Paul Tibbets - Hero or just a guy doing his job

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=Amp]
I have heard that by dropping the bomb and ending the war early we ended up saving more lives than were killed by the bomb. Is that true or false?
[/QUOTE]

Estimates are all over the place. I’d be more concerned with civilian casualties though. Soldiers are there for war, and they will be the casualties of it. Would a standard military campaign against Japan have killed as many civilian man, woman, and children as the two bombs?

My guess is probably yes and probably more, specially given the completely f’ed up way both the allies and the axis were waging that war - indiscriminently.

22

My comment was made from the POV that NOBODY really knew what the result would be,though I’m sure there were good forecasts,simply because the prior bomb trial included no humans or incendiary material.
Had P.Tibbets been told “By dropping this bomb,x number of people will be vaporised,x number will have radiation poisoning,and those on fire will jump into boiling rivers to escape their pain,and blah blah collateral damage”,he MIGHT have thought otherwise.

23

I’m surprised at what some of you are saying, mainly that given the technology of the time, blowing up entire cities, civilian casualties be damned, was perfectly acceptable.

Isn’t that the main argument of terrorists? They don’t have helicopter gunships and fancy jets, so it’s perfectly justifiable to go around bombing cafes?

24

[QUOTE=Kinthalis]
I’m surprised at what some of you are saying, mainly that given the technology of the time, blowing up entire cities, civilian casualties be damned, was perfectly acceptable.

Isn’t that the main argument of terrorists? They don’t have helicopter gunships and fancy jets, so it’s perfectly justifiable to go around bombing cafes?
[/QUOTE]

:dubious:

25

In the 1980s, when anti-Japan fervor made a brief comeback, some people would ask him why he chose to drive a Toyota. He just said it was a good car, and besides he never took anything in the war personally anyway.

This was a man profoundly comfortable with his place in the world.

26

[QUOTE=Marley23]
Okay, you’ve said this twice and suggested other people do some research if they disagree. Care to back up your own conclusion a little bit?
[/QUOTE]

As I noted, I look at the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa as my main belief that the bombings saved lives. Okinawa lasted slightly less than two months, and was fought over a land mass less than that of Rhode Island. During that battle, the Allies lost about 13,000 killed. The Japanese lost about 66,000 Solders, and possibly more to the point, approximately 150,000 civilians were killed. In other words, during that 82 day battle, more people were killed than were lost during the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Certainly a greater number died after the bombing due to radiation sickness.)

What is difficult to capture in a quick argument, is the bitterness and ugliness of the battle of Okinawa. Reading any account of that battle (and of the battle of Iwo Jima) will leave one with the belief that the battle for Japan would have be sheer hell, compared to that in Europe. There were virtually no surrenders in Okinawa, with fighting to the death. And many civilians choose to committee suicide rather than surrender to the Americans. This would have been repeated during the invasion of Japan.

And keep in mind that to many of the Japanese troops, they were not fighting for the homeland. Many considered Okinawa to be a “red headed stepchild” if you will of Japan. So if one compares the blood shed in these battles, to that which would have followed in house to house fighting for the whole of Japan that was the homeland, it’s impossible in my mind to see that that battle would have cost less than the 220,000 lives lost during the atomic bombings. The fire bombings would have continued as a prelude to the invasion, and would have continued throughout them. The war would have gone on for many months following August, 9th, with killings each and every day until the invasion ended.

And not to be snarky, but I think any reading of these battles and the history of that time, vice revisionist history, makes this so obviously to be almost not debatable.

27

[QUOTE=spifflog]
And many civilians choose to committee suicide
[/QUOTE]

‘The next person voted off the island…’ :wink:

28

[QUOTE=spifflog]
And not to be snarky, but I think any reading of these battles and the history of that time, vice revisionist history, makes this so obviously to be almost not debatable.
[/QUOTE]

I have no doubt that it’s true that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings shortened the war and saved Japanese civilian lives, and so they can be justified from a practical morality point of view.

I also think that (like the bombings of Tokyo, Dresden, London and Coventry) they were war crimes, and that (if the US had lost the war) Harry S Truman could have been convicted in a Nuremberg-like tribunal for war crimes. However, by August 1945 there was no way that the US could lose the war, so that was never an issue.

As for Paul Tibbets: he was clearly an extraordinarily good bomber pilot, who successfully carried out several crucial missions. However, that doesn’t make him more of a hero than are the many thousands of other airmen, soldiers and sailors who also carried out their duties in difficult conditions during that war – on both sides of the conflict.

