Viewing 31 posts - 1 through 31 (of 31 total)
  • In what way did Enola Gay lie? (OMD content)
  • derek_starship
    Free Member

    Enola Gay, you should have stayed at home yesterday
    Ah-ha words can’t describe the feeling and the way you lied

    Any ideas?

    Or is it just careless songwriting?

    perchypanther
    Free Member

    Told Japanese air traffic control that they were on a mercy flight delivering hamburgers to Beijing?

    Harry_the_Spider
    Full Member

    Did she say that she was delivering buckets of sun flowers?

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

    Ask Jimmy Nail.

    bikebouy
    Free Member

    Recorded radio message apparently said “we are aliens and we want your women”

    stevied
    Free Member

    She wasn’t gay? That’s a nasty trick to pull to worm your way into someone’s affections…

    perchypanther
    Free Member

    Recorded radio message apparently said “we are aliens and we want your women”

    Surely it should have been “all your base are belong to us”

    ….preceded by a muffled mumbling in the background of “Somebody set us up the bomb”

    geetee1972
    Free Member

    Serious answer: I think because Truman argued that they needed to use the bomb in order to prevent the need for a US land invasion of Japan that would have been exceptionally costly to the Americans.

    It’s been argued by many that Japan would have surrended without the need either for such an invasion or the use of the bomb and that in reality Truman dropped it because he wanted to signal the power they now had to the Russians.

    epicyclo
    Full Member

    geetee1972 – Member
    …It’s been argued by many that Japan would have surrended without the need either for such an invasion or the use of the bomb and that in reality Truman dropped it because he wanted to signal the power they now had to the Russians.

    I find the thought of it repellent – just imagine Grenfell Tower city wide and your family in the middle.

    But either way it saved a lot of our sides lives, and some of those lives were members of the families of us here on STW.

    And if it hadn’t been dropped on Japan, the Cold War may have been a hot war with added atoms…

    cranberry
    Free Member

    The Japanese were conditioned to fight to the death, and had done so on Okinawa, with terrible military and civilian casualties. It is fanciful that they would have surrendered the home islands without a fight, indeed even after Little Boy and Fat Man were dropped there was an attempted coup by the military who wanted to keep on fighting.

    EDIT:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties

    Nuclear weapons saved lives the only time they were used.

    zanelad
    Free Member

    That is scary reading cranberry.

    nickc
    Full Member

    Geetee1972 is correct, Russia was invading Manchuria, US and allies were destroying Japans capability to fight in the Pacific. More specifically the U.S. had broken Japanese codes relatively early, and knew that Japan’s govt were looking to sue for peace as early as 1944, and In early ’45 mad attempts through neutral countries to start negotiations.

    sharkbait
    Free Member

    But either way it saved a lot of our sides lives on both sides

    FTFY

    just imagine Grenfell Tower city wide and your family in the middle

    True, but a lot quicker. I’m not sure they had the phrase ‘collateral damage’ in WW2 …… there was a huge amount of civialian loss of life – it’s just the way it was.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    IMO the dropping of the first bomb can be argued that it shortened the way although I am unconvinced. the second bomb was purely to test it.

    cranberry
    Free Member

    Who was it said the allies “were on the side of the angels, but were willing to use the tools of the devil” ?

    And a little bit of heavy reading for anyone wondering why we had to beat them:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

    ninfan
    Free Member

    It’s been argued by many that Japan would have surrended without the need either for such an invasion or the use of the bomb

    It’s also been argued by many that if the amaricans had dropped it off-shore as a show of force, instead of on Hiroshima, Japan would have surrendered. Personally I think that argument is somewhat undermined by the fact that they didn’t surrender until nearly a week after the second bomb was dropped.

    outofbreath
    Free Member

    But either way it saved a lot of lives on both sides

    This.

    Every Island the USA recaptured was costing tens of thousands of lives – more Japanese than American. Plus the civilian populations who were dying in their thousands.

    Ending the whole thing at a cost of 130,000–226,000 lives saved hundreds of thousands of people of many nations. I’d be interested in any mainstream credible Historian that says otherwise.

