[quote]The last surviving member of the US crew that dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima has died.
Theodore Van Kirk died Monday of natural causes at the retirement home where he lived in Georgia, his son Tom Van Kirk said. He was 93.
Van Kirk was the navigator of the Enola Gay, a B-29 Superfortress aircraft that dropped “Little Boy” – the world’s first atomic bomb – over the Japanese city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945. The bomb killed 140,000 in Hiroshima. Van Kirk was 24-years-old at the time.
Tom Van Kirk said he and his siblings are very fortunate to have had such a wonderful father who remained active until the end of his life.
“I know he was recognized as a war hero, but we just knew him as a great father,” he said in a telephone interview with the Associated Press on Tuesday.
In a 2005 interview with the AP, VanKirk said his second world war experience showed that wars and atomic bombs don’t settle anything, and he’d like to see the weapons abolished.[/quote]
[url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/29/enola-gay-atomic-bomb-crew-van-kirk-dies-93]Guardian[/url]
[quote]dropped “Little Boy” – the world’s first atomic bomb –[/quote]
Uh, they mean the first A-bomb used offensively, right?
interesting to see that he was against nuclear warfare, and not one of those "should killed all them gatdamn nasees and japs" lunatic vets like my great grandfather
[QUOTE=ZeFruitNazi;45537929]interesting to see that he was against nuclear warfare, and not one of those "should killed all them gatdamn nasees and japs" lunatic vets like my great grandfather[/QUOTE]
He had his entire life to mull over the fact that he was one of the people responsible for the death of 100,000~ civilians in an action that might have saved even more lives on both sides by ending the war before a mainland invasion of Japan.
And besides, if he was a loon, some kind of media probably would have picked up on it in the 70 years it's been since the war.
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;45537972]He had his entire life to mull over the fact that he was one of the people responsible for the death of 100,000~ civilians in an action that might have saved even more lives on both sides by ending the war before a mainland invasion of Japan.
And besides, if he was a loon, some kind of media probably would have picked up on it in the 70 years it's been since the war.[/QUOTE]
The fire/Incendiary killed more total, but also I wish I had known there was anyone still alive. I would have loved to write him a letter asking about what things were like for him.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;45537908]Uh, they mean the first A-bomb used offensively, right?[/QUOTE]
Nah. The Trinity device wasn't a 'bomb' per se. It was a nuclear explosive, yes, but it wasn't a bomb. Little Boy was the first bomb to employ a nuclear device as its explosive payload.
[QUOTE=ZeFruitNazi;45537929]interesting to see that he was against nuclear warfare, and not one of those "should killed all them gatdamn nasees and japs" lunatic vets like my great grandfather[/QUOTE]
i remember reading somewhere that the crew of the enola gay had immediate regrets about dropping the bomb and that they didn't want to do it in the first place but orders are orders.
[QUOTE=ZeFruitNazi;45537929]interesting to see that he was against nuclear warfare, and not one of those "should killed all them gatdamn nasees and japs" lunatic vets like my great grandfather[/QUOTE]
The man is probably responsible for directly killing the most humans in history. He understands the consequences of such an act and it would have been impossible for him to avoid the results of him dropping the bomb. He knew better than any other human what the consequences of a nuclear war would be.
[QUOTE=hanswithcheese;45538163]i remember reading somewhere that the crew of the enola gay had immediate regrets about dropping the bomb and that they didn't want to do it in the first place but orders are orders.[/QUOTE]
I don't blame them. Being even partly responsible for arguably the most destructive act in history must leave you with a lot of mental trauma.
[QUOTE=Blazyd;45538222]I don't blame them. Being even partly responsible for arguably the most destructive act in history must leave you with a lot of mental trauma.[/QUOTE]
Didn't the spotter plane pilot for the bomb run commit suicide afterwards?
the most depressing thing is that the bomb didn't even need to be dropped in the first place
it killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45538427]the most depressing thing is that the bomb didn't even need to be dropped in the first place
it killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people[/QUOTE]
No, you're 100% undoubtedly wrong.
Japan had already lost the war but they refused to surrender. They didn't have enough food to support their populace because the US was nailing any ships heading out or into Japanese harbors. People were starving to death and parents were having to forgo feeding their youngest children. The starvation was so bad that it still has an effect on their culture over there.
