Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

It can be argued to infinity because of the variables involved. My take (for what it's worth) is that the two events boosted Hirohitto's resolve to go over the heads of the Imperial GHQ elements that even AFTER both events were still resistant to surrender and broadcast his famous surrender msg to the people, ending any further talk of fighting to the last man, woman and child.

Could that surrender have occured under different circumstances? sure. Can any of us truely know what we would have decided to do were we in the driver's seat without the benefit of hindsight? no.

Wise words Nik. I think it's very easy to second guess such things. I think most people in the know at the time were far more worried about the horrendous loss of life invasion of the Home Islands would have caused.

ORIGINAL: spence

I have often wondered whether any of the proponents of the "atomic war crimes" school of thought ever had an immediate personal stake in whether the war with Japan lasted a year, a month, a day or a minute longer than it actually did. I suspect not.

Well, considering most probably weren't alive at the time I would say no. However, at the time just about everybody had a father, brother, uncle or son in that war.

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Like I've mentioned before, my father was one of the 5 planes involved in the Nagasaki A bomb mission. The feeling was one of shock at first by the crew and by the time they had returned to Tinian they wanted more to drop on Japan to end the war quickly so they could go home. Never judge a different era by anything other than that era's realities.

Wow, yeah, I think that sums things up pretty well.

My grandfather was prisoner of war in Germany from 1943-45 and whilst being marched away from the Red army at the tail end of the war was caught up in the Dresden raid. He was always reluctant to talk about it in detail.
 
However if Dresden or the A bomb mission was discussed, he would always say simply that in wartime such things are sometimes necessary, and go on to hope that my generation never had to find that out for ourselves. From his viewpoint anything that got the war over and got him back home was a good thing. Given that his generation was the one doing the fighting and dying I will accept his judgement on the matter and not try to make moralistic judgements with the benefit of hindsight and safe vantage point.
 
My grandmothers attitude was similar. She lost 2 homes to German bombs or v2s while my grandfather was away, my mother was baby at the time. " we bombed them, they bombed us, we won " would pretty much sum up her feeling on the matter.
 
People can argue the logic of bombing Germany to rubble or of Hiroshima for ever and not reach a conclusion that will satisfy everyone because our viewpoint is so different from those involved. To me the only valid questions is whether the people involved, from the President down to the crews, believed they were doing the right thing.From what I have read and heard they thought just that. Anything beyond that is at best academic speculation.

ORIGINAL: DD696

... If that bomb had not been dropped, he, and many others, might now be lying in unknown graves throughout the Pacific - including my father who would never have been such. So please, squabble on. The War in the Pacific was not always a game.

Wargaming is a two-edged sword; although you can "experience" certain tactical situations, we sometimes forget there was more than just victory points at stake in both the PTO and ETO.

Hypothetical history is just that: hypothetical!

This was/is a good thread; many personal posts w/gamer info, i.e., Todd's dad, I was not previously aware of.

I wish people would quit arguing over the dropping of the A-bomb's..............War is a B****...........Since the US military has just now exhausted the Purple Heart supply that was ordered for the invasion of Japan (roughly 1.5 million IIRC) should say enough. Whatever saves American/Allied lives.................I have no shame.
 
 I salute him.

I agree 100%.

I wonder if Japan had the A-bomb before the US, would they drop it? Myself, I have no doubt that they would.

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I wish people would quit arguing over the dropping of the A-bomb's..............War is a B****...........

Well, we could argue about the logic of sending cav troopers as peace keepers. I was deployed to Bosnia in 2000 as a CT Guardsman supporting the 3rd ACR, and from my observations, using any (armored) cavalry for presence patrols there was like putting Indians under Custer's care; the 3rd ACR commander's personal elan nearly started WW III several times during their rotation.

I do not think ANY soldier should be a "peace keeper". Unless they are allowed to enforce the "peace" with force if needed. Simple rules.........shoot at us and we go to war with you. Without having to say "may I".

Cav troopers by nature are aggressive. Especially those belonging to any of the 3 ACR's. They are the elite of the army. Greatest units around. 3-1 odds, no problem, we will kick the snot out of them. I was with the 2nd ACR in GW1 and we expanded to basically a division in strength under the control of a bird colonel. 16,000 troops.

The current 3rd ACR commander was my troop commander in GW1...............Col H R McMasters. A very hard charging commander. Would follow him anywhere. His troopers come before any other.

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I do not think ANY soldier should be a "peace keeper". Unless they are allowed to enforce the "peace" with force if needed. Simple rules.........shoot at us and we go to war with you. Without having to say "may I" ...

Tactically we were a "deterent" w/a "focused response"; i.e., they send in 10, we send in 100 to watch 'em, and so on. But unless you already have a war, don't call the cav!

Sorry for the OT, but Bosnia/Yugoslavia is back in the news on account of recent events in Kosovo (!) and it brought back some memories.

Whatever saves American/Allied lives.................I have no shame.

Fair enough, but the same logic could (should) apply to Japan's strike on PH.

