Atomic Bomb In WWII

[JimG]

I attended a public affairs forum last year where a German historian questioned the “morality” of the U.S. bombing German cities. No one at this Forum ever mentioned the bombing each and every night for many months of London, and I truly believe that when all of the World War II veterans pass away Germany is going to change history – they weren’t responsible for the war – Great Britain and the USA was.

Historical revisionism sometimes occurs with succeeding generations. It’s important to retain original source material and original recollections of participants.

As to the German historian questioning the morality of the U.S. bombing of German cities, it seems a fair criticism. The atom bombs have become the focus of the morality question, but those were simply a more concentrated form of city bombing which had been practiced throughout the war. From a morality standpoint, I can’t make a case to justify either one. Yet from a historical standpoint, it does seem apparent that these types of bombings did shorten the war, ultimately saving lives. And of course, the Allied nations had no monopoly on morally questionable tactics.

As for the two atom bombs that were used, they had a yield (without looking this up) something on the order of 20 kilotons. Compared to what is in the U.S. and Russian arsenals today, they were midget bombs. Now, ICBM’s can carry warheads of 1 megaton easily, going up to much larger yields of 10 or 20 megatons.

Is it moral to even own such a powerful deterrent force? I couldn’t argue for getting rid of it unilaterally, because we would then be open to nuclear blackmail not only from Russia but other nations. I also believe that without the existence of the U.S. deterrent force, the U.S. would have lost the Cuban missile crisis showdown, and the cold war. The deterrent is effective even when not used.

 

[Wirraway]

…
As to the German historian questioning the morality of the U.S. bombing of German cities, it seems a fair criticism. …

you’ve gotten spoiled watching cruise missiles with TVs mounted in their noses flying through windows. “daylight precision bombing” in WW2 was a misnomer. even with a bombardment formation releasing bombs on command of the best trained bombadier, inaccuracy was a fact of life because of the luftwaffe, anti-aircraft guns, altitude, wind, smoke, weather conditions, the fact that not all air crews had nerves of steel, errors, etc. the USAAF chose military targets as the nominal aim point, the widespread destruction of property and life results were not the main intention, but, I would suggest, a welcome addition.

here’s a hint to the german historian: if you don’t want your cities smashed to matchwood and burned out, don’t invade europe.

 

[GKC]

This is just going to be a general “reply” to many of the responses in this forum. I graduated from high school six months after Pearl Harbor and since I live in San Francisco saw many service men, particularly Navy, leaving to go to the South Pacific.
As I recall history, the Japanese Emperor actually had a speech to his people prepared advising them that Japan was going to surrender, and his Generals wouldn’t permit him to give it. My husband was in the Army and they were preparing to invade Japan and I’m sure many of our men would have died in this invation.
Also I seem to recall that the U.S. demanded “unconditional surrender” and I believe that if we hadn’t made these demands Germany might have surrendered and Hitler may have survived. I don’t know whether any of you remember the Bataan Death March, and in hearing about this terrible situation, Japan was as cruel as any country ever could be.
I attended a public affairs forum last year where a German historian questioned the “morality” of the U.S. bombing German cities. No one at this Forum ever mentioned the bombing each and every night for many months of London, and I truly believe that when all of the World War II veterans pass away Germany is going to change history – they weren’t responsible for the war – Great Britain and the USA was.

There was no speech the Emperoror was going to make, which his generals prevented him from making. After the 2nd nuclear bomb was dropped, a meeting of the Council on the Direction of the War was held, in which, after much discussion, the issue was laid before the Emperor. Who directed that the Potsdam Proclamation must be accepted (that is, that Japan must surrender). An Imperial Rescript was recorded, in the Emerpor’s own voice (a first) and when word of this spread, before it was delivered, a low-level Army insurrection took place, with several high level generals/ministers being killed or attacked, in an attempt to stop the broadcasting of the Rescript and hence, the surrender. It failed, in less than a day. You may be thinking of this short lived revolt. JAPAN’S LONGEST DAY is a good account of it.

Yes, I remember the Bataan Death March. Daws’ PRISONERS OF THE JAPANESE is a good acount of POWs in Japanese hands during the war.

