Posted on 05/03/2008 10:58:43 AM PDT by freerepublic_or_die
The Robert L. Capp collection at the Hoover Institution Archives contains ten never-before-published photographs illustrating the immediate aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing.
These photographs, taken by an unknown Japanese photographer, were found in 1945 among rolls of undeveloped film in a cave outside Hiroshima by U.S. serviceman Robert L. Capp, who was attached to the occupation forces.
Unlike most photos of the Hiroshima bombing, these dramatically convey the human as well as material destruction unleashed by the atomic bomb.
Mr. Capp donated them to the Hoover Archives in 1998 with the provision that they not be reproduced until 2008. Three of these photographs are reproduced in Atomic Tragedy with the permission of the Capp family. The entire set is available below.
(Excerpt) Read more at yawoot.com ...
And I was going to add photos of the invasion beaches of every island the US "island hopped" towards the Japanese home islands... Guadalcanal, Corregidore, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc... How many US servicemen were left dead and dying on those beaches? How many were saved by not having to invade?
Mark
Unfortunately, there is. There are factions in the US who are doing everything they can to twist history into a political display of just how evil the US was throughout our own history, for reasons that I can't fathom. It could be jealousy, hatred, or anything else. I really don't care. And if you don't think that this is going on this very minute, I suggest you listen to Barrack Obama's former mentor talk about the US, including his quotes about the US using the atomic bombs on Japan.
This sort of thing MUST be fought at every level, because it is NOTHING short of a blood libel!
Mark
I was once involved in a conversation like this, where the moron opined that "bad behavior on their part can't excuse bad behavior on our part!"
My outraged response was, "This wasn't 'bad behavior!' This was a merciless enemy slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people at the time! We were involved in a war with them at that very moment, and if we weren't every bit or more merciless against them, WE WOULD HAVE LOST AND BEEN SLAUGHTERED!"
Only liberals can "concept" (I refuse to call what they do "thinking") in these terms. These people are complete idiots and need to be slapped down.
Mark
I’m sure every junior high schooler is taught all about the differences between the results on each side.
Unfortunately, that lesson has never been taught in schools in the US, at least not since the 1960s. Otherwise, how can we explain the fascination and support of liberalism, socialism, and communism in the US.
Mark
YES
The atomic bomb was far more useful as a propaganda tool than a military weapon. Sure, it packed a huge punch, compared to conventional weapons, but the Japanese knew how many bombers we had, and the thought that if a single plane with a single bomb could devastate an entire city, imagine what a fleet of planes with those bombs would do. It was a huge incentive for them to give up.
Had the USA funneled the resources used for the A-bomb into building more planes, ships, etc. they could have been used to kill a lot more people than with the few Bombs it had on hand by the end of the war.
I believe that the end result was actually winning the war more quickly, with lower loss of life on both sides. After all, the idea is (supposed to be, we might want to let our politicians know about this) to win the war as quickly as possible. Unless one is evil, the idea isn't to kill as many of the other side as possible. You want to vanquish and defeat the enemy, not lay his people to waste. The killing and destruction of was is a part of the process, not the ultimate goal, unless, as I stated before, one is evil.
Mark
I've often wondered about why the US didn't take a similar approach to Iraq, in imposing a new government on the country. It really did work well in Japan. Sometimes I think that the reason that Hirohito needed to be kept alive was in order to ensure that the population saw he was just a man and nothing more, but at the same time, their in-bred respect and awe of him helped ensure the transition to the new government.
Mark
BRAVO!
A third bomb would have been ready in 12 days. Tokyo was the intended target.
My dad was born on 1906, a little too old to step forward in ‘42. He served as a civilian captain in the AAF, flying C-46s at a Hump pilot.
Thank you very much sir.
Oddly enough, the British themselves seemed to somewhat share my opinion. When the rewards were handed out to high commanders at the end of the war, he was more or less ignored, largely out of discomfort with his methods.
You also have a right to your opinion, but you are blurring the distinction between honorable ends and honorable means.
The Allied end was unquestionably honorable and right, being perhaps the most justified war in history.
However, some of the methods chosen to prosecute that war were less than entirely honorable and decent. This may have inevitable, given the passions of the time, but does not change the morality of the issue.
Let me give you an example. When the war started, a goodly number of enemy aliens were interned in Britain. Once it became known that extermination camps were being used as they were in Germany, would it have beenproper for similar methods to be used against interned German and Italian civilians, quite a few of whom were actually opponents of their home regimes? Of course not.
to malign ... Sir Harris in terms that are anything less than the exemplary honor and heroism they deserve is ... an insult to those who gave their lives so that you can express your comments without consequence or actual basis in fact, for that matter.
I am unaware that Sir Harris gave his life for his country, or for that matter that he was ever in any significant danger during WWII. My criticism is solely of those leaders who decided to use questionable methods to prosecute the war, not of those brave men who fought and died to implement them.
the Germans began the tactic of intentionally bombing civilians over London in 1940.
Not exactly. They started it in Spain, and then at Warsaw, Rotterdam, etc. The targeting of civilians in Britain appears to have started by originally accidental bombing of civilians over London by lost bombers, to which the British retaliated with intentional attacks in Germany, followed by similar retaliation by the Germans.
I believe you misunderstood my question. I referred to “moral difference,” not “morale difference.”
