Last of the Enola Gay crew dies

Remove this Banner Ad

Dry Rot

Dry Rot

My hat is better than yours
Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts Ex-Moderator
Feb 21, 2002
39,135
12,588
Hawaii
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Heroes or war criminals?

Enola Gay navigator Theodore Van Kirk dies aged 93

Wed 30 Jul 2014, 5:45pm

PHOTO: Navigator Theodore Van Kirk (L), pilot Paul Tibbets (C) and bombardier Thomas Ferebee (R) after dropping "Little Boy" on Hiroshima in August 1945. (AFP: US Air Force)

The last surviving crew member of the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan near the end of WWII, has died aged 93. Theodore Van Kirk, also known as "Dutch", died on Monday of natural causes at the Park Springs Retirement Community in Stone Mountain, Georgia.

Mr Van Kirk, the crew's navigator, was 24 years old when the B-29 dropped "Little Boy" on Hiroshima at 8:15am on August 6, 1945, 69 years ago next month. About 78,000 people were killed instantly, a number that almost doubled by the end of the year. It was the first time in history an atomic bomb was used in combat.
Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-...y-crew-theodore-van-kirk-dies-aged-93/5635944

Great plane the B-29. Arguably the most technically advanced plane of WW2 which IIRC cost more than the Manhattan Project. But an abject failure for most of its career, and had a really nasty achilles heel.
 
Dry Rot said:
Heroes or war criminals?



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-...y-crew-theodore-van-kirk-dies-aged-93/5635944

Great plane the B-29. Arguably the most technically advanced plane of WW2 which IIRC cost more than the Manhattan Project. But an abject failure for most of its career, and had a really nasty achilles heel.
Click to expand...

That's a tough question. No doubt the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima was a terrible tragedy on the civilian population but how many deaths did it prevent by hastening the surrender of the Japanese armed forces.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Power Raid said:
wow

amazing read
Click to expand...

See if you can get the book, or a lot of it is here http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/tomwitts/index.htm

I like stories of great flying in WW2, when the planes had sufficient tech to do stuff, but pilots still had to rely pretty much on their skill.

That Japanese pilot's flight is one of the most amazing flights ever, but Hanna Reitsch had real balls flying the last mission in and OUT of Berlin in April 1945

http://weaponsandwarfare.com/?p=1021 She was a gun test pilot, flying the Me 262, ME 163 and flew a piloted V1

http://greyfalcon.us/Hanna Reitsch.htm

Honourable mention to a brave Aussie Ron Middleton, VC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Middleton#Victoria_Cross_action
http://www.awm.gov.au/people/P10676514/
 
Freofalcon said:
That's a tough question. No doubt the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima was a terrible tragedy on the civilian population but how many deaths did it prevent by hastening the surrender of the Japanese armed forces.
Click to expand...

The Japs were going to surrender anyway. Only point of contention was the retention of the Emperor. They were down and out when the bombs were dropped. No Navy, no Air Force, no remaining industry. Getting bombed virtually at will. Facing the combined military of the USA, UK (and Commonwealth), France, Russia and China (and others).

Nothing justifies a war crime. Ever.

The only 'justification' I have ever seen that presents a reasonable argument was that the Bombs stopped the Russians dead in their tracks and thus averted WW3.

Even that I dont accept as a good enough reason.

Its an indictment on the international legal system that these blokes (and the USA) were never prosecuted for war crimes.

Anyway. Vale.
 
Malifice said:
The Japs were going to surrender anyway. Only point of contention was the retention of the Emperor. They were down and out when the bombs were dropped. No Navy, no Air Force, no remaining industry. Getting bombed virtually at will. Facing the combined military of the USA, UK (and Commonwealth), France, Russia and China (and others).

Nothing justifies a war crime. Ever.

The only 'justification' I have ever seen that presents a reasonable argument was that the Bombs stopped the Russians dead in their tracks and thus averted WW3.

Even that I dont accept as a good enough reason.

Its an indictment on the international legal system that these blokes (and the USA) were never prosecuted for war crimes.

Anyway. Vale.
Click to expand...

Oh Mal... lol.

You know what the Japs are like, even with no trained soldiers, guns, planes, tanks, whatever they still would have fought until the bitter, bitter end. Surrender is, or at least was, non-existent within the Japanese psyche. It's a shame that it took this for them to surrender but I couldn't see how the US and the Allies had a choice really.
 
