The Best Read of the Year? # 1 - Shockwave Hiroshima.

[MadYank]

I'll get to a more lengthy reply at some other time.

For now, I'll just say that I'm a bit shocked by the Lack of any historical perspective demonstrated by 2 posters I have a lot of respect for. (Flushy and TK)

Historical revisionism is probably a bigger threat to mankind than the wars themselves in that it dooms us to repeat them over and over.

PS. Those who have experienced combat know 1st hand there be NO glory in war. Only suffering and death.

[tikay]

I'll get to a more lengthy reply at some other time.

For now, I'll just say that I'm a bit shocked by the Lack of any historical perspective demonstrated by 2 posters I have a lot of respect for. (Flushy and TK)

Historical revisionism is probably a bigger threat to mankind than the wars themselves in that it dooms us to repeat them over and over.

PS. Those who have experienced combat know 1st hand there be NO glory in war. Only suffering and death.

Ron, it's not a history thing, or an American thing. I have no history knowledge, or not much.

It's an "how terrible can man be to man?" thing. The book moved me deeply. That's all, there was no Nationalist or Political points being scored. I was moved by the book (which was written by an American) & wanted to share what I'd learned. That's all.

[MadYank]

Winning with dignity is clearly not something done in wartime.

I'll specifically address this point then get to the others.

I the situation we're discussing, the two atomic bomb usages in Japan, dignity just doesn't come into play.
After spending 4 years at war in a vicious campaign against a fanatical enemy, any rational human combatant is going to feel a joy and a desie to celebrate knowing that the end of all the insanity has either been reached or is nigh.

For the aircrews, it was knowing that they wouldn't have to spend another year wondering whether or not their lives would be blotted out from the sky in a blinding flash, or perhaps even more demoralizing, knowing they wouldn't have to watch their friends and squadron mates lives evaporate anymore.

For the grunts, it meant no more running into the path of bullets and bombs and mortars and suicide charges, and no more watching your friend's guts flowing out of him as his life ebbs away.

For the sailors, it meant no more kamikaze attacks, no more 2AM torpedoings, no more endless bombardments on barely seen enemies.

On the whole then, the end of war, or even a specific war, is certainly a time for celebration as it means the end of all these horrors. IOW celebration certainly isn't meant to dignify a frightening act (in this case use of an aweful new weapon killing 100,000s) but more to celebrate life and those who will retain their lives do to the end of it all.

I'm glad my combat exposure was short lived, and yes, I did celebrate returning from it unscathed. But I certainly wasn't celebrating killing or fighting I was celebrating the surviving, (both my own survival and the men who were with me through it).

Anywayz, I'll address the other historical issues, from Truman's decision to other far more horrific events from WWII, at length at a later time. With this post, I'm more just trying to contextualize what a writer may have taken out of context regarding a "celebration" by these specific aircrews.

Happy Boxing Day All.

[ifm]

wow, i agree sh1t happens

[tikay]

Winning with dignity is clearly not something done in wartime.

I'll specifically address this point then get to the others.

I the situation we're discussing, the two atomic bomb usages in Japan, dignity just doesn't come into play.
After spending 4 years at war in a vicious campaign against a fanatical enemy, any rational human combatant is going to feel a joy and a desie to celebrate knowing that the end of all the insanity has either been reached or is nigh.

For the aircrews, it was knowing that they wouldn't have to spend another year wondering whether or not their lives would be blotted out from the sky in a blinding flash, or perhaps even more demoralizing, knowing they wouldn't have to watch their friends and squadron mates lives evaporate anymore.

For the grunts, it meant no more running into the path of bullets and bombs and mortars and suicide charges, and no more watching your friend's guts flowing out of him as his life ebbs away.

For the sailors, it meant no more kamikaze attacks, no more 2AM torpedoings, no more endless bombardments on barely seen enemies.

On the whole then, the end of war, or even a specific war, is certainly a time for celebration as it means the end of all these horrors. IOW celebration certainly isn't meant to dignify a frightening act (in this case use of an aweful new weapon killing 100,000s) but more to celebrate life and those who will retain their lives do to the end of it all.

I'm glad my combat exposure was short lived, and yes, I did celebrate returning from it unscathed. But I certainly wasn't celebrating killing or fighting I was celebrating the surviving, (both my own survival and the men who were with me through it).

Anywayz, I'll address the other historical issues, from Truman's decision to other far more horrific events from WWII, at length at a later time. With this post, I'm more just trying to contextualize what a writer may have taken out of context regarding a "celebration" by these specific aircrews.

Happy Boxing Day All.

Thank you Mr F, & Happy Boxing Day to you. Peaceful, hopefully, too......

1) I have never seen armed combat, thank goodness, so I speak not from experience, but from a humanitarian position.

2) I don't or would not care how pleased my fellow countrymen & myself are at the thought that the war is over, & our souls are saved, & we shall be spared further suffering. If, at this precise moment, 50,000 humans are laying in the street, hideously wounded, dying slowly - 48 hours must be a lifetime when the flesh has been blown off your bones & your eyeballs sucked out of their sockets - then for me - for ME - I'm gonna show those poor civilians - civilians - just a bit of human decency.

3) There is no need to "contextualize what a writer may have taken out of context". He took nothing out of context - what I Posted was the thing that stuck in my mind, that distressd me so, & that I will never forget. The reason it was the most memorable book I read in 2006, out of 30 odd.

It was not sermonising, moralising, or anti-American-ing.

It was just, "oh my God, how TERRIBLE that one could celebrate such suffering". I cannot conceive of any force of argument that would make me change my mind - "Man is capable of such dreadful things, as a race (Humans) we should be ashamed of what we do to each other". There are plenty more examples just as bad, but that one was new to me.

I am less well versed on the Truman argument, & probably incapable of a reasonable defence to any coherent argument you put up in that respect - I'll leave Flushy to sort that one!

Anyway, I hope you are well, & I look forward to seeing you. All the best in '07.

[RFC]

War is Hell!

It makes no difference whether it's mass destruction in one fell swoop like Heroshima, or 100s of 1000s of individual horror stories from Galipoli or the Somme.

What have we (mankind) learned? Nothing. It goes on as we speak.

Mentioning the somme the book that grabbed me most this year was The Somme by Peter Hart an account of the battle which includes alot of first hand material from those on the front line (English, French and German)Gives a detailed account of the horror, heroism and sometimes humour of the soldiers life.

In the battle of the Somme 25,000 scottish soildiers and 5,500 Ulster soildiers was lead to slaughter on the first day of that horrible battle .
which is the worst day of british army strategies as they do admit they got it very wrong
This year was the 90th anniversarie of that day and i would like to say how brave all every soildier was as the knew what stood before them...

Not coming home

[MadYank]

Thank you Mr F, & Happy Boxing Day to you. Peaceful, hopefully, too......

1) I have never seen armed combat, thank goodness, so I speak not from experience, but from a humanitarian position.

I also am glad you haven't seen armed combat. I'd be glad if no-one EVER had to see it again. Alas, it is the way of men and their governments, that this wish is likely never to be fulfilled.

2) I don't or would not care how pleased my fellow countrymen & myself are at the thought that the war is over, & our souls are saved, & we shall be spared further suffering. If, at this precise moment, 50,000 humans are laying in the street, hideously wounded, dying slowly - 48 hours must be a lifetime when the flesh has been blown off your bones & your eyeballs sucked out of their sockets - then for me - for ME - I'm gonna show those poor civilians - civilians - just a bit of human decency.

Neither the aircrews nor their squadrons, nor their PR masters are likely to have understood the full humanitaian effects of these new horrible weapons. Therefore, as they landed and celebrated it is reasonable to assume they wouldn't have known about thousands of dying humans in the street.

Even if they did know, and that's a really big IF, what could or should they do about it? They were fighting a war. As I and so many far more eloquent authors and historians have covered across history, war is FKN HELL! Anyone who sells glory is FOS. No one understands this fact more thouroughly than those who have to fight the wars. No one wants them to end more than those who have to fight them.

There is no aid level they could have provided. There is no level of comfort or relief they cold have provided. Asking them to NOT celebrate survival and the near end of the war is not a reasonable expectation and belies a misunderstanding of the very mixed emotion most combat veterans (including myself)feel. It is a mix of horror at what you have done (violated the most basic law of civilization, killing/murder) and absolute relief to have survived the ordeal whilst mourning friends who haven't survived.

IOW, I agree completely with you that as humans and as a civilized society, we SHOULD react with shock and horror at the outrageous acts of barbarity men are capable of committing upon each other, but at the same time understand the simple small scale reaction of those we compel to commit these acts in the name of a greater good.

3) There is no need to "contextualize what a writer may have taken out of context". He took nothing out of context - what I Posted was the thing that stuck in my mind, that distressd me so, & that I will never forget. The reason it was the most memorable book I read in 2006, out of 30 odd.

I haven't read the book, (but I likely will as I have an active interest in these sorts of topics) so couldn't say for sure what specific context the author is using, but until then I return to the above argument about the differences between a societys' reaction and a specific military units' reaction.

It was not sermonising, moralising, or anti-American-ing.

Fully understood and accepted.
(Especially since if we were giving out "horrors of war" achievement medals America wouldn't even be in the running for Bronze based upon WWII actions)

It was just, "oh my God, how TERRIBLE that one could celebrate such suffering". I cannot conceive of any force of argument that would make me change my mind - "Man is capable of such dreadful things, as a race (Humans) we should be ashamed of what we do to each other". There are plenty more examples just as bad, but that one was new to me.

I wouldn't want to change your mind on the shock or disgust at these horrors of war. In fact I'd be happy if they stuck with you and your children and others and their children for the simple fact that it should make it less likely for civilized societies to send our children to future wars. And to reiterate, they were more than likely celebrating survival NOT suffering.

I am less well versed on the Truman argument, & probably incapable of a reasonable defence to any coherent argument you put up in that respect - I'll leave Flushy to sort that one!

I won't get into the actuarial debate about bomb vs invasion decisions until I see an informed, reasoned argument from Flushy supporting his previous repsonse.

Anyway, I hope you are well, & I look forward to seeing you. All the best in '07.

Same Here! Hopefully I'll at least see you and the Blonde Crew at WSOP 2007.

[The Baron]

I thought Flushy had made his argument here:

"if he just wanted to defeat the Japanese he could have invited them to a demonstration in New Mexico"

which is a fair point IMO. I don't claim to be well versed on the topic but Flushy's idea doesn't seem to be far off the mark for me. Maybe a demonstration in New Mexico was wishful thinking, but one off the coast of Japan perhaps?

[ariston]

A nation who's idea of warfare was to send its own pilots out to fly into the enemy ships etc. I know why don't we invite them over to a demonstration of how powerful our new weapon is and give them chance to strike at our hierarchy. I'm sure Flushy would've gone far in the American Defence dept.

[Longy]

My understanding of the trueman arguement, tho i will say there are a load of people more qualified to speak on it than me. Is that a full scale invasion of mainland Japan would have cost around 5 times more deaths in total than the dropping of the two a bombs. Remember Japan was a country which prided itself on fighting to the very last man and were already sending kamikaze pilots to blow up us warships. Against such an opposition the US at the time could have only reasoned that a total defeat of the enemy would end the war.

If you have such a weapon as the atom bomb which if it worked would end the war within a week and give the Japanese no option but to surrender you ARE going to use it, no country in the world involved in such a war would risk 100 000+ of its own citizens in favour of such an outcome.

I know what i have said so far is very cold hearted but there are many people alive in the us, japan and this country because of truemans decision. War is a horrible despicalble thing which ruins countries, towns and families, i hope to never see it in my lifetime up close.

Historically there are arguements the pure devistation these bombs caused prevented further wars, would the us and ussr have been so hesistant to use them during the cold war if  they had not been aware of the consequences?

Also Ron's arguements are very valid having fought such a bloody war for 3 and half years, the psyche of the americans must have been to win at all costs and personally i don't blame them.

[tikay]

Thank you Mr F, & Happy Boxing Day to you. Peaceful, hopefully, too......

1) I have never seen armed combat, thank goodness, so I speak not from experience, but from a humanitarian position.

I also am glad you haven't seen armed combat. I'd be glad if no-one EVER had to see it again. Alas, it is the way of men and their governments, that this wish is likely never to be fulfilled.

2) I don't or would not care how pleased my fellow countrymen & myself are at the thought that the war is over, & our souls are saved, & we shall be spared further suffering. If, at this precise moment, 50,000 humans are laying in the street, hideously wounded, dying slowly - 48 hours must be a lifetime when the flesh has been blown off your bones & your eyeballs sucked out of their sockets - then for me - for ME - I'm gonna show those poor civilians - civilians - just a bit of human decency.

Neither the aircrews nor their squadrons, nor their PR masters are likely to have understood the full humanitaian effects of these new horrible weapons. Therefore, as they landed and celebrated it is reasonable to assume they wouldn't have known about thousands of dying humans in the street.

Even if they did know, and that's a really big IF, what could or should they do about it? They were fighting a war. As I and so many far more eloquent authors and historians have covered across history, war is FKN HELL! Anyone who sells glory is FOS. No one understands this fact more thouroughly than those who have to fight the wars. No one wants them to end more than those who have to fight them.