Japan was being raided on almost a daily basis by fighter-bombers that were shooting up anything and everything that could be deemed a military target; anything from a car to a fishing boat. They were suffering from bomb raids by B-29's that their fighters couldn't even reach in time before the bombers dropped their bomb loads. Tokyo was in ruins and most of Japan's factories were in ruins, but Japan still refused to give up the war.
The US had plans for an invasion of Mainland Japan, called Operation downfall if you'd like to read up on it, that had casualty estimates in the millions on both sides. Because of the way the Japanese were at the time, every man woman and child would have been expected to fight the invading Americans, so it would have been absolute genocide. They were expecting 1.5 million US deaths within a few months of the invasion, and you can assume that the deaths of the Japanese there would have been much much much higher.
The Russians were also on there way to Japan to finish what they started at the beginning of the war. Japan was stuck between 2 super powers and on the verge of starvation.
By dropping those 2 bombs, the US saved millions and millions of lives.
[QUOTE=hanswithcheese;45538163]i remember reading somewhere that the crew of the enola gay had immediate regrets about dropping the bomb and that they didn't want to do it in the first place but orders are orders.[/QUOTE]
I heard that they didn't know the full details of what they were ordered to drop, so they were kind of in shock after seeing the result. I don't think at that time many people were aware of the bombs carnage. I don't know, did they show pictures/footage from Trinity at the time?
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45538427]the most depressing thing is that the bomb didn't even need to be dropped in the first place
it killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people[/QUOTE]
The fact that it was such a shock to the Japanese was the reason it was dropped in the first place. They wanted to force the Japanese into surrender before being forced into a land invasion which (considering The Japanese still used Bushido and would fight to the last man) would almost certainly would have resulted in more death on both sides than the A-Bombs did.
It really sucks that it had to happen, but it was necessary to stop the fighting.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45538427]the most depressing thing is that the bomb didn't even need to be dropped in the first place
it killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people[/QUOTE]
And saved the lives of countless others.
This is an extremely touchy subject, so please don't misconstrue my comment as being happy nuclear weapons were used or thinking it was perfectly okay to use them. It wasn't. But, Japanese soldiers had orders to fight to the last man, woman and child using whatever means available to them. It would have been Okinawa times five. Those two bombs ended thousands of lives, but they saved millions in the process, both Japanese and Allied lives.
edit: ninja'd times 3
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45538481]No, you're 100% undoubtedly wrong.
Japan had already lost the war but they refused to surrender. They didn't have enough food to support their populace because the US was nailing any ships heading out or into Japanese harbors. People were starving to death and parents were having to forgo feeding their youngest children. The starvation was so bad that it still has an effect on their culture over there.
Japan was being raided on almost a daily basis by fighter-bombers that were shooting up anything and everything that could be deemed a military target; anything from a car to a fishing boat. They were suffering from bomb raids by B-29's that their fighters couldn't even reach in time before the bombers dropped their bomb loads. Tokyo was in ruins and most of Japan's factories were in ruins, but Japan still refused to give up the war.
The US had plans for an invasion of Mainland Japan, called Operation downfall if you'd like to read up on it, that had casualty estimates in the millions on both sides. Because of the way the Japanese were at the time, every man woman and child would have been expected to fight the invading Americans, so it would have been absolute genocide. They were expecting 1.5 million US deaths within a few months of the invasion, and you can assume that the deaths of the Japanese there would have been much much much higher.
The Russians were also on there way to Japan to finish what they started at the beginning of the war. Japan was stuck between 2 super powers and on the verge of starvation.
By dropping those 2 bombs, the US saved millions and millions of lives.[/QUOTE]
Weren't the average death tolls of a standard bombing run higher than the nuke strikes anyway?
i read somewhere that the emperor wanted to surrender before the bombs had been dropped but military higher ups didnt want to and when the us said "hey, we need an answer or we r dropping this bomb" the emporer sent word of his intentions to surrender but bad translation reported he had no intention of surrendering and so we went ahead with the nukes
[QUOTE=OvB;45538520]Weren't the average death tolls of a standard bombing run higher than the nuke strikes anyway?[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. Many, many, many more were killed as a result of fire bombings, especially over Tokyo. Around 125,000 were killed in Tokyo alone.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45538481]No, you're 100% undoubtedly wrong.