DardySingh360 said:
You know what the Japs are like, even with no trained soldiers, guns, planes, tanks, whatever they still would have fought until the bitter, bitter end.
Click to expand...

If they had no planes, tanks or soldiers, why fight them at all?

So if an enemy refuses to surrender... war crimes are OK? Like... its OK if the insurgents in a house wont surrender, one can simply napalm the preschool next to them to show them you arent ******* around? Because thats pretty much analogous to what youre suggesting here.

Also, please provide evidence that a demonstration of the A bombs power on say, a deserted island (or its use on a purely military target) would not have sufficed to change the Emperors mind regarding unconditional surrender.

There is no evidence to suggest that the vaporising of 100,000 civilians was necessary to enforce surrender. It was effective i'll grant you that. But there is no evidence that it was necessary.

And even putting that debate aside, none of this detracts from the fact that it was a clear war crime.

Surrender is, or at least was, non-existent within the Japanese psyche.
Click to expand...

Whats this weebo bullshit? Japan has lost hundreds of military campaigns in its history, surrending plenty of times. The writing was on the wall. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that they would have surrendered if the Postdam declaration wasnt so damn draconian (main point of contention was they wanted to retain the Emperor - which is something the Yanks let them do anyway).
 
Malifice said:
If they had no planes, tanks or soldiers, why fight them at all?

So if an enemy refuses to surrender... war crimes are OK? Like its OK if the insurgents in a house wont surrender, one can simply napalm the preschool next to them to show them you arent ******* around? Because thats pretty much analogous to what youre suggesting here.

Also, please provide evidence that a demonstration of the A bombs power on say, a deserted island (or its use on a purely military target) would not have sufficed to change the Emperors mind regarding unconditional surrender.



Whats this weebo bullshit? Japan has lost hundreds of military campaigns in its history, surrending plenty of times. The writing was on the wall. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that they would have surrendered if the Postdam declaration wasnt so damn draconian (main point of contention was they wanted to retain the Emperor - which is something the Yanks let them do anyway).
Click to expand...


My evidence is that they nuked one city, no surrender came, it was only after they nuked Hiroshima a week later that the surrender came. lol.

Surely, being a former man of service yourself, you would know that in Japan it is far more honourable to die than to be captured or surrender. And look, at the end of the day it's a good thing they did surrender, for the good of their people and country.
 
DardySingh360 said:
My evidence is that they nuked one city, no surrender came, it was only after they nuked Hiroshima a week later that the surrender came. lol.
Click to expand...

Thats not evidence the war crimes were necessary. Thats simply evidence the war crimes were effective.

Note the difference between the two.

Im sure me torturing a persons child would be effective in getting that person to do what I want. But that doesnt establish the fact there isnt another way of making that person do what I want, nor does it make my actions in torturing the child not a crime.

Prove to me that it was necessary to vaporise 100,000 civilians to end the war. Then establish under what circumstances war crimes can be justified.

I say there cant be any.

I guarantee you if Jihadists detonated an a bomb in downtown Sydney to get us to surrender on the 'War against Terror' you would see things very ******* differently.

Surely, being a former man of service yourself, you would know that in Japan it is far more honourable to die than to be captured or surrender. And look, at the end of the day it's a good thing they did surrender, for the good of their people and country.
Click to expand...

So why didnt millions of Japanese soldiers suddenly commit Seppuku/ Ritual suicide after being ordered to surrender by the Emperor? Why didnt captured Japanese POWS also do the same?

Some did for sure. One even remained in a cave in the Philippines for like 30 years. Nintey nine percent of them just wanted to go home and... live.

Dont believe Hollywood hype mate. They certainly had a propensity for some weird and extreme s**t (Banzai charges, and Kamizake attacks) but these more more due to acting out of desperation than some form of immutable 'Japansese honor'.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

No I was saying that my evidence that a demonstration bomb would not have been effective is the fact that even after bombing one city and killing thousands they still didn't surrender.

The rest is up for debate, the extent to which it happened is questionable, but they definitely were not fans of surrendering. However I'd suggest that there's a difference between a single soldier being captured and surrendering than the Emperor surrendering and every troop being pulled out of action, ie. the soldiers themselves did not surrender rather the powers above did, it wasn't their call.
 
