Paul Tibbets, Jr.

[toubab]

I met this man, shook his hand, and talked with him about the bombing of Hiroshima. Nobody I've ever mentioned this to has ever shown any real interest in the fact I met the pilot of the Enola Gay and talked with him about one of the most important events in the entire course of human history. This has always puzzled me. I know if someone told me they had met someone who played a key role in such a monumental event I would be interested in knowing what was said, but obviously most people are not like me. Maybe people don't want to think or talk about it. I don't know, but I find it a little strange.

 

[Aquagal]

Interesting story. I'd be horrified as the mother, to know what was named after her.

 

[toubab]

Interesting story. I'd be horrified as the mother, to know what was named after her.

Really? Why?

 

[Aquagal]

Really? Why?

Because no matter how or why it helped the U.S. during wartime, me, personally would not want my name be memorialized with so much death.

 

[Wrong Element]

I read Bob Greene's book about him, and the one time I met Greene the subject of Tibbets came up.


My curiosity was thus satisfied.

 

[Que]

Maybe you are telling the story wrong? There are no bad stories, only bad writers. ~grin~

 

[toubab]

Because no matter how or why it helped the U.S. during wartime, me, personally would not want my name be memorialized with so much death.

I see. That makes sense, especially from a woman's point of view. I guess that's why the whole subject seems to make people uncomfortable, and want to avoid discussing it. I actually had the temerity to ask Tibbets if he was ever bothered by the fact he played such an important role in something that caused the deaths of so many tens of thousands of people, many almost instantaneously, with just that one bomb. He said, very matter-of-factly, that he had not lost a moment's sleep over it. He went on to say he thought the bombing saved many more lives than it cost, especially American lives, and that was what he thought then, and that was what he still thought at the time we talked.

 

[toubab]

I read Bob Greene's book about him, and the one time I met Greene the subject of Tibbets came up.


My curiosity was thus satisfied.

Perhaps I'll read that book, but how did he come up when you met Greene, and what was said?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I met this man, shook his hand, and talked with him about the bombing of Hiroshima. Nobody I've ever mentioned this to has ever shown any real interest in the fact I met the pilot of the Enola Gay and talked with him about one of the most important events in the entire course of human history. This has always puzzled me. I know if someone told me they had met someone who played a key role in such a monumental event I would be interested in knowing what was said, but obviously most people are not like me. Maybe people don't want to think or talk about it. I don't know, but I find it a little strange.

Kinda funny that you're talking more about yourself here than talking about Paul Tibbets, Jr.

 

[toubab]

Maybe you are telling the story wrong? There are no bad stories, only bad writers. ~grin~

Well, maybe, but seriously, I don't think people are really interested in the story, for some reason, no matter how it's told.

 

[toubab]

Kinda funny that you're talking more about yourself here than talking about Paul Tibbets, Jr.

How so?

 

[Aquagal]

I see. That makes sense, especially from a woman's point of view. I guess that's why the whole subject seems to make people uncomfortable, and want to avoid discussing it. I actually had the temerity to ask Tibbets if he was ever bothered by the fact he played such an important role in something that caused the deaths of so many tens of thousands of people, many almost instantaneously, with just that one bomb. He said, very matter-of-factly, that he had not lost a moment's sleep over it. He went on to say he thought the bombing saved many more lives than it cost, especially American lives, and that was what he thought then, and that was what he still thought at the time we talked.

I wouldn't be uncomfortable knowing the story, or even reading it, just having my name forever attached to such a turning point in history.

Maybe the military had chosen him because of those facts and perhaps from a psychological work up, someone who could see that even after the fact and still not be bothered by it. Because if it did, then the alternative could haunt his days.

 

[toubab]

I wouldn't be uncomfortable knowing the story, or even reading it, just having my name forever attached to such a turning point in history.

Maybe the military had chosen him because of those facts and perhaps from a psychological work up, someone who could see that even after the fact and still not be bothered by it. Because if it did, then the alternative could haunt his days.

I think you're probably right that a lot of thought was put into selecting the right man for that particular mission.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I met this man, shook his hand, and talked with him about the bombing of Hiroshima. Nobody I've ever mentioned this to has ever shown any real interest in the fact I met the pilot of the Enola Gay and talked with him about one of the most important events in the entire course of human history. This has always puzzled me. I know if someone told me they had met someone who played a key role in such a monumental event I would be interested in knowing what was said, but obviously most people are not like me. Maybe people don't want to think or talk about it. I don't know, but I find it a little strange.

I think it is definitely cool that you met him. From what little I've read about him, it seems he is a very humble, unassuming person who viewed his mission as simply doing his duty as he did on all his prior missions.

