Well I'll answer that later as I have to scoot unless someone else addresses it in the meantime.
Last crew member of Enola Gay dies aged 93
- Thread starter Von Smallhausen
- Start date
Well I'll answer that later as I have to scoot unless someone else addresses it in the meantime.
He was actually a figurehead, and the person responsible for persuading the government to surrender following the second nuke.
If you were alive for all of the events which led up to WW2, then heard of the atrocities that Japanese soldiers were committing, what they did to POW's and Civilians, you'd seen half the US Navy obliterated at Pearl Harbour and you'd also been exposed to huge amounts of anti-Japanese propaganda; would it be surprising that you wouldn't feel any regrets about bombing Japan and effectively forcing them to surrender?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 183
A serviceman that did his duty, have to respect that.
Words fail me. Seriously calling a soldier a mass murderer for carrying out an order? Doing his duty?
I'm going to take a guess that this is your general view on soldiers and the armed forces? All murderers?
Clueless. Absolutely clueless. On both the definition of murder, and what being in the armed forces is all about.
Last edited:
:/ Just like you respect the SS officers in Auschwitz I guess?
Dropping a nuclear weapon on a civilian area is mass murder.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 7,004
- Location
- Thessaloniki
youre confusing a soldier to a paramilitary unit composed of sociopaths. Wehrmacht was the German army, SS were hitlers guard. Waffen SS were volunteers forming special divisions fighting alongside Wehrmacht.
So were the Nazi's who ran the extermination camps but it's not really an excuse is it?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,333
- Location
- Woking
Yeah this "he was just doing his job" reasoning is BS. You have free will. For him to have turned around and said, "**** off, I'm not killing hundreds of thousands of people" may have ruined his life, but prevented all those deaths.
To be fair, I doubt it would have prevented all the deaths, they would have simply got someone else to do it so the deaths would have still happened. However, you are right about free will.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,820
- Location
- Falling...
I don't think there was ever a justification for such extreme measures. They knew it would obliterate hundreds of thousands of people, the majority of whom were innocent. I feel sorry for those having to carry out the orders. Though I would have given my admiration had they turned back on their orders - though someone else would have done it I guess.
I just hope that we will be forgiven for our actions of the past. However, we don't seem to be learning though with everything else that's going on in the world.
I just hope that we will be forgiven for our actions of the past. However, we don't seem to be learning though with everything else that's going on in the world.
Saving millions by sacrificing thousands is a rational decision, albeit one that can and should cause a lot of conflict in the decision makers soul, but it was still the right decision.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 7,004
- Location
- Thessaloniki
someone else would have done it.
That's also a good excuse used by people carrying out atrocities.
'If I hadn't gassed those Jews, someone else would have'.
It may be true sometimes, but that doesn't absolve the individual of their responsibility for their actions.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 May 2006
- Posts
- 1,965
People saying he has free will etc have to think a few things through. It was the first time a bomb of this type would be used to bomb a city how would they know the full affects before dropping it.
Do you class all bombers that dropped normal bombs in the same manner just because that bomb was bigger shouldn't be such a factor when it was the first time it was used. I think applying hindsight after its first application is silly.
Studies showed that when it came to pushing the button to lunch nuclearly missiles not all people would do it hence they had to automat the control in the US. Do you think the reason that this happened was because of the hindsight of what happened thanks to the first bombs being dropped. More people knew the results of what would happen so are unwilling to do it.
Also he was a soldier that had to follow orders. In the army you are given a job/order if you don't do that job/order you are arrested. In war times armies this would have resulted in either very long prison time and dishonour in a era that this was seen as a very bad thing or possible death depending on the army you served in.
I don't like the use of these bombs but wonder with the impact these 2 bombs had at the end of world war 2 is this the reason they have never been used since.
TLDR. Don't judge on hindsight on a different time era when these were the first time these were used.
Do you class all bombers that dropped normal bombs in the same manner just because that bomb was bigger shouldn't be such a factor when it was the first time it was used. I think applying hindsight after its first application is silly.
Studies showed that when it came to pushing the button to lunch nuclearly missiles not all people would do it hence they had to automat the control in the US. Do you think the reason that this happened was because of the hindsight of what happened thanks to the first bombs being dropped. More people knew the results of what would happen so are unwilling to do it.
Also he was a soldier that had to follow orders. In the army you are given a job/order if you don't do that job/order you are arrested. In war times armies this would have resulted in either very long prison time and dishonour in a era that this was seen as a very bad thing or possible death depending on the army you served in.
I don't like the use of these bombs but wonder with the impact these 2 bombs had at the end of world war 2 is this the reason they have never been used since.
TLDR. Don't judge on hindsight on a different time era when these were the first time these were used.
Last edited:
Suppose this all comes down to your definition of innocent. Throwing this out there: Just because you are not in the army, doesn't make you innocent. Civilians at home (England) in WW2 were very much a big part of the war effort. My guess is civilians at home in Japan were exactly the same?
Let's not forget how the US was brought into the war. How many opportunities the Japanese had to surrender.
My only issue here is the branding of soldiers as murderers. Whether or not it was the right decision, at that moment in time, that was what people above deemed to be the right approach. Heinsight is a lovely thing.
Why is one soldier a 'murderer' for killing 10's of thousands, and one not a murder because he only killed one or two? Why is not everyone a murder in the army as their combined efforts lead to the death of hundreds of thousands if not millions?
Being in the army takes a special someone. Sometimes having to do things you might find wrong. Give them a break. You rely on them more than you might think. After all no one complains about their handling of Nazi Germany, in which we bombed 'innocent civilians'.
Let's not forget how the US was brought into the war. How many opportunities the Japanese had to surrender.
My only issue here is the branding of soldiers as murderers. Whether or not it was the right decision, at that moment in time, that was what people above deemed to be the right approach. Heinsight is a lovely thing.
Why is one soldier a 'murderer' for killing 10's of thousands, and one not a murder because he only killed one or two? Why is not everyone a murder in the army as their combined efforts lead to the death of hundreds of thousands if not millions?
Being in the army takes a special someone. Sometimes having to do things you might find wrong. Give them a break. You rely on them more than you might think. After all no one complains about their handling of Nazi Germany, in which we bombed 'innocent civilians'.
Last edited: