Were the crew of the Enola Gay war criminals?

[not nom]

so? how often do we get to hear "tough ****, that's war" -- ?

that IS war. the other is war crime. it's not that complicated.

 

[Revoltingest]

You also need to take into account that in one method, not only would enormously large amounts of Japanese been killed, but American soldiers as well. This was the dilemma the commanders faced, use nukes and possibly end the war with no more American casualties, or continue a conventional war and lose many more American lives.

Now you've done it! You've made the issue more complex & harder to judge.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Bombing of civilians was an accepted tactic for all participants of the WW2.
This of course does not make it right. But it breached no rules of war.

It was established as a useful terror tactic over london in the first world war (using Zeppelins), and was perfected by German and Italian squadrons in the Spanish civil war.

It has been used in virtually all wars since.
The scale of deaths, by the atomic bombs was nearly matched in horror by the fire bombing of Dresden and Coventry.

 

[sandandfoam]

Bombing of civilians was an accepted tactic for all participants of the WW2.
This of course does not make it right. But it breached no rules of war.

It was established as a useful terror tactic over london in the first world war (using Zeppelins), and was perfected by German and Italian squadrons in the Spanish civil war.

It has been used in virtually all wars since.
The scale of deaths, by the atomic bombs was nearly matched in horror by the fire bombing of Dresden and Coventry.

It seems to me that Dresden and Coventry were also criminal. Killing civilians is the reason NATO went after Gadaffi - why was it acceptable before and not now?

 

[Willamena]

It seems to me that Dresden and Coventry were also criminal. Killing civilians is the reason NATO went after Gadaffi - why was it acceptable before and not now?

Why did they wait so long to go after Gadaffi if it was not acceptable?

 

[sandandfoam]

Why did they wait so long to go after Gadaffi if it was not acceptable?

Perhaps because they were selling him lots of tanks?

 

[Willamena]

"Abduction or, as it is also often called, Inference to the Best Explanation is a type of inference that assigns special status to explanatory considerations."

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It seems to me that Dresden and Coventry were also criminal. Killing civilians is the reason NATO went after Gadaffi - why was it acceptable before and not now?

I suspect it was always known to be abhorrent.
However it take more than ethics to change laws
I can not remember when international law, came down on the side of civilians in terms of bombing, but such a ban is clearly not yet accepted by all administrations.

Syria has been attacking and blowing up its own people for years, and we have gone as far as saying they are naughty boys, and have taken our bats and balls home.

The world never was a safe place for civilians.

 

[Majikthise]

I was watching a documentary about Hiroshima last night. I found it very disturbing and it left me wondering - were the crew of the Enola Gay war criminals?

I think they were.

War crime?
You mean like Japan bombing Pearl and notifying us of their declaration of war afterwards?
Or the tens of thousands of Chinese civilians they slaughtered?
Or the Batan march?
Think.

 

[sandandfoam]

War crime?
You mean like Japan bombing Pearl and notifying us of their declaration of war afterwards?
Or the tens of thousands of Chinese civilians they slaughtered?
Or the Batan march?

Do you understand that I refute the criminality of any of the above?

Think

About what?

 

[Majikthise]

I get you. We should always turn the other cheek.
Great concept, but in real life one quickly runs out of cheeks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What was the crew the Enola Gay actually ordered to do? I doubt their orders would have read "kill as many civilians as you can"; they probably would have been something like "primary target: building (description: _____) at coordinates _____." While they may have realized that their weapon had enormous destructive power, I'm not sure they realized the intent. For all they knew, the goal of the mission might've been to attack the strategic capability of the Japanese military in some way (by taking out manufacturing capacity or rendering the city's port unusable, for instance) with the civilian deaths being an undesired but unavoidable consequence.

Actually, I did some clicking from the Wiki article on the bombings and managed to find the report that detailed the reasons for selecting Hiroshima as a target. Here's what it says:

(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)​

Atomic Bomb: Decision -- Target Committee, May 10-11, 1945

It seems to me that, based on this description, the bombing of Hiroshima (and note: since we're talking about the Enola Gay, we're really only talking about Hiroshima. The bomb at Nagasaki was dropped by a different aircraft and crew) seems to me to be based on legitimate military objectives. You may be able to argue that they didn't give due regard to civilians, and maybe that the US military didn't mind the civilian deaths, but I don't think it's correct to say that the main purpose of the bombing was to target civilians.

 

[sandandfoam]

I get you. We should always turn the other cheek.
Great concept, but in real life one quickly runs out of cheeks.

Who are you talking to?

 

[Majikthise]

Who are you talking to?

Fine.

 

[sandandfoam]

What was the crew the Enola Gay actually ordered to do? I doubt their orders would have read "kill as many civilians as you can"; they probably would have been something like "primary target: building (description: _____) at coordinates _____." While they may have realized that their weapon had enormous destructive power, I'm not sure they realized the intent. For all they knew, the goal of the mission might've been to attack the strategic capability of the Japanese military in some way (by taking out manufacturing capacity or rendering the city's port unusable, for instance) with the civilian deaths being an undesired but unavoidable consequence.

