Gen. Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr. died at home on Nov. 1. He was, of course, famous as the pilot of the B-29 bomber, named after his mother, that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima in 1945.
The event has had ahuge impact on the world ever since. For shock value, it's hard to imagine anything greater. The controversy was intense then, and it's still around, though it's been overtaken by newer and more immediate outrages. Some say it was barbaric and killed thousands of innocent people. Some say it ended the war and saved millions of lives. The first is certainly true; the bodies were there to be counted. The continuing effects of the deadly radiation are there to be seen.
I personaly think the second claim is unproven, and unprovable. Japan had not surrendered. The news/propaganda said the mainland was mobilizing to resist an invasion. The army troops on Okinawa had faced violent opposition. Kamikaze planes had damaged and sunk a number of navy ships (it's a good idea to remember here that the amphibious ships were pretty much a one-way thing anyway; "sinking" an LST on the beach counts only nominally). Anyway, The Japanese were armed and waiting; The Troops were battle fatigued. They were also likely watching Movietone News clips showing their comrades coming home from Europe to family, friends, and parades. Would the Japanese have fought an invading force? Yes. Would they have been an effective resistance? I think that's the part that's forever unknowable. Millions of people killed in the invasion? I doubt it. I wonder if people who blithely make the claim have other certainties that are by no means certain.
I do know that a visit to the Hiroshima Memorial, at "Ground Zero", the old Prefectural Hall, is almost an emotional overload. Such a visit should probably be prescribed to the lot of draft-dodging warriors who are running things in the United States at the moment. And seem bent on starting more and more wars, until they find one they can win.
The event has had a
I personaly think the second claim is unproven, and unprovable. Japan had not surrendered. The news/propaganda said the mainland was mobilizing to resist an invasion. The army troops on Okinawa had faced violent opposition. Kamikaze planes had damaged and sunk a number of navy ships (it's a good idea to remember here that the amphibious ships were pretty much a one-way thing anyway; "sinking" an LST on the beach counts only nominally). Anyway, The Japanese were armed and waiting; The Troops were battle fatigued. They were also likely watching Movietone News clips showing their comrades coming home from Europe to family, friends, and parades. Would the Japanese have fought an invading force? Yes. Would they have been an effective resistance? I think that's the part that's forever unknowable. Millions of people killed in the invasion? I doubt it. I wonder if people who blithely make the claim have other certainties that are by no means certain.
I do know that a visit to the Hiroshima Memorial, at "Ground Zero", the old Prefectural Hall, is almost an emotional overload. Such a visit should probably be prescribed to the lot of draft-dodging warriors who are running things in the United States at the moment. And seem bent on starting more and more wars, until they find one they can win.
No comments:
Post a Comment