No Hard feelings Paul, we were asking for it (823 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.95 on 32 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Imperial Japan (View user info) at 2007-11-01 14:53:44 EDT
We all know if you didn't do what you did that more people would have died.
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Paul Tibbets, who piloted the B-29 bomber Enola Gay that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, died Thursday. He was 92 and insisted for six decades after the war that he had no regrets about the mission and slept just fine at night.
Tibbets died at his Columbus home, said Gerry Newhouse, a longtime friend. He suffered from a variety of health problems and had been in decline for two months.
Tibbets had requested no funeral and no headstone, fearing it would provide his detractors with a place to protest, Newhouse said.
Tibbets' historic mission in the plane named for his mother marked the beginning of the end of World War II and eliminated the need for what military planners feared would have been an extraordinarily bloody invasion of Japan. It was the first use of a nuclear weapon in wartime.
The plane and its crew of 14 dropped the five-ton "Little Boy" bomb on the morning of Aug. 6, 1945. The blast killed 70,000 to 100,000 people and injured countless others.
Three days later, the United States dropped a second nuclear bomb on Nagasaki, Japan, killing an estimated 40,000 people. Tibbets did not fly in that mission. The Japanese surrendered a few days later, ending the war.
"I knew when I got the assignment it was going to be an emotional thing," Tibbets told The Columbus Dispatch for a story published on the 60th anniversary of the bombing. "We had feelings, but we had to put them in the background. We knew it was going to kill people right and left. But my one driving interest was to do the best job I could so that we could end the killing as quickly as possible."
Tibbets, then a 30-year-old colonel, never expressed regret over his role. He said it was his patriotic duty and the right thing to do.
"I'm not proud that I killed 80,000 people, but I'm proud that I was able to start with nothing, plan it and have it work as perfectly as it did," he said in a 1975 interview.
"You've got to take stock and assess the situation at that time. We were at war. ... You use anything at your disposal."
He added: "I sleep clearly every night."
Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr. was born Feb. 23, 1915, in Quincy, Ill., and spent most of his boyhood in Miami.
He was a student at the University of Cincinnati's medical school when he decided to withdraw in 1937 to enlist in the Army Air Corps.
After the war, Tibbets said in 2005, he was dogged by rumors claiming he was in prison or had committed suicide.
"They said I was crazy, said I was a drunkard, in and out of institutions," he said. "At the time, I was running the National Crisis Center at the Pentagon."
Tibbets retired from the Air Force as a brigadier general in 1966. He later moved to Columbus, where he ran an air taxi service until he retired in 1985.
But his role in the bombing brought him fame — and infamy — throughout his life.
Tibbets again defended the bombing in 1995, when an outcry erupted over a planned 50th anniversary exhibit of the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian Institution.
The museum had planned to mount an exhibit that would have examined the context of the bombing, including the discussion within the Truman administration of whether to use the bomb, the rejection of a demonstration bombing and the selection of the target.
Veterans groups objected, saying the proposed display paid too much attention to Japan's suffering and too little to Japan's brutality during and before World War II, and that it underestimated the number of Americans who would have perished in an invasion.
They said the bombing of Japan was an unmitigated blessing for the United States and the exhibit should say so.
Tibbets denounced it as "a damn big insult."
The museum changed its plan and agreed to display the fuselage of the Enola Gay without commentary, context or analysis.
He told the Dispatch in 2005 that he wanted his ashes scattered over the English Channel, where he loved to fly during the war.
Newhouse, Tibbets' longtime friend, confirmed that Tibbets wanted to be cremated, but he said relatives had not yet determined how he would be laid to rest.
Tibbets is survived by his wife, Andrea, and two sons, Paul and Gene, as well as a number of grandchildren and great-grandchildren. A grandson named after Tibbets followed his grandfather into the military as a B-2 bomber pilot stationed in Belgium.
