "international laws"!
First, you did not address the first comment of mine that you cited, right ? I mean, the morality of the statement, independent of numbers.
When one says “there are no innocent civilians”, that rationalizes just going up and killing non-combatants en masse.
Aren’t we Americans against our innocent American civilians getting killed by our enemies during wartime ?
Ok, now you cite chart of deaths, and America shows up as having zero civilian casualties. And you cite that as justification for American planes firebombing civilians, I guess to make up for the “other Allies” civilian deaths. I’m not a citizen of “Allied” or “the world”, I’m a citizen of the United States.
17.5 million Allied deaths were in Communist China and the Communist USSR. Slightly over 7 million were in Poland and Yugoslavia, two countries that for decades after the war were not American “allies”. Technically during the war they were all “allies”. The remaining Allied countries show a total just over 1 million.
As far as which specific countries did the killing, I’m sure you’ll agree that the US and UK took the lead on those numbers, as aerial mass bombing and aerial firebombing leaders.
But let’s say that we have this disparity, the other side killed several times more civilians than “the Allies” did.
Aren’t we taught at a young age that just because the other person commits a crime, that does not justify our committing the same crime ?
Now you commented that the Allied leaders might not be over-eager to prosecute themelves. But why would they not prosecute the enemy leadership for their war crimes of ordering civilian killings ? I mean, we could have prosecuted them and not our leadership, and said our killings were of “military necessity”, so they would not be prosecuted. Not prosecuting the enemy leadership for targeting civilians for killing does not look good, IMHO. Did our leadership think they did not have a good case ? Did our leadership think that some of them might wind up getting held accountable in a like manner ? The elites who make these decisions don’t seem too eager ever to actually do right by “the masses”, even though that is whose interests they profess to have at heart. “The masses” were the ones on the receiving end of the mass killings; no one much calls them heroes. They’re just part of the 20th century mechanized warfare nameless faceless masses who fell as intentional targets based on their residence.
Would George Washington condone the firebombing of a city ?
Killing more Axis civilians does nothing to right the wrong of killing so many Allied civilians. Neither sides’ civilian dead are really paid any honor. Everyone from the leftist history professor to Hitler himself seems to say “they got what they deserved”. Thanks, new world order !
The idea of killing innocent bystanders is what today’s “terrorism” is based on, which I think we all agree we “don’t like”.
The only difference, of course, is that the terrorist is not a uniformed military soldier. Now, we’d like to say that he is an enemy combatant so we can fight him under the rules of military conflict. But if we call him a military soldier, his killing of innocent civilians is that of a military soldier killing innocent civilians.
Yuck, I don’t want to say it’s ok for military soldiers to kill innocent civilians in that case.
After we “think” about this for a while (and no one has to respond), which way are we going to make our moral stand on this issue ? Is it morality that depends upon the situation and we’ll decide situation as it arises ?
Saying that we “care” about some huge number of them that “would” starve in the future, so therefore we are firebombing hundreds of thousands of those same people, in order to save those who “would die” because their leaders “would never surrender” is new world order logic, like global warming. A hypothetical future massive problem that we can only solve by a distasteful draconian present day solution called for by our dear leaders.
A) the future starvation is speculative especially in terms of degree
B) we had no way of knowing when Japan’s leadership would surrender, we could only speculate
We would not be under any obligation to see to their welfare until they surrender.
When and if they surrender is up to them.
We are responsible for the actions of our own military, however.
Washington’s Order Against Profanity
The General is sorry to be informed that the foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing, a vice hitherto little known in our American Army is growing into fashion. He hopes that the officers will, by example as well as influence, endeavor to check it and that both they and the men will reflect that we can little hope of the blessing of Heaven on our army if we insult it by our impiety and folly. Added to this it is a vice so mean and low without any temptation that every man of sense and character detests and despises it.
(Signed,) George Washington
P.S. But it’s fine to firebomb London indiscriminately and kill thousands of limey civilians. After all, they killed thousands of our civilians. Then they’ll surrender faster.
You can’t stop can you? The ones firebombed are dead, the one that may starve aren’t. The moral imperative is to save the vast numbers that may die because of the gov’t intransigence. To do otherwise is condemning them to death when the means exist to save them.
Japanese government intransigence is not our moral or any other type of responsibility.
Enemy civilian deaths not directly resulting from our military attacks are not our fault, in any sense of the word.
We actually don’t allow aiding and abetting the enemy. Aiding the enemy civilians is not our concern.
It is our responsibility if our military under orders attacks civilians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.