DardySingh360 said:
No I was saying that my evidence that a demonstration bomb would not have been effective is the fact that even after bombing one city and killing thousands they still didn't surrender.
Click to expand...

Try again. They sent word to Switzerland the day after agreeing to almost all of the Postdam declaration.

Like I said; it was effective.

The rest is up for debate, the extent to which it happened is questionable, but they definitely were not fans of surrendering. However I'd suggest that there's a difference between a single soldier being captured and surrendering than the Emperor surrendering and every troop being pulled out of action, ie. the soldiers themselves did not surrender rather the powers above did, it wasn't their call.
Click to expand...

Which would have been the case in any surrender by Japan (barring a full on coup or revolt by the soldiers themselves).

For what its worth, Im not alone in questioning the 'necessity' of the A bombings:

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." ​

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." ​

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

But hey. What would Eisenhower know?
 
Malifice said:
Try again. They sent word to Switzerland the day after agreeing to almost all of the Postdam declaration.

Like I said; it was effective.
Click to expand...

After Nagasaki they did. After Hiroshima (the first nuke) they stood firm still demanding the original conditions of declaration were met.
 
DardySingh360 said:
After Nagasaki they did. After Hiroshima (the first nuke) they stood firm still demanding the original conditions of declaration were met.
Click to expand...

So they were negotiating? For surrender? Like Eisenhower claims (and all historical records show).

The Imperial cabinet as torn as to how to end the war before the A bombings (but it is unversally agreed that they wanted the war to end). The prewar planning was a rapid expansion, then eventual conflict with the United States, and finally a settlement. They never expected to win or defeat the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

For the most part, Suzuki's military-dominated cabinet favored continuing the war... Only Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy minister, was known to desire an early end to the war.[20] According to historian Richard B. Frank:

Although Suzuki might indeed have seen peace as a distant goal, he had no design to achieve it within any immediate time span or on terms acceptable to the Allies. His own comments at the conference of senior statesmen gave no hint that he favored any early cessation of the war ... Suzuki's selections for the most critical cabinet posts were, with one exception, not advocates of peace either.[21]
After the war, Suzuki and others from his government and their apologists claimed they were secretly working towards peace, and could not publicly advocate it. They cite the Japanese concept of haragei—"the art of hidden and invisible technique"—to justify the dissonance between their public actions and alleged behind-the-scenes work. However, many historians reject this.

Japanese leaders had always envisioned a negotiated settlement to the war. Their prewar planning expected a rapid expansion and consolidation, an eventual conflict with the United States, and finally a settlement in which they would be able to retain at least some of the new territory they had conquered.[23] By 1945, Japan's leaders were in agreement that the war was going badly, but they disagreed over the best means to negotiate its end. There were two camps: the so-called "peace" camp favored a diplomatic initiative to persuade Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, to mediate a settlement between the Allies and Japan; and the hardliners who favored fighting one last "decisive" battle that would inflict so many casualties on the Allies that they would be willing to offer more lenient terms.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how A bombings becomes 'justified' in the above scenario. Clearly (and undipsutedly) there were elements of the government that wanted peace. Note that even the 'hardliners' wanted peace - they just wanted peace with better terms for Japan.

Remember - we are dealing here with a Nation that has no industry, no navy, and no air force, facing daily bombing campaigns from the rest of the world. They werent exactly in a 'position of strength' for any negotiations here were they?

So we have a nation (with no industry and a barely functioning military facing the combined might of the Commonwealth, USA and Russia) that anticipated losing the war and was in agreement that they had lost the war and that they should surrender... but were basically squabbling about the precise terms of the surrender.

How does this justify the use of WMD's on women, children and civilians?

If certainly ended the squabbling. But it wasnt necessary. Japan was on its knees and just looking for terms to save face (and hopefully keep some of the territory it captured).
 
If you want to know why Japan was nuked:

1024px-Allied_army_positions_on_10_May_1945.png


During WW2, the Red Army conscripted 29,574,900 men in addition to the 4,826,907 in service at the beginning of the war. Of this total of 34,401,807 it lost 6,329,600 KIA, 555,400 deaths by disease and 4,559,000 MIA (most captured).