User Reviews
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-11-04 21:37:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
thats an interesting point,and i certainly agree with that sentiment. certainly, solid arguments can and have been made for the justification of dropping nuclear weapons. however, i still feel it was avoidable. this is not because i sympathise with anything or anyone. i dont. i dont give a fuck how many died or how they died, i just think its bullshit to say that it was necessary. to me, it appears that the yanks dropped the bombs to a) see what they would actually do in the field and b) show in particular the russians how tough they were. what better way to do that than to blow the fuck out of the japs in one blast?
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2007-11-04 21:13:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This is really difficult for me, because I'm on the side of the people that dropped the bomb, but ideologically i think most of them are fucking retards.
Yes, wartime (and especially something on such a "total war" footing as WWII) requires pragmatic solutions. Do what needs to be done to see your desired results met.
However, Americans seem to abandon that level of pragmatism when they look at Japanese "atrocities" in the Pacific. THe Japanese are notorious for what is commonly termed "Mistreatment" of prisoners of war. The fact is, the Japanese miitary ideology regarding total war is far more logical than the "Human rights" approach favoured by the West.
If you are fighting an enemy, what responsibility do you have to feed and nurture them once they have been captured? We are talking about diverting resources away from your OWN troops and compromising your ability to win the war so you can keep someone alive who you would have happily blown the shit out of at 20 paces. Where is the logic in that? If the bomb was "what needed to be done to win the war", then the so-called mistreatment of POWs is farcical.
Also, while many Americans can sit back and get philosophical about the nuclear attacks as necessary evils, you can still see the attack on Pearl Harbor as an atrocity- or at least an immoral act of war. Are you aware of the Japanese perspective on those events? I have yet to speak to an American who has given me a properly informed view on the Japanese motivation for declaring war on America.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that the military logic behind the atomic bombs was sound, but that it has been wrapped in so much stars and stripes rhetoric some people can no longer look at it in an appropriate context.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2007-11-03 01:56:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
From an Allied military standpoint at that point in time the bomb was the best option if complete, immediate surrender was the objective.
There are however three major things about the bomb that I don`t like however...
1) Atomic weaponry is dirty. It leaves residue and kills long after the war is over.
2) Atomic weaponry is indiscriminatory. While conventional bombs could be aimed a the steel mill, the weapons factory or the ports of Hiroshima, A-bombs are designed to simply wipe out and destroy everyone and everything in it`s path.
- Although in saying that, if aiming for a city to drop the bomb on that would cause maximal military damage, Hiroshima was a good choice.
3) By dropping the bomb, America lost it`s right to oppose enemy bombs in the future. Not only had the precedent been created that nukes are fine to use in times of war; but America had been the one to create the precedent; which puts America into a very very long-term diplomatic disadvantage in relation to the use or procurement of weapons by foreign nations.
From a purely strategic standpoint it was a temporary solution... but possibly not the best one.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-11-02 10:55:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-11-02 02:20:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
so they had a million soldiers on the home islands... who is that number meant to impress? what the fuck can those ONE MILLION (OMG) soldiers do if there is no air force to repel bombers (the us/allies could literally destroy what they wanted when they wanted) and no navy to move them anywhere? stand around and yell banzai?
but whatever, your numbers are irrelevant and your point of view is so one sided its just a little sad.
---------------
I think you need to take that idea a step futher.
Problem is that if we continued to use traditional bombings we would have more than likely killed more civilians. Look at the number of casualties in earlier conventional bombing campaigns in Japan, they are comprable with hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only difference was the speed, number of bombs required, and the "shock and awe" of something they had never seen before.
Submitted by Fartman (user info) at 2007-11-02 10:02:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-11-02 02:27:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
though i am glad that youre such an expert that you can give such absolute comments about the mindset of people more than 60 years ago.
--------------
On 8/11/45, President Truman wrote:
"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.
"When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true."
Payback is a bitch, aint it?
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2007-11-02 09:26:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-11-01 14:07:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-11-01 13:58:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
how about you mind your own fucking business?
Just because we are not religious reactionaries who wave flags whilst fucking our daughters.
Cunt.
-------------
No, you are little bitches who will pay off a segment of your population that wants shaira law in hopes that changes their mind.