I do not hate the Japanese for PH........I hate the inhuman way that they were during the war. I do not hate them for PH, because they got what they wanted, a war, and they lost badly. I do not think PH saved ANY Japanese lives................if anything, it cost them alot more than they expected.
 
But on the threat of getting warned.....................Notice how the Japanese are very un-warlike after getting soundly trounced and nuked?

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

I agree 100%.

I wonder if Japan had the A-bomb before the US, would they drop it? Myself, I have no doubt that they would.

I have no doubt about that either, but...

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"

Leo Szilard


Here is an interesting and, I believe, well researched and unbiased article on the subject:

Hiroshima: WAS IT NECESSARY?

As for Tibbetts, he was a soldier doing his job...R.I.P.

The A-Bomb was just another weapon. WW2 was the last true "no-holds barred" fight till you beg for mercy and surrender un-conditionally. I personally do not feel that the A-bomb was any worse than the fire bombing, level bombing of the cities. It just got the job over with faster, and with fewer a/c and lives at risk.

I guess we could have invaded, suffered the 1 million casualties (on the allied side alone) and killed 5-6 million Japanese when their fearless leaders sent waves of civilians with bamboo spears at our forces. I will choose the 170,000 or so deaths that the A-bomb caused.

But this is staying way too far towards a "heated" talk. We can take it here if you would like.

http://www.madcowssteakhouse.com/

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I do not hate the Japanese for PH........I hate the inhuman way that they were during the war.

I don't mean to sound critical, but I don't like these generalizations (i.e. Japanese, Americans, etc.) There is good and bad in all of us...and certainly the people that died in Hiroshima had nothing to do with treatment of POWs.

I do not think PH saved ANY Japanese lives................if anything, it cost them alot more than they expected.

Maybe so, but the line of thinking is similar to decision to drop the A-bomb...let's strike them so that we don't have to fight them later.

Besides, it was their decision to go to war that cost them their lives...not the PH strike as such.

Notice how the Japanese are very un-warlike after getting soundly trounced and nuked?

It's sad, isn't it...

My, My! Certainly no one should ever question why Tibbetts didn't want a known gravesite. Just look at how at simple tribute to his passing turns into a war against war on a site devoted to war. The first ape that picked up a club should have been tried and hung as a war criminal!

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I guess we could have invaded, suffered the 1 million casualties (on the allied side alone) and killed 5-6 million Japanese when their fearless leaders sent waves of civilians with bamboo spears at our forces. I will choose the 170,000 or so deaths that the A-bomb caused.

This is precisely why I linked that article...it discusses these claims and OTHER OPTIONS. It's two pages long, but I believe it's worth reading.

But this is staying way too far towards a "heated" talk. We can take it here if you would like.

http://www.madcowssteakhouse.com/

No "heat" whatsoever on my part...I'm neither cheering nor booing, just trying to look at the whole issue calmly...and the reason why I looked into it and posted is that EITHER-OR claims simply didn't seem logical to me.

Paint me yellow, but I'm not interested in discussing this at MCSH.

As a matter of fact, there isn't much for me to add on the subject here, either.

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
But on the threat of getting warned.....................Notice how the Japanese are very un-warlike after getting soundly trounced and nuked?

This is getting well beyond a tribute to an honorable man...maybe we could use a new thread.

However,I don't think the reason the Japanese have been pacifistic since the war has nearly as much to do with being beaten as it does with the truth coming out to the public about what was going on. The Japanese military routinely lied to the public about what was going on in the war in terms of inhumane treatment. When the war was over and the truth revealed many Japanese were truly sorry for what had been done. Which offers a strong argument for great transparency into the military in any society.

ORIGINAL: DD696

My, My! Certainly no one should ever question why Tibbetts didn't want a known gravesite. Just look at how at simple tribute to his passing turns into a war against war on a site devoted to war. The first ape that picked up a club should have been tried and hung as a war criminal!

Well, since this post is in reply to me, I have to assume that it has something to do with my posts...[8|]

I paid my respects to Tibbetts as "a solder doing his job"...maybe you missed it?

Neither do I remember waging or advocating "war against war" in any of my posts...[&:]

According to World Net Daily, "Starting an Unprovoked War," was the prime charge against the Germans at Nuremberg that the U.S. used to hang these defendants.

A-bomb or not, the same group that were held responsible for starting the war would still have faced this penalty. In any event, as I previously posted, hypothetical history is just that: hypothetical. It can't prove or disprove anything because it's speculative, which is why it's never admitted in a court of law.

Specific Nuremberg charges were, courtesy Encylopedia Britanica (on-line): (1) the planning, initiating, and waging of wars of aggression in violation of international treaties and agreements, (2) crimes against humanity (i.e., exterminations, deportations, and genocide), (3) war crimes (i.e., violations of the laws of war), and (4) “a common plan or conspiracy to commit” the criminal acts listed in the first three counts.

Tibbits didn't want his grave to be a rally point for protests or other controversy; although the war and the A-bomb mission wouldn't let him live w/o controversy, he wanted to die in peace; so he requested that his ashes be scattered over the Channel.