29

[QUOTE=Giles]
However, that doesn’t make him more of a hero than are the many thousands of other airmen, soldiers and sailors who also carried out their duties in difficult conditions during that war – on both sides of the conflict.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t want to hijack the thread, but I just wanted to comment that ‘hero’ is being overused now. It’s come to the point where anyone who is in the military is a ‘hero’. I remember not long after the Iraq war started there was a woman (a soldier) who said ‘I mean, we’re all heroes…’

30

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
Tibbets was not a hero, nor was he a villain. He was just a guy doing his job.
[/QUOTE]
And, to be honest, that mission was no fight through fighters ‘n’ flak that he would’ve encountered when he was flying in Europe. You might called it a “milk run” except for its role in history: not much more dangerous than one of his bizjet flights.

“I was just following orders,” was the copout Nazis used and they still swung, but there is no doubt in my mind that fewer Japanese civilians died from atom bombs than would’ve died had the war continued. It’s a choice I’m glad I didn’t have to make.

31

I met Tibbets only once, a few years ago at a book signing, so I can’t draw any conclusions about his character. He seemed amazingly humble and self effacing.

But a dozen years ago I had the opportunity to interview Don Albury. I have about 2 hours of his reminiscences on tape. 1st Lt Albury was pilot of The Great Artiste, the B29 which served as camera and observation plane for the Hiroshima mission. For the Nagasaki mission (actually the Kokura mission, but that target was obscured by clouds) the crews of Bockscar and The Great Artiste traded planes. Albury’s crew, with Maj Charles Sweeney in command, flew the Bockscar aircraft that dropped Fat Man on Nagasaki.

(Wiki link)

Don said that, while everyone had some speculation about the new weapon, they were never specifically briefed on the enormity of destruction envisioned. They were told that it was hoped that a single bomb could end the war. Imaginations might have been rampant, but direct knowledge certainly wasn’t. Of course, after observing Hiroshima, the magnitude became a known factor.

Perhaps the debate should be re-directed: Tibbets couldn’t really have even guessed what his mission would do to a city and its population. Nobody could. But Hiroshima provided at least some demonstration. (Of course, the full impact and total human toll would not be known to anyone for weeks, months, and years afterward.) So, was Sweeney the one who faced the real moral choice?

32

[devil’s advocate]

Why is the death of the drafted soldier “better” (in some sense) than that of the civilian?

[/devil’s advocate]

33

CannyDan,yes.

34

[QUOTE=Kinthalis]
I’m surprised at what some of you are saying, mainly that given the technology of the time, blowing up entire cities, civilian casualties be damned, was perfectly acceptable.

Isn’t that the main argument of terrorists? They don’t have helicopter gunships and fancy jets, so it’s perfectly justifiable to go around bombing cafes?
[/QUOTE]

Obviously the cafe bomber feels justified in what they are doing.

As I said above, I think that the leaders and people who fought in WW2 were products of the cultures and societies of those times.

You are applying your philosophies, derived from whatever enviornments and events that shaped you, upon a people from a different one.

I think your question, above, is a philosophical one, as much as a quasi-legal and military one. I think, generally, most people will “judge” an action based on the context in which it occured, as well as the ultimate goal intended. My reply is going to be shaped from my own particular perspective.

If I am frustrated with the crowded nature of the highway on my morning commute, am I justified in killing a few people to free up more roadway space? I think it’s safe to say most folks will say “No”.

In WW2, as a member of the French Resistance, would I be justified in going to a German city and blowing up a cafe, killing only working class civilians? Tougher call, but IMO the answer is “no”, because my goal (freeing France) is not served much, if at all, by that action.

In WW2, as a member of the French Resistance, would I be justified in blowing up a cafe where there was a signifigant number of uniformed German patrons? Now we start getting into a grey area here, and most folks, I think, are going to start to realise the murkiness of the situation. The Germans of the time, of course, will say “No”.

As far as war waged by nation states against each other, civilians have always been caught in events bigger than themselves, and ended up suffering for it. (That is just an observation, not a justification.)

In WW2, the U.S. government decided on a policy of “total war”, with the goal of ending the war (hopefully, in victory) with the least possible U.S. casualties, by destroying the enemies ability to wage war, and/or breaking their “will to fight”. The use of the a-bomb was decided with those parameters in mind, I think.

It wasn’t my call. I wasn’t there, a participant of those tiimes and events, as they occured 20 years before I was born. I have to say that I feel lucky that I can sit in my easy chair many decades afterwards and try to second guess the folks that had to make those decisions.

35

[QUOTE=spifflog]
And not to be snarky, but I think any reading of these battles and the history of that time, vice revisionist history, makes this so obviously to be almost not debatable.
[/QUOTE]
TWEEEET!