Japan had already lost the war but they refused to surrender.[/quote]
but japan was already trying to neogotiate surrender with the allies (on lenient terms of course):
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Divisions_within_the_Japanese_leadership[/url]
[quote]On June 22, the Emperor summoned the Big Six to a meeting. Unusually, he spoke first: "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them."[43] It was agreed to solicit Soviet aid in ending the war. Other neutral nations, such as Switzerland, Sweden, and the Vatican City, were known to be willing to play a role in making peace, but they were so small they were believed unable to do more than deliver the Allies' terms of surrender and Japan's acceptance or rejection. The Japanese hoped that the Soviet Union could be persuaded to act as an agent for Japan in negotiations with America and Britain.[44][/quote]
[quote]They were expecting 1.5 million US deaths within a few months of the invasion, and you can assume that the deaths of the Japanese there would have been much much much higher. [/quote]
where do these figures even come from?
[quote]By dropping those 2 bombs, the US saved millions and millions of lives.[/QUOTE]
by dropping nuclear bombs on two major cities? what about all of the japanese people who didn't have anything to do with the war? did they deserve to be incinerated?
[QUOTE=OvB;45538520]Weren't the average death tolls of a standard bombing run higher than the nuke strikes anyway?[/QUOTE]
The Firebombing attacks caused more damage and casualties than the nuclear strikes, but had less of a long term impact.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45538555]but japan was already trying to neogotiate surrender with the allies (on lenient terms of course):
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Divisions_within_the_Japanese_leadership[/url]
[/quote]
so you just gonna ignore the first few lines of the fucking article you linked?
[quote]For the most part, Suzuki's military-dominated cabinet favored continuing the war. For the Japanese, surrender was unthinkable—Japan had never been invaded or lost a war in its history.[19] Only Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy minister, was known to desire an early end to the war.[20] According to historian Richard B. Frank:
Although Suzuki might indeed have seen peace as a distant goal, he had no design to achieve it within any immediate time span or on terms acceptable to the Allies. His own comments at the conference of senior statesmen gave no hint that he favored any early cessation of the war ... Suzuki's selections for the most critical cabinet posts were, with one exception, not advocates of peace either.[21]
After the war, Suzuki and others from his government and their apologists claimed they were secretly working towards peace, and could not publicly advocate it.[/quote]
And if you know fuck all about US-Soviet relations, you'd know that the US would not accept a surrender if it had anything to do with the Soviets.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45538555]
where do these figures even come from?
[/quote]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall"]Operation Downfall[/URL]
In a more severe estimate,
[quote]A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan[/quote]
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45538555]
by dropping nuclear bombs on two major cities? what about all of the japanese people who didn't have anything to do with the war? did they deserve to be incinerated?[/QUOTE]
I'm not justifying it, saying it was ok, saying that the bombings were a good thing, but there wasn't another option that presented more minimal casualties.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45538555]where do these figures even come from?[/quote]
The US Militaries figures based upon research of the Battle of Okinawa, Battle of Saipan, and Battle of Iwo Jima..? Not to mention that we were starting to get in the whole reality that US Navy vessels would be sitting ducks to suicide boats and suicide planes. Which happened a lot on Okinawa by the way. Think we lost like 45 vessels all in all with most of their crews dieing or being maimed to shit.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45538555]by dropping nuclear bombs on two major cities? what about all of the japanese people who didn't have anything to do with the war? did they deserve to be incinerated?[/QUOTE]
Was Germany justified in The Blitz? Was the United Kingdom and America justified in Dresden? Japan in Nanking? Soviet Union in Berlin?
Shit happens, and sadly it's a total war so civilians are judged on equal military importance so long as they work to keep their country alive and fighting.
Another thing thats worth mentioning about the expected casualties, is that the US manufactured around 500,000 purple heart medals, expecting to most of them to the casualties from the invasion of Japan. Since it never happened, theres still a few hundred thousand of these purple hearts in stock and they're still being given out to wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45538618]so you just gonna ignore the first few lines of the fucking article you linked?[/quote]
if you read the article as well you would notice that the japanese were trying to sue for peace through a third party and had their diplomatic codes broken by the allies
[quote][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall"]Operation Downfall[/URL]
In a more severe estimate,
I'm not justifying it, saying it was ok, saying that the bombings were a good thing, but there wasn't another option that presented more minimal casualties.[/QUOTE]
and you are absolutely positive that dropped two barely tested experimental nuclear bombs on two major civilian centres was the best way to go about this?