When the problem is worse in 10 years, what are you going to do then?
_______________________
Whatchugonnado when Islamamania runs wild over your town brother?
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2007-11-02 03:10:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
creepy slopes deserved it...
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2007-11-02 03:10:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i think i'd sleep alright at night after killing 80 to 100,000 gooks too.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-11-02 02:27:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"the Japanese High Command did not think they were in an untenable situation"
though i am glad that youre such an expert that you can give such absolute comments about the mindset of people more than 60 years ago. those sure are some awesome history books youre reading.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-11-02 02:20:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
im not making a moral judgement you fucking idiot. i dont care that the yanks dropped the nuke. it made for some awesome photos, and im sure the soviets were appropriately concerned by the display of power. i am merely making the observation that it was likely that the nukes were in hindsight, unnecessary.
so they had a million soldiers on the home islands... who is that number meant to impress? what the fuck can those ONE MILLION (OMG) soldiers do if there is no air force to repel bombers (the us/allies could literally destroy what they wanted when they wanted) and no navy to move them anywhere? stand around and yell banzai?
but whatever, your numbers are irrelevant and your point of view is so one sided its just a little sad.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-11-02 02:03:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-11-01 22:49:19 PDT (#)
Ranking: 0
and who wrote those history books?
theres nothing blinkered about my point of view, my histrionic little friend. i made no absolute statements, like you just did in your anfry little rant, i merely said that it was likely a result could have been achieved in a more peaceful manner, given japans untenable situation.
------------------
Why, the Japanese did, of course.
Until the bombs were dropped, the Japanese High Command did not think they were in an untenable situation - they still had ONE MILLION SOLDIERS in their Kwantung army, and they had lost very few battles. There is NUMEROUS historical records that document this fact, none of which were written by JonnyX.
The Japanese Navy, yes. The Japanese Air Force, yes. But the Japanese Army was largely undefeated, and they knew that ALL of those one million soldiers would do their duty, and defend the Home Islands.
Really, all this information is readily available on the Internet - don't take my word for it, take a few moments to take the blinkers off and read what truly happened - you might educate yourself.
AGAIN, DON'T JUDGE THE REALITIES OF 1945, WITH THE 'MORAL JUDGEMENTS' OF 2007.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-11-02 01:49:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
and who wrote those history books?
theres nothing blinkered about my point of view, my histrionic little friend. i made no absolute statements, like you just did in your anfry little rant, i merely said that it was likely a result could have been achieved in a more peaceful manner, given japans untenable situation.
the whole story about 'saving american lives from having to invade' is somewhat laughable. the war was essentially over and it is easily arguable that this fact could have been made more than abundantly clear even to the supposedly fanatical japanese populace without having to resort to the use of atomic weaponry.
but please, get a little more angry, maybe you can threaten to hunt me down and beat me up or something.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-11-02 01:37:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-11-01 20:59:22 PDT (#)
Ranking: 0
it was probably unnecessary for the yanks to have dropped the bombs as an unconditional surrender would likely have been possible through diplomacy, given the untenable situation the japs were in by that period of the war.
---------
sigh.
NO DIPLOMACY WAS POSSIBLE - THE JAPANESE HIGH COMMAND WAS PREPARED TO SACRIFICE _EVERY_ _LAST_ _JAPANESE_ TO DEFEND THE HOME ISLANDS. THEY SACRIFICED EVERY LAST JAPANESE AT OKINAWA, YOU THINK THEY'RE JUST GONNA HAND OVER HONSHU, JUST LIKE THAT?
DON'T BELIEVE ME? CRACK OPEN A HISTORY BOOK AND READ INTERVIEWS WITH GENERAL TOJO AND THE RULING COMMANDERS. YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE REALITIES OF 1945, NOT OF 2007, MY BLINKERED FRIEND.
