egafd.com

Okay, just finished watching the latest in this series on BBC2, about the Enola Gay mission, and fully expect to get flak from certain quarters for what I'm about to say.

Right, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was shameful---"a date that will live in infamy"---but it was at least a naval target.

I've heard the argument for the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, possibly saving thousands of allied lives by bringing the war to a swift conclusion. One might have thought that, having seen the damage caused to that city, America might have stayed its hand. But no---a few days later, and another civilian target, and more vapourised civilians.

Curious, how we talk about war crimes, and crimes against humanity, but that this seedy little chapter of western civilisation is always brushed under the rug. We discuss Bomber Harris and his carpet bombing of German civilian targets, or the carpet bombing in Vietnam and Cambodia during the 1970s. But the two worst terrorist attacks of the last century barely get a mention.

We were, and quite rightly, horrified by what al Qaida did on September 11, 2001. It was a monstrous act, and one which should be punished. But 177,000 more people died in the two bombings in 1945, and generations carried the atomic inheritance of that attack. Saddam will face trial for crimes against his own people, the gassing of the Kurds, and many more misdemeanours. I don't recall Harry Truman being called to account for mass murder.

is that what OMD were singing about back in 81?

Yes, Steve.

the japanese knew it was all over but still refused to surrender.

had the allies had to land and fight house to house, far more would have died on both sides than the number that died by dropping the bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki.

it must have been a very hard decision to make and history would/did comdemn whichever decision was made.

thought so but in 81 on 1st hearing no.

I know. And my objections to what happened are very much influenced by hindsight, but it was still a quite horrific thing to do. Don't think I could have lived with myself if I'd had anything to do with it.

Few people at the time probably knew the reference. I certainly wasn't aware then that that was the plane whcih carried the bomb.

guess i was ignorant i learnt a bit from that billy joel song too we didnt start the fire .

I know all the arguments, BC, and you're right, the Nazis would have attached it to their V1 or V2 rockets if they'd had it and blasted the hell out of these islands. The Japanese, yes, with the military junta controlling the country at the time, they'd have used it without hesitation. The problem is we (Britain/America) tend to take the high moral ground and think we are civilised and, as such, are expected to behave that way.

Would it not have been better to have dropped a bomb on the armed services than the civilians?

Sorry about the "terrorist" tag, but the purpose of the atomic bombs was to bring terror to the people of Japan---a variation of the "shock and awe" aim of the last Gulf war. An attack of such magnitude destroys many people and buildings, and totally demoralises the survivors. If that isn't a description of terror, I don't know what is.

The various European leaders of the 1930s, including Chamberlain in Britain, must take a huge amount of blame for the rise of Hitler, of that there's no argument.