Last crew member of Enola Gay dies aged 93

Von Smallhausen · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:01

Theodore van Kirk, the last remaining crew member of the Enola Gay B29 that dropped the first atomic weapon on Hiroshima has died aged 93. He previously said that he had no regrets but I just wonder if the deaths of around 140,000 ever played on his mind ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28548475

Ayahuasca · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:06

Just doing his job.

Probably thought about it every day since but learned to deal with it.

Fenris · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:10

Van Kirk said he had "no regrets" about the mission and defended its morality

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say I don't care that he's dead.

Regardless of the justifications, anyone who can carry out such an act with "no regrets" is a monster. I hope for his sake he was lying.

Chives · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:12

I'm sure it did play on his mind. He would argue however that the nuclear strikes prevented a conventional invasion of Japan thereby saving many more lives.

Nix · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:22

Fenris said:
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say I don't care that he's dead.

Regardless of the justifications, anyone who can carry out such an act with "no regrets" is a monster. I hope for his sake he was lying.

Probably just denial, which is in itself a coping mechanism.

As horrific as it was, there's no denying that it brought an end to the war.

Fenris · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:25

Nix said:
As horrific as it was, there's no denying that it brought an end to the war.

It was actually known to the US Intelligence and their top brass (and I mean TOP) at the time that Japan was on the brink of surrender, only after the bombs were dropped was there a coup attempt to stop just that.

Even Eisenhower believed it and many others believed the bombs to be an atrocity, General MacArthur wasn't even consulted.

The nukes may have lead to the end of the war, but they were neither necessary nor justifiable.

Nix · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:33

Interesting. First time I've heard that. Any links?

ShaolinDreams · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:33

Imagine living with that thought in your mind for the rest of your life.. I hope he felt guilty, for being part of the largest synchronized mass execution of humans in the history of our planet. Sure he did his job but i dont have an ounce of sympathy for this man passing away.

Fenris · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:35

Nix said:
Interesting. First time I've heard that. Any links?

No specific links sorry, just stuff I've read over the years, I'm far from an expert though.

edit: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-re...-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192

Has a pretty good selection of quotes.

I always assumed (as most do due to the way WWII is portrayed, especially the Japanese) that the bombings literally were the last option of a desperate world, turns out it was far from that simple.

Nitefly · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:38

All I can selfishly comment is 'rather him than me'.

Nix · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:40

Fenris said:
I always assumed (as most do due to the way WWII is portrayed, especially the Japanese) that the bombings literally were the last option of a desperate world, turns out it was far from that simple.

I've never really bought that line anyway. It seems more of a justification after the act. However, I do not doubt the appetite for its use in ending the conflict, even if Japan were close to surrender.

Mynight · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:40

Someone had to do it I guess

. If not him someone else would have been ordered to.

JonnyT · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:43

The 'classic' justification for dropping the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that it forced Japan to surrender, eliminating the need to invade the Japanese home islands, which the American planners had estimated would cost upwards of half a million US soldier's lives.

It is certainly true that Japan was on the verge of surrender. The reality was that the dropping of the nukes by the US on Japan was as much about the deteriorating relationship with the Stalin and the USSR as making Japan surrender.

The USSR was on the verge of entering the war in the Pacific and the US wanted to prevent a Soviet land-grab there, given the struggles they were having in Europe regarding territory and 'spheres of influence'. The US thought that it could intimidate Stalin and the Soviet Union into concessions of territory via possession (and later use) of the Fat Man and Little Boy nuclear bombs. President Truman tried the former at the Potsdam conference in July 1945 but Stalin was unmoved.

ShaolinDreams · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:43

Why nuke 2 cities with large civilian populations is what i don't get. Couldn't they nuke anything else to stop the war.. like strategic military targets? I'm sure if two or more nukes landed on something other than civilian cities it would have stopped the war regardless just from scaring them half to death. I'm gonna say it.. Think of the innocent children that got vapourised and never to see an age of 93, what did they ever to do America... Warcrime tbh personally i dont believe in total war no honour no valour just shear barbarism.

wazza300 · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:50

it worked though

they were given the chance to surrender many times before

TriedandTested · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:54

wazza300 said:
it worked though

Well, then all is a-ok with what they done then!! I mean it worked, what other possibly considerations should we be having!? It worked.

Didn't work so well for those caught in the blast did it.

Mynight · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:55

TriedandTested said:
Well, then all is a-ok with what they done then!! I mean it worked, what other possibly considerations should we be having!? It worked.

Didn't work so well for those caught in the blast did it.

I can't imagine those caught in the immediate blast felt anything. Not that it really makes any difference I guess.

shootersam · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:56

Ayahuasca said:
Just doing his job.

TriedandTested · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:56

Mynight said:
I can't imagine those caught in the immediate blast felt anything. Not that it really makes any difference I guess.

No, it doesn't. But then it wasn't just those caught in the immediate blast that were affected by it.

wazza300 · 30 Jul 2014 at 00:58

TriedandTested said:
Well, then all is a-ok with what they done then!! I mean it worked, what other possibly considerations should we be having!? It worked.

Didn't work so well for those caught in the blast did it.

its war,whatelse you wanna do? throw them a party?

I know lots of innocent people died but the leaders had chances to surrender peacefully and they didn't

blame the Japanese emperor not the u.s