Actually, I did some clicking from the Wiki article on the bombings and managed to find the report that detailed the reasons for selecting Hiroshima as a target. Here's what it says:


Atomic Bomb: Decision -- Target Committee, May 10-11, 1945

It seems to me that, based on this description, the bombing of Hiroshima (and note: since we're talking about the Enola Gay, we're really only talking about Hiroshima. The bomb at Nagasaki was dropped by a different aircraft and crew) seems to me to be based on legitimate military objectives. You may be able to argue that they didn't give due regard to civilians, and maybe that the US military didn't mind the civilian deaths, but I don't think it's correct to say that the main purpose of the bombing was to target civilians.

According to the documentary last night, the target wwas decided in the air. Apparently 3 weather planes went an hour ahead of the Enola Gay to check out visibility over three possible targets because they wanted clear skies. They said that a briefing was given to the crew the night before about the effect that their weapon was going to have, they were told of temperatures etc and that the object was to destr0y the city.
Apparently the bomb was armed by a weapons specialist in the bomb bay while in flight - I thought that was amazing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

According to the documentary last night, the target wwas decided in the air. Apparently 3 weather planes went an hour ahead of the Enola Gay to check out visibility over three possible targets because they wanted clear skies.

Yes, they had a short list of targets, which had been selected based on various criteria, including the strategic effect of bombing them as well as how practically feasible it would be to use a nuclear weapon against them. That's how Hiroshima got onto the list of potential targets. And you're right - they narrowed it down to the final selection based on weather conditions.

They said that a briefing was given to the crew the night before about the effect that their weapon was going to have, they were told of temperatures etc and that the object was to destr0y the city.

Yes, but "the city" was many things besides just a place where civilians lived: it was a manufacturing centre, a port, a railway hub, an army depot and staging point, etc. I think you have to make an unsupported inference if you're going to say that it was killing civilians that the US military was especially concerned with. And I think it's completely unfounded to say that this is what the crew of the Enola Gay was really trying to do.

Apparently the bomb was armed by a weapons specialist in the bomb bay while in flight - I thought that was amazing.

Makes sense. Knowing a bit about how the Little Boy bomb was designed, I wouldn't want to take off or land with the thing being live. :areyoucra It used explosives to shoot one piece of uranium into another piece; I suppose that if they had been hit be antiaircraft fire in just the right way, the bomb could've been triggered while still on board. Best wait until as late as possible to arm it.

 

[Viker]

Both the conventional bombing of Tokyo and invasion of Okinawa yielded very heavy civilian casualties. The only reason atomic bombs were used were in hopes to quicken the total surrender of Japan or cut it's defenses in to sections for a classic three pronged attack ( most successful of the type ). Our forces and government pretty much figured civilians were already in the line of fire with no other way to bring Japan's regime and military to a fast decisive resolution. Some how the US had to procure an unconditional full surrender ( no truce, no armistice ). Was it moral? No. War doesn't ultimately deal with those things ( no matter what or how you've been taught ). War is usually amoral and many times out right immoral. Was it legal? Yes. Are the crew of the Enola Gay war criminals? Not in any legal sense. It's now up to history to sort out the ashes. Hopefully an objective view of the war between the US and Japan will one day be an indictment against war it's self.

One way or another. Total war was coming to mainland Japan. Total war means civilians will likely be in the way. They are not typically the target but they are there. Civilians were not specifically targeted at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both targets represented an early preparation dividing Japans defensive capacity. Pretty much making military response to a potential US full invasion nearly hopeless. Japans forces would not be able to transport support between sectors easily now. They were also major ports of military supply and manufacturing. With an island left basically helpless a full US invasion would have been pure hell on earth for everyone, especially civilians caught in between two adamantly opposed forces - one desperate the other with momentum.

Do I agree with it. No. I wasn't around then so my opinion doesn't really matter. I hate total war. If we are to have war it should be asymmetrical and surgical. They reduce all manner of casualties.

BTW, The Japanese government and military wanted an armistice until Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they had no intention of full surrender as the myth goes. Fukashima and others to the north were next in line to be attacked and this was considered even by the Japanese, as was by the US, a point of no more formidable resistance to US aggression on the mainland. There would be resistance for days or months - it was considered by BOTH that this resistance would be pointless and brutal mostly for Japan. After the first two atomic bombs we no longer spoke to any one in Japan's forces other than directly to Hirohito and his closest advisors. That emperor knew Hell was on it's way. His little island home was about to be turned into even a greater inferno, of tanks, mortar, machine guns, etc.

War sucks. Especially this kind. Let this be a lesson.

 

[Viker]

Oh dear. I forgot to put in some links and stuff. Now I'll have to go through a bunch of crud in my cache and edit all that later. lol I'm a dufus sometimes.

 

[Meow Mix]

My neighbor is related to that guy; he's never met him but his extended family said that despite talking about it haunting him sometimes, he otherwise "slept like a baby at night."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Trying to hold the exercise of war to standards of civility is rather naive.