An absolute assertion of a tangent concept is grounds for a separate thread. Despite your belief, there are sufficient other possible scenarios for the August - December 1945 timeframe as to render this arguable–and claims that anyone who disagrees has not paid attention to history demonstrates only your own lack of awareness of the many separate arguments, not limited to the seriousness of the Japanese peace feelers (and whether the civilians who finally got control of the cabinet at about the same time as the nuclear bombings could have taken real power), the efficacy of imminent starvation (rather than actual invasion) in bringing about a regime change, the long-term prospects for the Japanese once the U.S.S.R. entered the war, etc.
(I am not asserting your conclusion is wrong, only that your absolutism is misplaced.)

Everyone, please take this hijack to a new thread.
[ /Moderating ]
A few earlier efforts:
Was the US attack on Hiroshima justified?
How many American lives were saved with the dropping of the atomic bomb?
Japanese surrender of WWII
WWII: Why, exactly did the Japanese surrender?
Rush Limbaugh–Atomic Bomb a “win-win” situation for Japan
Atomic Weapons and The End of WW2
Atomic debate: bombing Japan
Hiroshima & Nagasaki

36

[QUOTE=Lobohan]
Yeah, but Audie Murphy could take him.
[/QUOTE]
But Simo Hayha could take him and Chuck Norris at the same time.

37

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
TWEEEET!

An absolute assertion of a tangent concept is grounds for a separate thread. Despite your belief, there are sufficient other possible scenarios for the August - December 1945 timeframe as to render this arguable–and claims that anyone who disagrees has not paid attention to history demonstrates only your own lack of awareness of the many separate arguments, not limited to the seriousness of the Japanese peace feelers (and whether the civilians who finally got control of the cabinet at about the same time as the nuclear bombings could have taken real power), the efficacy of imminent starvation (rather than actual invasion) in bringing about a regime change, the long-term prospects for the Japanese once the U.S.S.R. entered the war, etc.
(I am not asserting your conclusion is wrong, only that your absolutism is misplaced.)

Everyone, please take this hijack to a new thread.
[ /Moderating ]
A few earlier efforts:
Was the US attack on Hiroshima justified?
How many American lives were saved with the dropping of the atomic bomb?
Japanese surrender of WWII
WWII: Why, exactly did the Japanese surrender?
Rush Limbaugh–Atomic Bomb a “win-win” situation for Japan
Atomic Weapons and The End of WW2
Atomic debate: bombing Japan
Hiroshima & Nagasaki
[/QUOTE]

So you call process foul, tell me to take it to another thread . . . and then go on for half to continue the debale to tell me I’m wrong??? And yes, thanks, I’m aware of the other arguments, I just find them less convincing than you do.

38

[QUOTE=spifflog]
So you call process foul, tell me to take it to another thread . . . and then go on for half to continue the debale to tell me I’m wrong??? And yes, thanks, I’m aware of the other arguments, I just find them less convincing than you do.
[/QUOTE]
Not reading for comprehension, today? I noted that there were other arguments, listing just a couple of them–meaning the case is not absolute–and explicitly said I did not disagree with your conclusion, only your absolutism. You did not merely claim that the issue was decided; you went so far as to say that anyone who disagreed with you did not have enough information to make a decision.

Open up another thread to discuss it in our merry fashion or drop the repeated assertions, here, that your conclusion is “without question” and that “A lot of things are debated on this site, for no apparent reason.”

I am not opposing your opinion, only your insistence on a point that will surely lead to a hijack if continued in your current language.

39

He’s my hero:

My stepdaughter’s maternal grandmother was a teenager in Korea in 1945. The Japanese were prepared to confiscate the enire rice crop from Korea and stockpile it for the defense of Japan, while millions of Koreans would be left to whatever charity the Allies could afford as a diversion from their own war effort (making this a double advantage to the Japanese)

Her natural grandfather was a POW in the Bataan Death March (perhaps guarded by Koreans related to her grandmother). Although he had been freed eight months before Hiroshima, his situation proved good reason why we couldn’t waste time dicking around with the Japanese Empire.

If he’s not your hero, it may be because you lost innocent Japanese relatives at Hiroshima, or because your humanity encompasses the entirety of the human race (excepting my stepdaughters’ grandparents)

40

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Not reading for comprehension, today? I noted that there were other arguments, listing just a couple of them–meaning the case is not absolute–and explicitly said I did not disagree with your conclusion, only your absolutism. You did not merely claim that the issue was decided; you went so far as to say that anyone who disagreed with you did not have enough information to make a decision.

Open up another thread to discuss it in our merry fashion or drop the repeated assertions, here, that your conclusion is “without question” and that “A lot of things are debated on this site, for no apparent reason.”

I am not opposing your opinion, only your insistence on a point that will surely lead to a hijack if continued in your current language.
[/QUOTE]

I read for comprehension daily. Thanks!