    I’m glad I will never have to make such a horrific choice.

    cranberry
    Free Member

    IMO the dropping of the first bomb can be argued that it shortened the way although I am unconvinced. the second bomb was purely to test it.

    “After the Hiroshima bombing, Truman issued a statement announcing the use of the new weapon. He stated, “We may be grateful to Providence” that the German atomic bomb project had failed, and that the United States and its allies had “spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history—and won”. Truman then warned Japan: “If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.”[178]
    This was a widely broadcast speech picked up by Japanese news agencies.[179] As a result, Prime Minister Suzuki felt compelled to meet the Japanese press, to whom he reiterated his government’s commitment to ignore the Allies’ demands and fight on.[180]
    The Japanese government did not react. Emperor Hirohito, the government, and the war council considered four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Formosa, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.[181]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Events_of_August_7.E2.80.939

    outofbreath
    Free Member

    knew that Japan’s govt were looking to sue for peace

    Sounds like bollocks to me.

    If America thought Japan was just about to throw in the towel why did they perform any of the insanely costly landings in 1945?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_and_land-based_operations_in_the_Pacific_Theater_during_World_War_II#Allies

    It’s woth a listen to this, there’s a fair bit about the landings on the Pacific Islands:

    Amphibious Operations in WWII

    johnners
    Free Member

    the second bomb was purely to test it.

    That isn’t so, they’d already tested the implosion design. The Little Boy design dropped first was untested because they didn’t have enough U235 to build 2 of them.

    slowoldgit
    Free Member

    It’s also been argued by many that if the Americans had dropped it off-shore as a show of force, instead of on Hiroshima, Japan would have surrendered. Personally I think that argument is somewhat undermined by the fact that they didn’t surrender until nearly a week after the second bomb was dropped.

    You’ll all know that the two bombs were different. ISTR reading that the makers couldn’t be sure they’d work*, so a demonstration may not have been sensible. They were dropped on port areas, where, if dud, a thickness of alluvium would have let them vanish deep underground. Thus there would be little chance of recovery in the short term.

    With what we now know, dropping one offshore could have produced the mother of all tsunamis.

    *(edit) thanks to johnners, they didn’t know if one would work.

    richmtb
    Full Member

    I’ve never been convinced the two atom bombs ended the war in the Pacific.

    Japan’s cities were already in utter ruins. Many of the largest cites had already suffered far more catastrophic damage than were wrought by the two atom bombs. The Japanese military were heavily fortified on the western coast of the Home Islands and largely unaffected by the bombings.

    Then the Soviets declared war and the Japanese were facing 1 million and half men on their Northern and Eastern fronts.

    Without Soviet involvement the Japanese might have been prepared to hold out and offer a conditional surrender, they knew they were beaten, but they also knew the Americans probably weren’t prepared to invade. If they could protect the Emperor and hold onto some territory like Okinawa then they probably would have surrendered.

    The Soviets rocking up at the back door changed that equation facing a war on two fronts they knew it was all over. The new American wonder weapon offered a convenient way of saving face but once the Soviets became involved surrender was inevitable.

    So I’m not sure you can really argue that the atom bombs shortened the war.

    Whether it could be argued they stopped the cold war turning hot is a different question.

    outofbreath
    Free Member

    Without Soviet involvement the Japanese might have been prepared to hold out and offer a conditional surrender

    A conditional surrender was utterly discounted by the allies from the start to either Germany or Japan. It had to be unconditional for all the obvious reasons.

    However if you’re going to suggest a conditional surrender then it seems likely both Germany and Japan would have grabbed a conditional surrender with both hands as long as it left them with their leadships in place and most of their own territory plus no occupation. [1] If you think that would have been practical then yes, the war in the Pacific could have been ended with minimal bloodshed and without dropping nukes.

    …but if you’re going to argue for a conditional surrender with terms acceptable to the Japanese/German leaderships then you could equally argue that the Allies could have saved lives by just stopping fighting themselves and going home.

    they also knew the Americans probably weren’t prepared to invade.

