My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

News

Did this man have any morals at all.....(Hiroshima)

75 replies

RoyKinnear · 01/11/2007 23:14

I do not grieve is demise

OP posts:
Report
RoyKinnear · 01/11/2007 23:14

his

OP posts:
Report
southeastastra · 01/11/2007 23:15

gawd

no it isn't nice, but neither were the japanese in ww2

Report
fortyplus · 01/11/2007 23:23

British bombers were responsible for 500,000 German civilian deaths. 'Only' 100,000 at Hiroshima - albeit as a result of one bomb.

It's hard for us to judge these actions today - the world had been at war for six years and the Japanese wouldn't surrender.

I can imagine that something so terrible that it would guarantee the end to hostilities must have seemed like the only option.

Report
RoyKinnear · 01/11/2007 23:52

i cant agree with any circumstances validating a civilian = or any- huge scale loss of life

OP posts:
Report
southeastastra · 01/11/2007 23:59

yes it's great hindsight isn't it

Report
Elizabetth · 02/11/2007 01:22

I can't believe he took part in a reenactment. What the hell?

Report
paulaplumpbottom · 02/11/2007 08:31

Its is tragic. Really awful. But more people would have died (Japenese people included) Had it not been dropped.The Japenese like todays suicide bombers were willing to fight for to the death. The saw it as honorable.

Report
nangnangnang · 02/11/2007 08:53

Think for a minute more, Roy: yours is an easy sentiment in times when we only see war on the telly.

The dropping of the bomb came after six years of world-wide hell which cost millions of lives. The pilot - who may well have lost family and friends - probably thought he was justified in bringing this pointless suffering and waste to an end (not of course that it was his decision; he was merely the executor) and in purely mathematical terms he might have been right (ie more civilians might have died if the war had continued). We will never know.

Whether you think the dropping of the bomb was justified is a matter for judgment and conscience but it must be considered in the context. I am totally anti-nuclear in a modern setting but still don't think it's appropriate to discuss its use at the end of WW2 in such black and white terms.

Report
Blandmum · 02/11/2007 09:36

During the battle for Okinawa 250,000 people died. Of this number 150,000 were Okinawans. many were driven to suicide attacks on the Americans by the mainland Japanise troups. Many fought because they believed the propaganda that the Americans would kill and torture and not take POWs, many believed in Bushido. Over 22,000 jumped to their deaths at Busido/Suicide cliff.

the Americans were faced with the inference that if this was how the Japanise would fight to defend a offshore island (which had alwaysbeen considered inferior to Mainland), then fighting on the mailand would take an ever greater loss in American and Japanise lives.

It is easy for us to sit and decry the use of the atomic bombs, they were vile. But it is helpful to remember that the alternatives were also utterly repugnant.

Report
RoyKinnear · 02/11/2007 09:38

i have been an active peace campaigner for over 25 years - i a unable to comprehend hoe people could do this to one another

OP posts:
Report
themildmanneredjanitor · 02/11/2007 09:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Blandmum · 02/11/2007 09:43

i don't understand how people could force women and children to jump off a cliff to prevent the 'Dishonour' of capture by the Americans, but they did. I don't know how people could use human victims as test subjects for the use of plague as a wepons of mass distruction, but the Japanise did. I don't know how people could use children to test how many heads they could cut off with a single blow of a sword, but they did during the battle for Nanking.

the Americans had a fairly good idea of what would wait them (and the civiliam population) when they invaded mainland Japan. And they decided that the didn't want to pay that price.

Report
themildmanneredjanitor · 02/11/2007 09:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

sophiewd · 02/11/2007 09:57

He was ordered to do so that is what being in the forces means, just like today.

Report
royKinnear · 02/11/2007 10:03

it is irrelevant ro me what race/nationality this man was
to my mind , him saying that for the past half century he has lost no sleep over what he did is amoral
orders or no orders

OP posts:
Report
Niecie · 02/11/2007 10:09

Whilst there is no doubt that the war was ended by the bomb in Hiroshima, some argue that the bomb in Nagaski was not necessary. The Japanese were on the verge of surrendering anyway and the second bomb was only dropped to test a different type of bomb to horrendous effect.

But, the guy who died has spent his entire life being persecuted for something that wasn't his decision. You can't blame him for being defensive about it when it did end WW2 and probably saved 100,000s of lives.

I do have reservations about whether the second bomb was necessary and the 1st one to some extent, we will never know if was entirely necessary and it certainly lead to the Cold War and nuclear proliferation. However that doesn't alter the fact that those who attack this guy are effectively 'shootting the messanger'.

Report
royKinnear · 02/11/2007 10:13

i dont see it as that
i dont think he did either froom that article

'shooting the messenger' does not sem appropriate phrase

he did his job
he does not lose sleep over it
think that shows a lack of 'understanding' of he suffering he caused

OP posts:
Report
irises · 02/11/2007 10:17

But why pick on that individual? If you disagree about whether the action is justified, why aren't you having a go at the administration who gave the order?

Report
Niecie · 02/11/2007 10:23

I am sure he understood entirely what he was doing. I saw an interview with him a long time ago - he knew exactly what he had done and the effect it had. He was doing the job he was ordered to do. He felt that the war was shortened and lives saved by his actions but it wasn't his decision to make which makes him the messanger.

Would you rather he was eaten up with guilt, spending his entire life in a mental institution. Would that have changed anything? If it hadn't have been him it would have been somebody else and he knew that. He takes no delight in what he did.

at the number of spelling mistakes in my last post - typing fingers not working.

Report
Niecie · 02/11/2007 10:29

Exactly Irises - if any one person is to blame surely it is Harry Truman?

Report
TellusMater · 02/11/2007 10:37

I suspect that maintaining that he had no regrets, that he had done the right thing was essential to his own mental health.

If he hadn't done it, another pilot would have.

I find it sad that his family will have no memorial because of his fear that it would become a focus for protesters.

Report
royKinnear · 02/11/2007 11:12

yes tellusmater probably so

OP posts:
Report
Blandmum · 02/11/2007 11:14

and also, he was a man of his time. He had lived through the war, almost certainly lost friends and family members; come under attack himeself. This would have given him a different persepctive to those of us who had the great good fortune to grow up avoiding those things

Report
themildmanneredjanitor · 02/11/2007 11:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

royKinnear · 02/11/2007 11:46

i have friends in the army
i just do not see them as capable of this
probably as you say naivity

OP posts:
Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.