"THOSE WHO FORGET THE PAST, ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT" - SANTAYANA
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-11-01 23:59:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
it was probably unnecessary for the yanks to have dropped the bombs as an unconditional surrender would likely have been possible through diplomacy, given the untenable situation the japs were in by that period of the war. but it is unfair for people to blame the guy who flew the plane. if it wasnt him, it would have been someone else. its like blaming the plane for carrying the bomb. However, the nukes themselves, while devastating and responsible for the deaths of so many people were no more destructive than say the allies almost totally leveling berlin. i guess it was just the efficiency that humanity objects to. total destruction and mass murder is ok, if its laborious.
the only ones to blame are the politicians and military leaders of the time. it appears that american command dropped them to see what they would actually do to real, live, actual people. im pretty sure i read somewhere that the us is the only nation to have broken all of the geneva conventions at one point or another. though, dropping nukes is the only one other countries havent done.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-11-01 21:26:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-11-01 19:11:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
war is so cool
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-11-01 18:15:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Saved a lot of american lives. I'm not so sure about the second bomb - they could have perhaps left it at one. But that's hindsight - as others have said.
It's also not something I think we should glorify in. It was war. We do what needs to be done then and try and remain as human and humane as we can.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2007-11-01 17:12:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I really can't say I have strong feelings one way or another on this issue, just happy that it's not my problem really.
You cannot underestimate the fear that every nation on this planet was feeling at that time, and paranoia can do strange things to the mind.
Still, horrible way to go that is.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-11-01 17:03:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
quite true, this subject was my very first heatwhore, back in 2005
http://www.ubersite.com/m/57605
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-11-01 16:45:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i'm not justifying what they did at pearl harbour - that was wrong also. although comparing pearl harbour to the bombings of nagasaki and hiroshima (the repercussions of which are still being felt to this day) is not what i'd call 'fair'.
I just meant that paul tibbets having no regrets was dumb.
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2007-11-01 16:30:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Dropping the bomb was the best thing we could have done for Japan.
We turned them from a totalitarian state with utmost conformity, miltaristic society, brainwashed masses and slavish devotion to their tiny-penised effeminate emperor to a cute kawaii nation of productive gentlemen who love anime and cartoon tentacle porn!
but srsly
i'm glad he didn't live with regrets. Hindsight is 2020.
Submitted by beat_raven (user info) at 2007-11-01 16:24:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Toe -
as apposed to how the Japanese attacked ONLY the military in Pearl Harbor - when there wasn't a war?
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-11-01 16:20:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
why should he have regrets? he only committed mass murder on innocent civilians. bravo.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-11-01 16:09:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2007-11-01 15:44:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I wonder if they are having a party in his honor today?
----------------
I am not even sure if I would toss a party for him, unless of course I had annoying japanese neighbors...
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2007-11-01 15:44:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I wonder if they are having a party in his honor today?
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-11-01 15:34:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I wish that Shlongy could have been the one dropping that bomb.
Submitted by triangle_man (user info) at 2007-11-01 15:25:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Hindsight is 20-40
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2007-11-01 15:16:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Sad statement about the spread and influence of revisionist ignorance:
Tibbets had requested no funeral and no headstone, fearing it would provide his detractors with a place to protest, Newhouse said.
-
Awesome truth that is too much for revisionists (inckuding about 90% of Uberusers) to accept:
"You've got to take stock and assess the situation at that time. We were at war. ... You use anything at your disposal."
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2007-11-01 15:13:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
copy and paste with no SPT heading -1
Submitted by Paralyzed_By_Hope (user info) at 2007-11-01 15:07:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by beeltea (user info) at 2007-11-01 15:00:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
"It was Truman who made the difficult decision to drop the first atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, the rationale being that only such a devastating, horrendous display of destructive power would convince Japan that it had to surrender. Truman also made the decision to drop the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki, the rationale being that, hey, we had another bomb."
not mine.
Submitted by ConorJS (user info) at 2007-11-01 14:58:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
One time when we were all high, just sitting around and keeping things quiet, I blurted out that we had more atomic bombs than we dropped and voiced my opinion that we ought to have dropped one on Germany to teach them a lesson and one on Russia just to keep them from ever fucking with us. I also stated that we should not have rebuilt Japan, because today they are the competition.
I stand by what I said.