GKC

 

[Wirraway]

This is just going to be a general “reply” to many of the responses in this forum. I graduated from high school six months after Pearl Harbor and since I live in San Francisco saw many service men, particularly Navy, leaving to go to the South Pacific.
As I recall history, the Japanese Emperor actually had a speech to his people prepared advising them that Japan was going to surrender, and his Generals wouldn’t permit him to give it. My husband was in the Army and they were preparing to invade Japan and I’m sure many of our men would have died in this invation.
Also I seem to recall that the U.S. demanded “unconditional surrender” and I believe that if we hadn’t made these demands Germany might have surrendered and Hitler may have survived. I don’t know whether any of you remember the Bataan Death March, and in hearing about this terrible situation, Japan was as cruel as any country ever could be.
I attended a public affairs forum last year where a German historian questioned the “morality” of the U.S. bombing German cities. No one at this Forum ever mentioned the bombing each and every night for many months of London, and I truly believe that when all of the World War II veterans pass away Germany is going to change history – they weren’t responsible for the war – Great Britain and the USA was.

Dad dropped out of high school right after Pearl Harbor and married Mom right before he shipped out in the Navy. they’re still married. he served the duration in the Med, the North Atlantic, and South Pacific, and would have participated in the invasion, if the atomic bombs hadn’t ended the war. an uncle (never had the chance to meet him) was in the Phlippines and was KIA within the Bataan defense lines. to this day, Mom hates the japanese emperor.

 

[RobbyS]

If you read Winston Churchill’s books about WWII, you will learn that Britain was just about bankrupted by the time the United States entered the war. If only Hitler had not declared war on the United States, he would have been able to force England to capitulate because they would have had no food and no gasoline or oil and would have been unable to continue.

If you visit Roosevelt Roads Naval Air Station in Puerto Rico, you will find facilities that were built there for the British government-in-exile. A few more months of starvation conditions and the British leadership, the monarchy, and the British fleet would have been forced to leave Britain and live as a guest of the United States.

The U.S. built an airplane called the B-36 … a huge airplane with (ultimately) ten engines … for the purpose, if needed, of bombing Germany from the continental United States.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36

pages.nyu.edu/~jh15/b-36.html

The U.S. produced 365 of the B-36’s in various versions. There are still a few B-36’s left; the Air Force Museum at Wright Patterson AFB, near Dayton, Ohio has one. Go see it.

The atomic bomb was originally intended for use against Germany.

My idea has always been that if Hitler had made one fewer mistake or if the Allies had made one more mistake, the war would have gone the other way.

As a civil war general said about one battle of that war, and he might have said it about that whole war, it was a close run thing.
If Hitler had not so underestimated the United States, of our ability to fully mobilize and put a huge army and navy and air force into the field, and had not decided to declare war on the United States, he would have forced the British to come to terms more or less on the same lines that that accepted by the French. The duke of Windsor would have been returned to his seat on the throne and ruled as a puppet of the German government. This would have removed England’s greatest value to us, which was as a forward base for our planes and for our invasion forces and greatly increased the German Army’s industrial base. Probably it would have delayed the invasion of Russia in part because the Germans would have gained access to the mideastern oil fields which they could have quickly developed, and so would have felt no need for the Caucasion fields which was the main strategic objective in 1942. Oil was a great advantage that we enjoyed over the Germans.
Meanwhile our major attention would have beebn directed in the Pacific while we maintained a largely defensive posture in the Atlantic, where our naval forces would have been great buttressed by British ships, although it is possible that some or even many naval officers would have refused to let their vessels be expatriated. Hard to guess what British morale would have been if the government had tried to translate itself to the west,

 

[JustWar]

I have a problem with you using the word “we” when describing the actions of “Caesar” as if you or I were the ones that dropped bombs on defenseless women and children. This is a common mistake that is made by a country’s people. The leaders have their own reasons to trick us into war against other nations using its own unwitting people as canon fodder. For the church to defend or even rationalize these atrocites smacks of hypocrisy and outright cowardice. The church then becomes nothing but an arm of the government.

 

[Wirraway]

… The leaders have their own reasons to trick us into war against other nations using its own unwitting people as canon fodder. …

I’d like to have been present when FDR tricked us into entering WW2, the day after the attacks on Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, etc, etc. etc.

that would have been cool.

Dad was supposed to be cannon fodder, but he made it through.

I was supposed to be cannon fodder too, but They never found a war for me. I could wring my hands in angst about this, but, no.

 

[Wirraway]

…As a civil war general said about one battle of that war, and he might have said it about that whole war, it was a close run thing. …,

actually, the duke of wellington said that about waterloo … a near run thing.

