How to display Enola Gay and the Bomb

[Django]

Type IV (1970's-current): bronze gilt, plastic heart, unnumbered, crimp brooch. No Purple Hearts were manufactured for the Army for 25 years after WWII. In anticipation of the invasion of Japan, approximately 500,000 Purple Hearts were manufactured. This stock lasted through the Vietnam War.

Taken from http://www.purplehearts.net

I had heard none had been manufactuered since the preperations for Japanese invasion, but this refutes that.

[rwdfresno]

rwdfresno, Good last point, but you've several times put words into peoples mouths 'Neanderthal', and set up opposing 'straw men' to knock over to support your view and not (until your last excellent post) actually addressed what people have said, rather than what you don't like.

I realize I was not called a Neanderthal, I used it as a metaphor to address being described as juvenile, close minded, unable to intelligently respond, unable to debate like a grown up, and using rhetorical tricks. This isn't my first conversation with a self described "lefty" While I know he doesn't literally think that I am a 25K years extinct creature, he wouldn't be the first to think that I exhibit some characteristics of early humanoids .

Keep it rolling, chaps, but attack the argument not the **** person. Wink and let's steer clear of political name calling and so forth.

I guess I missed the part where people were being called names and so forth. When people engage in a spirited debate I think that should assume that there will be a little good natured mud slinging.

not (until your last excellent post) actually addressed what people have said, rather than what you don't like.

Until the conversation meandered into a discussion of strategic bombing, moral, etc this basically was a discussion about people opinion about the presentation of the Enola Gay. There is no "right" or "wrong" to a opinion survey so my likes or "don't like[s]" were my opinions on that subject. I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the characterization of my comments on strategic bombing prior to my last post as simply a statement of "what [I] don't like."

I appreciate your comments however I feel they are a bit unwarranted. I am a what you see is what you get kind of person. Do I engage in a spirited argument? Yes. Do I sugar coat my opinions? No. I am not PC and I am rough around the edges but I don't engage in personal attacks and I keep things above board. I am a love me or hate me kind of guy.

I dunno about anybody else, but I've learnt some stuff here, and the more I learn the more interesting it is.

Well see this means that we have executed a successful exercise here.

Now this is an interesting point. Most people separate the nuclear bombing of Japan from the strategic bombing campaign.

Based on your assessment most people are not in alignment with the United States USAAF/USAF who is basically whom I tend to align myself with when discussing strategic bombing. Strategic bombing is and indication of the type of target not the type of ordinance dropped. strategic targets as opposed to tactical targets. Strategic targets would be generally infrastructure. Tactical targets would be strictly a military target such as troop positions, military fortifications etc. I disagree with your assessment that "most people" agree that strategic bombing does not involve nukes.

Of course, I did not at any time suggest that strategic bombing generally was not a factor in general timing of the the Japanese surrender or in winning the war. Because of the nature of Japanese cities, their inadequate air defenses, and the disruption of their supply chain, bombing had a greater economic/military impact on Japan's ability to wage war than in Germany.

Conversely, at no time did I suggest that moral was the only objective of strategic bombing. I really don;t see much value and in comments that suggest that strategic bombing made only a "moderate" impact on moral. The point to me is that, it worked. We won the war. If we never bombed Japan we would have lost the war. It would have taken a great deal longer to wear down the Japanese war machine and the American people would have grown tired and weary of war and potentially "cut and run."

[k5083]

I realize I was not called a Neanderthal, I used it as a metaphor to address being described as juvenile, close minded, unable to intelligently respond, unable to debate like a grown up, and using rhetorical tricks. This isn't my first conversation with a self described "lefty" While I know he doesn't literally think that I am a 25K years extinct creature, he wouldn't be the first to think that I exhibit some characteristics of early humanoids .

Nobody said any of that about you either. READ. I said you appeared to be UNINTERESTED in mature debate, not incapable of it. I'm glad you have started to prove me wrong.

Now this is an interesting point. Most people separate the nuclear bombing of Japan from the strategic bombing campaign.