Thats 20 million troops. Over 40 armies. Europe in ruins. Stalin at the helm. They could have run straight over the top of Western Europe and nothing (certainly not 6 US Army groups) could have stopped them. They had just handed 5 million soldiers of the Wehrmacht (the most experienced and one of the best equipped armies in the world at the time) a lesson in 'why one never invades Russia' (a lesson also learnt by Napoleon years prior).

Thats why the Yanks nuked Japan. To show that numerical superiority was no longer a factor, and that the Yanks were not afraid of nuking women, children or whatever to keep Stalin in check.

As it was, Churchill and Roosevelt had to give the Russians all of Eastern Europe. The Russians were also supporting the Communisits in China. Then the Russians then took Manchuria from the Japs, and the Yanks had to act.

Then we got the cold war.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with Japan. It was aimed squarely at Russia.
 
Catfish Alley said:
In your opinion, what was the better option? Do you think they should have nuked Russia or just let Russia do as they please?
Click to expand...

Like I said first up, its the only 'justification' I see for the use of Nukes. But I dont see it as justified. Legally or morally.

They could have nuked Russian army groups should the Russians have invaded Europe. I have no problems with the use of nuclear weapons on military targets (in self defence, when no other alternative presents itself).

Guess I dont see the point in winning a war, if you have to lose your soul in the process.
 
still maintain there's no such thing as a "war crime" it's just some made up crap to keep the masses not think about the realities of war. fact is they are trying to kill you and you are trying to kill them.

countries happily slaughtering each other usually for some religious, cultural, political reason which 90% of either side couldn't give a s**t about or explain the reason for if pressed. but we want to stick restrictions on what is acceptable conduct in war.

how's shelling a town with depleted uranium shells any better then dropping a few cluster bombs? artillery strikes better then gassing?
water boarding to beating's?

the answer is it's not once you've given your consent to killing Millions for whatever reason, what does it matter how they die?

and the reality is only the winners get to decide what a war crime is and only the losers get charged with them. when it comes right down to it are "war crimes" trials anything other then rubbing salt in old wounds? more about revenge then justice?

all of it is arbitrary bullshit, "war crimes" really just boil down some old world logic that "war" only happens at certain places with certain people so the nasty stuff doesn't affect some guys estate. the moment you say "war crime" everyone gasps and thinks of the most inhumane things imaginable, fact is war crimes for the most part are ridicules.

faking a surrender to launch an attack is a war crime
killing someone while not wearing a military uniform is a war crime
killing a pilot who eject's is a war crime (yet killing parachuting troops is not)
launching a war without a declaration of war is a war crime (yet there's nothing to stop you making the declaration and then bombing the s**t out a country 1 second after it's passed and the other country doesn't need to have any notice that there was any indication that you were about to declare war on them and attack instantly)
flying the flag of a neutral country to avoid attack is a war crime, flying the flag of another country in order to attack is is a war crime.
up until 1949 using captured enemy troops as "forced" labour was entirely acceptable as long as you didn't acknowledge they were POW's.
mass destruction of property is a war crime (that's right every nation that has ever bombed s**t anywhere ever is guilty of this)
even Looting is a war crime.

all supposedly so people who are told go out and kill as many people as they can and try and come back in one piece conduct themselves with a mediocrity of civil behaviour.

the fact is if your in war you can walk right up to any unarmed enemy general while he's eating dinner and so long as you are wearing a uniform you can put a gun to this unarmed general's head at home in front of his wife and kids as they are sitting down dinner and unload an entire clip into his head and everything is hunky dory. you can bomb his house while he and his family are having dinner and its just fine. but if you toss a grenade threw the dining room window its a war crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cmarsh
The Law Should assisted dying access be extended to the mentally ill?
Replies
21
Views
1K
Cmarsh
Cmarsh
Aristotle Pickett
Russian activist and Putin critic Alexei Navalny dies in prison
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
bourbons
bourbons
Aristotle Pickett
Remove Sam Newman from the Hall of Fame petition.
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
448
Views
15K
Chief
Chief
nut
BRICS and the reduced power of the US dollar.
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
barreness
barreness
zeggie
  • Locked
Society/Culture Ending the centralisation of corporate power increasingly undermining government and culture.
2
Replies
29
Views
901
zeggie
zeggie
darth_timon
  • Poll
Politics Is Education better off Privatised?
Replies
19
Views
563
Rusty Brookes
R
Rotayjay
Society/Culture Working from home vs forced back to the office
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
277
Views
16K
burge13
B

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top