 

[GKC]

I’d like to have been present when FDR tricked us into entering WW2, the day after the attacks on Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, etc, etc. etc.

that would have been cool.

Dad was supposed to be cannon fodder, but he made it through.

I was supposed to be cannon fodder too, but They never found a war for me. I could wring my hands in angst about this, but, no.

It was to avoid a lot of people, of all types, from being consumed as cannon fodder, that the war was ended, with 2 bombs, in 5 days.

GKC

 

[GKC]

actually, the duke of wellington said that about waterloo … a near run thing.

Even the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life.

GKC

 

[Al_Masetti]

Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931.

September 19th.

We should commemorate that date.

 

[Al_Masetti]

you’ve gotten spoiled watching cruise missiles with TVs mounted in their noses flying through windows. “daylight precision bombing” in WW2 was a misnomer. even with a bombardment formation releasing bombs on command of the best trained bombadier, inaccuracy was a fact of life because of the luftwaffe, anti-aircraft guns, altitude, wind, smoke, weather conditions, the fact that not all air crews had nerves of steel, errors, etc. the USAAF chose military targets as the nominal aim point, the widespread destruction of property and life results were not the main intention, but, I would suggest, a welcome addition.

here’s a hint to the german historian: if you don’t want your cities smashed to matchwood and burned out, don’t invade europe.

There were many bombing “systems” developed.

One, for example, by the Brits involved DeHavilland Mosquitoes with master bomb aimers reaching the target ahead of the main body of bombers and dropping special flares that would stay in the air for a long time.

Then, when the main force reached the flares, they were supposed to drop on the “flare stack”. What happened was that the lead bomber dropped on the flare stack, but the rest tended to drop at the same time as the lead bomber. So that the bomb impact point crept back and the bombs were strewn all over instead of on a precise single spot.

Later on, there were all sorts of radio navigation devices and airborne radar.

The Germans had excellent radar and radar jamming and radar homing and radio jamming. They also generated a lot of smoke to obscure the target area. With radar directed spotlights and radar directed antiaircraft guns and radar equipped interceptors, the course of a bomber was not usually a steady stable path.

In addition, the weather was often horrible.

So, it a terrible contest between the defenders and the bomber stream.

Over Japan, there was the added difficulty of the extreme winds from the Jet Stream that were a complete surprise to the U.S. B-29 crews.

Over Europe, B-17 and B-24 crews were given a goal of completing 25 missions and then were released. That’s because no one completed 25 missions; they were shot down. Eventually, some crews DID complete 25 missions and the goal was raised to 30. And then to 35. Losses were so high, that at times, bombing had to be suspended because we ran out of planes. [Often planes were not shot down, but they were so badly damaged that they could not be flown again. One of my friends described a mission in which they made it back to England, barely, and after they landed after a 10+ hour mission, they went for something to eat. When they returned to their plane, it had bent in half and collapsed because of all the holes that had been shot through it.]

Someone pointed out that the attrition rate for B-29’s was 10% per mission. That’s pretty horrible. It means that the average crew would only last ten mission before they were lost.

 

[Wirraway]

…
Someone pointed out that the attrition rate for B-29’s was 10% per mission. That’s pretty horrible. It means that the average crew would only last ten mission before they were lost.

that’s just an overall average. green crews were at the highest risk, after surviving a certain number of missions, the chances of completing a tour were far greater.

overall accuracy was dismal for both nighttime area bombing as practice by the RAF and daytime “precision” bombing employed by the USAAF.

 

[GKC]

There were many bombing “systems” developed.

One, for example, by the Brits involved DeHavilland Mosquitoes with master bomb aimers reaching the target ahead of the main body of bombers and dropping special flares that would stay in the air for a long time.

Then, when the main force reached the flares, they were supposed to drop on the “flare stack”. What happened was that the lead bomber dropped on the flare stack, but the rest tended to drop at the same time as the lead bomber. So that the bomb impact point crept back and the bombs were strewn all over instead of on a precise single spot.

Later on, there were all sorts of radio navigation devices and airborne radar.

The Germans had excellent radar and radar jamming and radar homing and radio jamming. They also generated a lot of smoke to obscure the target area. With radar directed spotlights and radar directed antiaircraft guns and radar equipped interceptors, the course of a bomber was not usually a steady stable path.

In addition, the weather was often horrible.

So, it a terrible contest between the defenders and the bomber stream.

Over Japan, there was the added difficulty of the extreme winds from the Jet Stream that were a complete surprise to the U.S. B-29 crews.