Based on your assessment most people are not in alignment with the United States USAAF/USAF who is basically whom I tend to align myself with when discussing strategic bombing.

Yes, the USAAF/USAF has never represented the views of most people, even in the United States, let alone outside of it. It is an organization with its own interests, like any other.

You present no evidence that the USAAF in 1945 regarded A-bombs as merely part and parcel of its strategic bombing initiative. Even today, when it is difficult to imagine an all-out strategic bombing campaign with anything other than nukes, I submit that the USAF is keenly aware of not just the military, but also moral distinction between conventional weapons and nukes. We can just agree to disagree on this.

Conversely, at no time did I suggest that moral was the only objective of strategic bombing. I really don;t see much value and in comments that suggest that strategic bombing made only a "moderate" impact on moral.

You're misquoting again. Strategic bombing had a moderate MATERIAL effect (Lt. Col. Ash's words.) It had much less than a moderate effect on morale (Ash again). As to whether the comment had value -- well, it seemed relevant to the topic that Gnome and I were discussing.

The point to me is that, it worked. We won the war. If we never bombed Japan we would have lost the war.

Not sure any more what you mean by "it" and "bombed", but either way, whether it "worked" is a controversial statement to which you have merely assumed the answer. If you poison a guy, then shoot him, blow him up, turn a flamethrower on him, and douse him with acid, you cannot afterwards say that all of that was necessary to kill him. Sure, he died. But where some of the means that you used to kill him may not have been necessary and may have caused a good deal of damage to others, it is not so bad at least to question whether you were just a wee bit excessive. Or if you prefer not to ask such questions, at least acknowledge that others may reasonably do so. (And I am not accusing you of not having done that.)

That said, you may notice if you read this and the Ollie thread that I have never stated my position on whether either (1) strategic bombing of Japan or (2) the use of A-bombs was justified. You may assume that you know what my position is. You would likely be wrong.

It would have taken a great deal longer to wear down the Japanese war machine and the American people would have grown tired and weary of war and potentially "cut and run."

I have far too much respect for the American people to agree with you on that. Americans at home had by far the shortest and easiest war of any major combatant and there was plenty of fight left in them. You will find that respect for others is pretty common among lefties, indeed that is a pretty good definition of liberalism.

August

[jamesintucson]

It might be of interest to note here that the Japanese surrender after the atomic bombings was not remotely a sure thing. There was a coup attempt by junior Army officers the night before the Emperor's surrender broadcast was made. They did in fact manage to seize the Imperial Palace and the radio station with the intent of preventing the recording from being broadcast and forcing the continuation of the war. Only the fact that they were unable to find and destroy the recording and their failure to convince the commander of the Tokyo military district to join them kept them from succeeding, at least in the short run. These men knew that Japan could not win the war, and that millions of their fellow countrymen would die if the Allies invaded. They considered this preferable to surrender.

Looking at the entire sequence of events from August 9 to the end of the war it seems to me that what the atomic bombs did was convince the senior Japanese leaders to drop their only remaining condition for surrender, that being the retention of the Emperor. As it turns out they got what they wanted anyway in the end. But for both current and future political and military reasons the U.S. had to force an unconditional surrender from Japan regardless of what was granted them after the fact. We probably could have gotten it without dropping the bombs or invading but it would have taken a considerable amount of time, probably another 12 to 18 months of continued conventional bombing combined with completely cutting the Home Islands off from the outside world could have done it. By then the Soviets would have entered the war in full force and their demands to partition Japan the way Germany had been partitioned could not have been ignored the way they were. The Allied need to end the war before the Soviets could force a situation similar to the one in Germany made the use of the bombs necessary. Preventing a potential future flashpoint with the Soviets was a vaild, if uncomfortatble for future generations, reason for using the bombs.

James

[k5083]

James, that seems a very reasonable analysis to me.

August

[rwdfresno]

That said, you may notice if you read this and the Ollie thread that I have never stated my position on whether either (1) strategic bombing of Japan or (2) the use of A-bombs was justified. You may assume that you know what my position is. You would likely be wrong.