There is no aid level they could have provided. There is no level of comfort or relief they cold have provided. Asking them to NOT celebrate survival and the near end of the war is not a reasonable expectation and belies a misunderstanding of the very mixed emotion most combat veterans (including myself)feel. It is a mix of horror at what you have done (violated the most basic law of civilization, killing/murder) and absolute relief to have survived the ordeal whilst mourning friends who haven't survived.

IOW, I agree completely with you that as humans and as a civilized society, we SHOULD react with shock and horror at the outrageous acts of barbarity men are capable of committing upon each other, but at the same time understand the simple small scale reaction of those we compel to commit these acts in the name of a greater good.

3) There is no need to "contextualize what a writer may have taken out of context". He took nothing out of context - what I Posted was the thing that stuck in my mind, that distressd me so, & that I will never forget. The reason it was the most memorable book I read in 2006, out of 30 odd.

I haven't read the book, (but I likely will as I have an active interest in these sorts of topics) so couldn't say for sure what specific context the author is using, but until then I return to the above argument about the differences between a societys' reaction and a specific military units' reaction.

It was not sermonising, moralising, or anti-American-ing.

Fully understood and accepted.
(Especially since if we were giving out "horrors of war" achievement medals America wouldn't even be in the running for Bronze based upon WWII actions)

It was just, "oh my God, how TERRIBLE that one could celebrate such suffering". I cannot conceive of any force of argument that would make me change my mind - "Man is capable of such dreadful things, as a race (Humans) we should be ashamed of what we do to each other". There are plenty more examples just as bad, but that one was new to me.

I wouldn't want to change your mind on the shock or disgust at these horrors of war. In fact I'd be happy if they stuck with you and your children and others and their children for the simple fact that it should make it less likely for civilized societies to send our children to future wars. And to reiterate, they were more than likely celebrating survival NOT suffering.

I am less well versed on the Truman argument, & probably incapable of a reasonable defence to any coherent argument you put up in that respect - I'll leave Flushy to sort that one!

I won't get into the actuarial debate about bomb vs invasion decisions until I see an informed, reasoned argument from Flushy supporting his previous repsonse.

Anyway, I hope you are well, & I look forward to seeing you. All the best in '07.

Same Here! Hopefully I'll at least see you and the Blonde Crew at WSOP 2007.

A most eloquent response Ron.

I don't think we can ever reconcile our thoughts, but in fact, they are not far apart.

Please read the book, it's breathtaking.

Health permitting, I shall be in Vegas this year, & I look forward to hooking up with you once again.

A peaceful '07 to you.

[CelticGeezeer]

Dropping nuclear bombs on a city full of civilians is shear cowardice, doing it twice beggars belief.

Of course it would not have been done if the compliment could have been returned.

Would the the people who think it was a good idea feel the same if their family lived in one of the cities flattened.

[tikay]

Dropping nuclear bombs on a city full of civilians is shear cowardice, doing it twice beggars belief.

Of course it would not have been done if the compliment could have been returned.

Would the the people who think it was a good idea feel the same if their family lived in one of the cities flattened.

The first A-Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Diplomatic Consultations then took place, & the Japanese Emperor was engaged in dialogue with his Government with a view to a total surrender. Terms were being negotiated, when, 4 days or so later, the second bomb was dropped without warning on Nagasaki. Surrender was then immediate.

A means to an end, & all that?

[ariston]

I may be wrong here but I seem to remember reading somewhere that while terms were being negotiated an attack took place on an American ship by a team of Kamikazes killing many American servicemen. The bomb followed to make sure they had an unconditional surrender meaning the end of the war. If we had the bomb we would have used it on the germans and if they had had it (they very nearly did don't forget) they would've used it on us. I really believe the bomb saved many more lives than it took, OK there were many innocents killed but the war had gone on for a long time and it wasn't near an end before the bombs were dropped. If they hadn't attacked Pearl Harbour I doubt they would have got involved so quickly and so violently. War is evil but it is a fact of life and it will always happen, no way will the world ever be at piece and IMO we should just be happy we aren't involved to heavily on these shores and most warfare takes place on foreign soil (selfish maybe but I believe in looking after myself and my own).

[Royal Flush]

I know why don't we invite them over to a demonstration of how powerful our new weapon is and give them chance to strike at our hierarchy.

I didn't mean the whole country!!! I was more thinking the ambassador! Maybe it wouldn't have worked, the Japanese psyche after all was very much no surrender, but surely it was worth a go.

If it didn't work then yes i would have supported the bomb over invasion.