Over Europe, B-17 and B-24 crews were given a goal of completing 25 missions and then were released. That’s because no one completed 25 missions; they were shot down. Eventually, some crews DID complete 25 missions and the goal was raised to 30. And then to 35. Losses were so high, that at times, bombing had to be suspended because we ran out of planes. [Often planes were not shot down, but they were so badly damaged that they could not be flown again. One of my friends described a mission in which they made it back to England, barely, and after they landed after a 10+ hour mission, they went for something to eat. When they returned to their plane, it had bent in half and collapsed because of all the holes that had been shot through it.]

Someone pointed out that the attrition rate for B-29’s was 10% per mission. That’s pretty horrible. It means that the average crew would only last ten mission before they were lost.

The overall loss rate, for the roughly 17+ months of the B-29s combat career in WWII was more like 3%-4%. With a heavy end loading to the period they were operating out of the CBI theater. For example, the first raid out of Chingtu was on a coke plant on Kyushu. 68 planes on the raid, one lost to hostile action, 6 to other factors. overall attrition, first raid, right at 10%. This dropped, as the a/c matured, the engines were modified so as not catch of fire quite so often, and after the basing moved into the Marianas. 49 missions were flown from China by the XXth BC, number of planes total not known, loses all causes, 82 a/c.

GKC

 

[Wirraway]

The overall loss rate, for the roughly 17+ months of the B-29s combat career in WWII was more like 3%-4%. With a heavy end loading to the period they were operating out of the CBI theater. For example, the first raid out of Chingtu was on a coke plant on Kyushu. 68 planes on the raid, one lost to hostile action, 6 to other factors. overall attrition, first raid, right at 10%. This dropped, as the a/c matured, the engines were modified so as not catch of fire quite so often, and after the basing moved into the Marianas. 49 missions were flown from China by the XXth BC, number of planes total not known, loses all causes, 82 a/c.

GKC

I think I quoted, somewhere above in this thread, USAAF statistics for the heavy bombarbment groups that I presume mean B-29s. the figure of 10% or whatever I derived or quoted was based on a total of losses for the whole fleet from all causes during the 17 months of operations: AAA, defending fighters, operational accidents and training accidents, the last two causing the overwhelming majority of losses. there may be some overlap in how losses are described, for example, a bomber deavily damaged up over the target that is later written off as unflyable or runs out of fuel, or crashes on return might well be described as an operational loss rather than being shot down. there would be advantages to this.

if I remember correctly, for heavy bombers (B-17, B-24s) operating in Europe, loss rates over 5% per **mission **were considered unsustainable; since the B-29 was a superior bird facing degraded opposition (and remember, most of the defensive armament was removed for the low level firebombing attacks), the 3-4% figure might well represent an average loss per mission.

 

[GKC]

I think I quoted, somewhere above in this thread, USAAF statistics for the heavy bombarbment groups that I presume mean B-29s. the figure of 10% or whatever I derived or quoted was based on a total of losses for the whole fleet from all causes during the 17 months of operations: AAA, defending fighters, operational accidents and training accidents, the last two causing the overwhelming majority of losses. there may be some overlap in how losses are described, for example, a bomber deavily damaged up over the target that is later written off as unflyable or runs out of fuel, or crashes on return might well be described as an operational loss rather than being shot down. there would be advantages to this.

if I remember correctly, for heavy bombers (B-17, B-24s) operating in Europe, loss rates over 5% per **mission **were considered unsustainable; since the B-29 was a superior bird facing degraded opposition (and remember, most of the defensive armament was removed for the low level firebombing attacks), the 3-4% figure might well represent an average loss per mission.

Concur.

GKC

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Did the Church support or condemn the use of the atomic bomb (after it was dropped of course) at the end of WWII?

Pius XII: “For Our part, We will tirelessly endeavor to bring about, by means of international agreements - always recognizing the principle of legitimate self-defense - the effective proscription and banishment of atomic, biological, and chemical warfare.” (Pope Pius XII, "The Threat of ABC Warfare, Address to the Peoples Assembled in St. Peter’s Square, April 18, 1954).

John XXIII: “…Justice, right reason, and the recognition of man’s dignity cry out insistently for a cessation to the arms race. The stock-piles of armaments which have been built up in various countries must be reduced all round and simultaneously by the parties concerned. Nuclear weapons must be banned.” (Pope John XXIII, *Pacem in Terris *(1963), no. 112).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Did the Church support or condemn the use of the atomic bomb (after it was dropped of course) at the end of WWII?