There is no question the Bomb greatly demoralized the Japanese and led directly to their capitulation. I do not question that.
My question is why opponents of the use of the Bomb seem to consider it entirely right and proper to kill 100,000+ civilians in Tokyo by a 1000+ plane fire bombing attack, yet morally wrong to kill a similar number in Hiroshima using a single Bomb.
If killing civilians is wrong, then it is always and ever wrong, although sometimes unavoidable. The method or weapon used for the killing is not the most important issue.
Since I called Sherman Logan on an incorrect statement above, I'll have to call you for yours as well.
The German bombing of civilian areas was the result of a missed bomb run. The British started the tactic of intentionally targeting civilians, and the Germans reciprocated.
By today's standards, Harris was clearly guilty of war crimes.
I would categorize your responses, illustrations as decent, gentlemanly, not fighting dirty but nevertheless nitpicky, historically/factually ambiguous, a question of interpretation and perspective all well within politically justifiable points of view.
I'm not going to deconstruct your comments point-by-point. You've responded thoughtfully and honestly and that's all I can ever ask of anyone, in agreeing to disagree.
There's only one point I'd like to make in that if I followed the same fallacious logic you've used to mischaracterize Harris in the statement below, I could then make the same assumption about Winston Churchill, being abadnoned. rejected, whatever, let's not quibble, who, as one of the greatest men of history, almost single-handedly winning the war by sheer strength of will, an indefatigable stalwart against the forces oof evil, having oddly enough lost the post-war election despite his garagantun heroism during the war, might make the same erroneous statement/conclusion you made vis a vis Harris.
Oddly enough, the British themselves seemed to somewhat share my opinion
Thank you.
God Bless America.
Yes, I was aware that it was a navigational error that led to the unintentional bombing of civilians, to which I must sheepishly present my mea culpa on this matter.
Nevertheless, it was this occurrence that opened the door that ultimately led to what happened to Dresden.
I will not in any way accept any amelioration of the Nazis brutality, immorality,as a result nor IMHO reduce in the slightest bit the morally imperative duty in which the allies behaved regarding Dresden and other Nazi cities as a result of the war.
Thank you once again.
/bingo
The whole issue between us is one of "does the end justify the means," usually stated as if it can be a yes or no answer for all circumstances.
IMO, it depends on the specific end and means.
Some ends, being evil, cannot justify any means. Other ends, sufficiently laudable, will justify almost any means.
War itself is by definition the justification of means that in any other context would be utterly unacceptable.
So the question is whether the specific end of preventing the Nazis from conquering the world justified Bomber Command's intentional attacks on German civilians.
The end in this case was the most justifiable in human history. If the only way to stop the Nazis had been to kill every single German, it would have been entirely justified to do so.
IMO these attacks would have been fully justified had two conditions both applied:
1. Such attacks were truly effective at accomplishing the end.
2. The same resources, applied in other ways, would not have been even more effective.
However, IMO only, neither of these conditions applied. It is generally agreed that the area bombardment tactics were at best less than militarily effective given the enormous resources used.
I believe Bomber Command and British government started this tactic out of wholly understandable frustration due to having no other way to strike back at their enemy, and at least partly to provide an internal morale boost for the British people. This may have been justified during the darkest days of the war.
Continuing it when other more effective means of attack became available was much less justified, and was at least largely a matter of expressing hatred and revenge, as well as an unwillingness to abandon an enormous investment in weapons with no other effective use. So Bomber Command continued making the rubble bounce in German cities and killing civilians through the end of the war, long after doing so had much military impact.
These emotions are intensely understandable, given the circumstances, but decisions about the morality of actions should be made without taking emotions into account.
BTW, Churchill, while a very great man, arguably the savior of Western civilization, shares guilt with Bomber Harris for these unjustified tactics.
If killing civilians is wrong, then it is always and ever wrong, although sometimes unavoidable. The method or weapon used for the killing is not the most important issue.
You're right then. I did misunderstand your question. As with you, I don't see much difference between the two. IIRC, the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo caused greater loss of life than the atomic bombings, but I could be wrong. It must be a "liberal thing."
Mark
The generally accepted figures are 100,000 for Tokyo and 140,000 for Hiroshima, with many of the latter dying of radiation well after the attack.
Some consider the Tokyo number significantly under-estimated, perhaps by as much as 50%.
In recent years the very high numbers often quoted for the Dresden attack have been scaled well back due to new evidence. Present generally accepted numbers are in the 25k to 35k range, considerably less than those for Hamburg earlier in the war.
Even in the case of person-to-person, direct exchange of ideas, those with the profciency, skill to sidestep direct, pointed questions, to skillfully muddy the waters, avoid responding to questions they desperately want to evade, it is all a matter of presentation.
And certainly when utilizing a cumbersome, awkward, medium that email emphatically demonstrates to be, it is all a matter of talking over, through, beside, in disregarding whatever it is one finds unsuitable or unpalatable.
You have avoided my question, the points I have made, the issues I have raised, to espouse your agenda to the exclusion of everything I've tried to have you elicit, respond to, all to no avail.
It seems you are only interested in providing sound bites that are indeed pithy, succcinct, clever but really don't respond to the moral, philosophical challenges you otherwise seem unwilling or unable to contend with.
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.