The decision to use nuclear weapons was not his. The decision to bomb Pearl Harbor was not left to individual Japanese pilots. The decision to invade Poland was not that of the individual German infantryman or tank commander.

It is an accepted principle of the laws of war that individual warriors are not responsible for inflicting casualties in response to lawful orders. Tibbets nor any of his crew owes anyone an apology or explanation for his actions.

 

[eyer]

...but obviously most people are not like me.

Reads like you and wanker queen have that in common...

...why don't you tell her your story and see if she even gives a fvck?

 

[toubab]

I think it is definitely cool that you met him. From what little I've read about him, it seems he is a very humble, unassuming person who viewed his mission as simply doing his duty as he did on all his prior missions.

The decision to use nuclear weapons was not his. The decision to bomb Pearl Harbor was not left to individual Japanese pilots. The decision to invade Poland was not that of the individual German infantryman or tank commander.

It is an accepted principle of the laws of war that individual warriors are not responsible for inflicting casualties in response to lawful orders. Tibbets nor any of his crew owes anyone an apology or explanation for his actions.

He actually did come across as kind of humble and unassuming. He was not a large man. Probably not even average height, and kind of quiet, actually.

 

[toubab]

Reads like you and wanker queen have that in common...

...why don't you tell her your story and see if she even gives a fvck?

Perhaps if you tell me who wanker queen is I will.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I see. That makes sense, especially from a woman's point of view. I guess that's why the whole subject seems to make people uncomfortable, and want to avoid discussing it. I actually had the temerity to ask Tibbets if he was ever bothered by the fact he played such an important role in something that caused the deaths of so many tens of thousands of people, many almost instantaneously, with just that one bomb. He said, very matter-of-factly, that he had not lost a moment's sleep over it. He went on to say he thought the bombing saved many more lives than it cost, especially American lives, and that was what he thought then, and that was what he still thought at the time we talked.

From what I have read, the US estimated 50,000 casualties from an invasion of Kyushu and Honshu. After reading about the casualties at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, I believed that figure to be Pollyannish. There would have been much greater loss of life, both allied and Japanese.

 

[about_average]

The whole atom bomb thing is curious.
On the one hand it was only average, the number of civilian deaths and property destruction, compared to other raids.
On the other hand, the bombs were rather minor reasons for the surrender, in spite of the common belief that it was.

 

[toubab]

From what I have read, the US estimated 50,000 casualties from an invasion of Kyushu and Honshu. After reading about the casualties at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, I believed that figure to be Pollyannish. There would have been much greater loss of life, both allied and Japanese.

I think the two atom bombs saved huge numbers of American lives, without a doubt, and an even greater number of Japanese lives, by far. Perhaps millions of Japanese lives.

 

[toubab]

The whole atom bomb thing is curious.
On the one hand it was only average, the number of civilian deaths and property destruction, compared to other raids.
On the other hand, the bombs were rather minor reasons for the surrender, in spite of the common belief that it was.

Minor reasons? Not from everything I've read on the subject.

 

[about_average]

Minor reasons? Not from everything I've read on the subject.

How much Japanese war history have you read? As opposed to history from the allied perspective.

 

[toubab]

How much Japanese war history have you read? As opposed to history from the allied perspective.

Very little. But why else would they suddenly decide to surrender?

 

[mdbigdee]

How much Japanese war history have you read? As opposed to history from the allied perspective.

And just why should I assure that Japanese war history would be any less bias than American war history?From a society that only took 70 years to admit that Japanese soldiers kidnapped Korean women to be used as "comfort women"(prostitutes) for their military?

 

[about_average]

Very little. But why else would they suddenly decide to surrender?

First, it wasn't sudden, second, the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria two days after Hiroshima which was much more a concern to Japan's military.
There were other contributing factors as well.

And just why should I assure that Japanese war history would be any less bias than American war history?From a society that only took 70 years to admit that Japanese soldiers kidnapped Korean women to be used as "comfort women"(prostitutes) for their military?

There's a difference between government statements, which you're referring to, and diaries, official documents and people who were there.

What rationale would historians have for making it out to be something it wasn't?
People have a hard time looking at history objectively, in the context of the time.
We have a vested interest in maintaining the idea that the atomic bombs were the reason for the surrender. If we admit they weren't as much of a factor, then people will become more critical of their use, failing to take in to account that the allies were acting on the best information available to them.

Even detailed reading of US history hints that they were not the reason people commonly "know".

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

The United States Strategic Bombing Surveyp26.
https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/pdfs/24.pdf
(A report requested by Truman in 1946)