From Pius XII, 1943 (prior to the bombings of 1945):

Means have now been discovered to smash atoms through neutrons released by radioactivity…I hope that this atomic energy will always be used for constructive purposes and that means will be found to use it for the advance of civilization. If, however, it is ever used destructively, it will bring great harm to the places where it is used, and there may result a terrible catastrophe for the planet itself. (Pius XII, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, February, 1943).

 

[Wirraway]

From Pius XII, 1943 (prior to the bombings of 1945):

Means have now been discovered to smash atoms through neutrons released by radioactivity…I hope that this atomic energy will always be used for constructive purposes and that means will be found to use it for the advance of civilization. If, however, it is ever used destructively, it will bring great harm to the places where it is used, and there may result a terrible catastrophe for the planet itself. (Pius XII, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, February, 1943).

interesting. but fake. the first self sustaining nuclear reaction didn’t occur until December, 1942, with the theoretical feasibility of a bomb determined within the year but no such device actually built. So how the Vatican’s academy of sciences was not only privy to the highest military secrets of the USA and would actually publish this to the Axis powers raises serious questions about the veracity of the quote.

I found the text of address itself, Address to the Plenary Session Pontifical Academy of Sciences, February 21, 1943

the actual quote is:

“A special calculation shows that, by this reaction, a cubic metre of uranium oxide powder, in less than a hundredth of a second, develops enough energy to lift a weight of a billion tons to a height of 27 kilometres: an amount of energy which could supplant for many years the activity of all the great electric power stations in the world. Planck ends with the observation that, although the technical utilisation of such a tempestuous process cannot yet be envisaged, it nevertheless opens the way to serious possibilities, so that the thought of the construction of a uranium machine cannot be regarded as merely Utopian. It is important above all, however, to prevent this reaction from taking place as an explosion, and to brake its course by apt precautionary chemical means. Otherwise, a dangerous catastrophe might occur, not only in the locality itself but also for our whole planet.”

[emphasis added]

the quote has been altered into an anti atomic bomb argument. the actual text is concerned, not about a bomb, but about fission and the possibility of a runaway chain reaction. worse yet, text has been added in.

**why??? why is it this kind of stupid deception necessary by opponents of the atomic bombs? why alter a Vatican document? is this really necessary? surely you can make a rational argument that doesn’t depend on faked quotes. right?

a few days ago it was a fraud about a justice ginsburg statement to bolster the anti-abortion argument, now this fraud.

this is truly pathetic**.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

interesting. but fake.

Why should your translation be “truth” and others a “fake?” The translation you provide does not seem altogether contrary to the one I excerpted. Nonetheless, the translation I excerpted is from Archbishop Fulton Sheen, *Life is Worth Living, *originally published in 1953. That you think Archbishop Sheen was “faking” the information is absurd. Moreover, it seems such a claim is a bizarre overreaction, as other published authors on this subject have also concluded that Pius XII, in this very same address, was warning against the use of this new technology for making explosives.

For instance, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Thomas Powers,* Heisenberg’s War: The Secret History of the German Bomb (1993), *pg. 283:

***One report from Rome in early 1943 relayed the astonishing information that Pope Pius XII had unmistakably referred to the bomb in an openly published address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on February 21, 1943. ***

Hmmmm…another “faker” I suppose.

So how the Vatican’s academy of sciences was not only privy to the highest military secrets of the USA and would actually publish this to the Axis powers raises serious questions about the veracity of the quote.

Pius XII was citing the authority of Max Plank, who was a member of the Pontifical Academy of Science. It wasn’t U.S. military secrets he was describing, but the obvious possibility of this energy being explosive, which was well known and warned against by others.

For example, Charles Lindbergh warned:

“We know that within the next decade it will be technically possible to assemble weapons which can destroy every city in the world within a few hours after the start of the war. There are alarming indications that the possessor of modern scientific knowledge may be able to destroy all life over large areas of the earth’s surface. Some scientists have predicted that man will gain the power to detonate the planet itself.” (Charles Lindbergh, cited by Archbishop Fulton Sheen, ibid., pg. 31).

Ah, but perhaps the good Archbishop Sheen was faking that quote too. That rascal.

BTW, I’m an officer in the USAF, and worked for many years an nuclear ICBM engineer. So, I hope you weren’t acccusing me of being “deceptive.” I’m just answering the original post.