If you don't state your specific position you leave yourself open for assumption. Why don't you tell us what specifically your position is so we don't have to guess?

I have far too much respect for the American people to agree with you on that. You will find that respect for others is pretty common among lefties, indeed that is a pretty good definition of liberalism.

If leftists have so much esteem for the individual then why do they support the government regulation of individuals so frequently.

Nobody said any of that about you either. READ. I said you appeared to be UNINTERESTED in mature debate, not incapable of it. I'm glad you have started to prove me wrong.

"Honey I didn't call you a bi*** I just said you were acting like one." Try that one on your wife and let me know what kind of response you get.

By the way don't worry about describing me however you please. If you were describing me a gentleman I would be worried that I had gone soft.

You present no evidence that the USAAF in 1945 regarded A-bombs as merely part and parcel of its strategic bombing initiative.

I never suggested that it was merely an ordinance like any other . With each type of target and weapon it takes considerations of all types. there was certainly a different conversation when bombing a Nakajima factory then when the entire city of Toyama was wiped off the map. Certainly the expense and availability of the A-bomb alone was a huge consideration. I said it was part of our strategic bombing campaign. I can evidence this by the inclusion of THE EFFECTS OF THE ATOMIC BOMBINGS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey

[gnome]

Well we all kind-of wandered off into a big A bomb debate there didn't we? I'm going to veer back to the original queries and add a couple more thoughts.

This thread more-or-less proves my first assertion. You can't display Enola Gay and say "this is a B-29, nice airplane huh?" Enola Gay is irretrievably linked to the A-bomb and therefore I assert it has to be displayed in that context. "This is Enola Gay, let me tell you about the A-bomb attacks on Japan".

That doesn't mean, and it's the same re. the Bomber Command piece in the Canadian WM Museum, that you have to either demand acceptance of, or apologise for, the A-bomb. Those things (carpet bombing of cities and the 2 A-bombs) were done by people who believed they were acceptable, appropriate and necessary.

So on to Bomber Command (and the Canadian museum). I believe the Combined Bomber Offensive (CBO) that Ash and others refer to, was conducted in part for material reasons and in part for morale reasons. Certainly the RAF night campaign, once it became apparent accuracy was poor, was turned into a deliberate campaign to defeat the morale of the German worker and family. I fully accept it didn't work in that regard, but I understand/believe that was the intent.

Interestingly enough by late in the war, and certainly during 1945, RAF night bombing was more-or-less as accurate as USAAF daybombing (nether of which were particularly accurate BTW). Both RAF and USAAF then agreed operation Thunderclap which had as it intent to destroy German cities to (a) hurry the end of the war, (b) ensure that Germany didn't make a surprise last minute recovery and (c) placate Russia. Dresden was one of the targets. That series of very heavy raids in Feb/Mar 1945 was intentionally very hard hitting.

The CBO was immense, ruthless and vicious with no quarter given or asked. IMHO this is how it should be presented. We should have no qualms about it.

Don

[JDK]

Type IV (1970's-current): bronze gilt, plastic heart, unnumbered, crimp brooch. No Purple Hearts were manufactured for the Army for 25 years after WWII. In anticipation of the invasion of Japan, approximately 500,000 Purple Hearts were manufactured. This stock lasted through the Vietnam War.

Taken from http://www.purplehearts.net

I had heard none had been manufactuered since the preperations for Japanese invasion, but this refutes that.

Hi Django,

Excellent answer, I appreciate such a quick and unequivocal post. I lose my bet! Glad I hadn't wagered anything on that. It adds something to the understanding too.

[marine air]

The B-29 was first and foremost a weapons platform. If today's B-2 bomber represents the ultimate in military technology and capability, then maybe the B-29 should be presented as the ultimate weapons platform that it was. It was the ultimate in aeronautical engineering technology to reach mass production.
It could perfom several missions, in addition to it special nuclear capability. It had impressive performance figures when compared to everything else in operational use at the time.
Sorry, but as promising as the jet technology was, IMHO, it was still too unreliable, inefficient and problematic even by 1945.