[editline]30th July 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;45538636]Was Germany justified in The Blitz? Was the United Kingdom and America justified in Dresden? Japan in Nanking? Soviet Union in Berlin?
Shit happens, and sadly it's a total war so civilians are judged on equal military importance so long as they work to keep their country alive and fighting.[/QUOTE]
since when is this a justification? if millions of people die in a war you don't just brush it off as "shit happens"
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45538776]if you read the article as well you would notice that the japanese were trying to sue for peace through a third party and had their diplomatic codes broken by the allies
and you are absolutely positive that dropped two barely tested experimental nuclear bombs on two major civilian centres was the best way to go about this?[/QUOTE]
what does "barely tested" have to do with anything? it's completely irrelevant considering the bombs were years in the making already and they worked exactly as intended
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45538666]Another thing thats worth mentioning about the expected casualties, is that the US manufactured around 500,000 purple heart medals, expecting to most of them to the casualties from the invasion of Japan. Since it never happened, theres still a few hundred thousand of these purple hearts in stock and they're still being given out to wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
japan was on the verge of collapse
the people wouldn't have fought to protect their country like rabid diehards. even the government knew that they would be lucky to be around to the end of the year without falling to revolutionaries
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45538776]if you read the article as well you would notice that the japanese were trying to sue for peace through a third party and had their diplomatic codes broken by the allies
[/quote]
And again, they were trying to get peace by succumbing to the Soviets, and that shit would absolutely not fly with the US. The only surrender the US would accept would be complete unconditional surrender.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45538776]
and you are absolutely positive that dropped two barely tested experimental nuclear bombs on two major civilian centres was the best way to go about this?[/QUOTE]
Well, it's either 250,000 deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki along with a generation of children ruined by radiation fallout. Or, it's complete genocide and having most of a nations populace wiped out by the US. There was no other options. It was either mass murder or complete ethnic cleansing.
[editline]29th July 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45538800]japan was on the verge of collapse
the people wouldn't have fought to protect their country like rabid diehards. even the government knew that they would be lucky to be around to the end of the year without falling to revolutionaries[/QUOTE]
Want to cite something to prove that? Because everything I've read to this point states that the Japanese people were fanatical, which is why you had mothers clutching their children jumping off of cliffs on Saipan.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45538801]And again, they were trying to get peace by succumbing to the Soviets, and that shit would absolutely not fly with the US. The only surrender the US would accept would be complete unconditional surrender.[/quote]
why would unconditional surrender be so important? why not a mediated peace and save the lives of several hundred thousand persons?
[quote]Well, it's either 250,000 deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki along with a generation of children ruined by radiation fallout. Or, it's complete genocide and having most of a nations populace wiped out by the US. There was no other options. It was either mass murder or complete ethnic cleansing.[/QUOTE]
and you are absolutely positive that the USA would actually go ahead and commit mass genocide? that the japanese government wouldn't fall to revolutionaries? that millions upon millions would somehow die because of an invasion? that the japanese even had enough resources to defend their barely functioning country?
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45538776]
since when is this a justification? if millions of people die in a war you don't just brush it off as "shit happens"[/QUOTE]
Where is he justifying anything he just said? You completely missed his point.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45538801]Want to cite something to prove that? Because everything I've read to this point states that the Japanese people were fanatical, which is why you had mothers clutching their children jumping off of cliffs on Saipan.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Divisions_within_the_Japanese_leadership[/url]
[quote]On June 9, the Emperor's confidant Marquis Kōichi Kido wrote a "Draft Plan for Controlling the Crisis Situation," warning that by the end of the year Japan's ability to wage modern war would be extinguished and the government would be unable to contain civil unrest. ".[/quote]
[quote]In February 1945, Prince Fumimaro Konoe gave Emperor Hirohito a memorandum analyzing the situation, and told him that if the war continued, the imperial family might be in greater danger from an internal revolution than from defeat.[25][/quote]
if the government does not have faith in their people to be loyal, that's especially bad news
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