    UK+USA+Others were in the process of shipping troops from Europe to the Pacific theatre. They were both prepared to invade and literally preparing to invade.

    [1] After Stalingrad (and probably before long that) some kind of settled peace with Hitler not being hung was pretty much all Hitler had to fight for. He actually discounted any kind of negotiation because the a pre-condition of any negotiation was that it wouldn’t be with Hitler. So we can deduce that the opposite is true and if the Allies were willing to deal with Hitler and offer a conditional surrender he *would* have negotiated.

    outofbreath
    Free Member

    After Stalingrad (and probably before long that) some kind of settled peace with Hitler not being hung was pretty much all Hitler had to fight for.

    Well, I say that, you could strongly agrue that a negotiated peace with Britain was Hitler’s objective with regard to Britain from the outset and shortly after Dunkirk that could well have happened. (Halifax would have done a deal for sure.) However after that, Churchhill stiffened everyones resolve and negotiated settlements were off the table for good.

    richmtb
    Full Member

    I’m not suggesting a conditional surrender was ever on offer from the allies. But I think Japan would have accepted one if it was offered. The knew they were beaten. Fighting long enough to reach a negotiated settlement was all they had left.

    they also knew the Americans probably weren’t prepared to invade.

    Poor choice of words, they knew the Americans would like to avoid invasion was more what I meant.

    Anyway, we don’t have an alternative world where the Soviets honoured their neutrality pact to test the theory. But I can’t imagine Stalin opening up a second front against Japan wasn’t as least as big a factor as another two small Japanese cities in ruins

    geetee1972
    Free Member

    That isn’t so, they’d already tested the implosion design. The Little Boy design dropped first was untested because they didn’t have enough U235 to build 2 of them.

    Beat me to it. They also knew they would never have enough.

    outofbreath
    Free Member

    But I can’t imagine Stalin opening up a second front against Japan wasn’t as least as big a factor as another two small Japanese cities in ruins

    So you can’t accept that Truman would kill 130,000–226,000 to save hundereds of thousands – many of them American – but you *can* accept he’d do it to save the country he was engaged in a bitter war with from getting overrun by Russia….

    Occams razor says he did it to avoid the nightmare of fighting Island by Island killing people by the tens of thousands before he even reached mainland Japan, there may have been other advantages, but there wouldn’t need to be, any sane person would have made the same decision on the same facts.

    ninfan
    Free Member

    But I think Japan would have accepted one if it was offered. The knew they were beaten

    I defer to McD-F on that one

    ‘[It] is now widely held (or at least it has been widely stated) that the dropping of atomic bombs was unnecessary because the Japanese were ready to give in . I shall say only that I wish those that hold that view had been present to explain the position to the little bastard who came howling out of the thicket near the Sittang, full of spite and fury, in that first week of August. He was half-starved and near naked, and his only weapon was a bamboo stake, but he was in no mood to surrender’.

    mrmonkfinger
    Free Member

    just imagine Grenfell Tower city wide and your family in the middle

    Or look at London and Dresden, c. 1940/41.

    On the surface it looks a horrible choice but the more I’ve read it does seem the use of the two bombs was the least worst choice available at the time. TBH it makes me bloody glad to have been born when and where I was.

    outofbreath
    Free Member

    TBH it makes me bloody glad to have been born when and where I was.

    This x10000.

    richmtb
    Full Member

    So you can’t accept that Truman would kill 130,000–226,000 to save hundereds of thousands – many of them American – but you *can* accept he’d do it to save the country he was engaged in a bitter war with from getting overrun by Russia….

    We’re at cross purposes here.

    I’m not saying anything about Truman’s motives.

    Japan knew surrender was the only option when the Soviets declared war. All their best equipped troops were dug in facing possible American invasion from the west, so a Soviet attack from the north and east left them strategically scuppered.

Viewing 31 posts - 1 through 31 (of 31 total)

The topic ‘In what way did Enola Gay lie? (OMD content)’ is closed to new replies.