With the last man,Enola Gay slips beneath the sea of history
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:44 pm
by Benuty
ATLANTA -- The last surviving member of the crew that dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima once said he thought the bombing was necessary because it shortened the war and eliminated the need for an Allied land invasion that could have cost more lives on both sides.
But Theodore "Dutch" VanKirk also said it made him wary of war - and that he would like to see all of the world's atomic bombs abolished.
VanKirk died Monday at the retirement home where he lived in Stone Mountain, Georgia, his son Tom VanKirk said. He was 93.
Theodore VanKirk flew as navigator on the Enola Gay, the B-29 Superfortress that dropped the first atomic bomb deployed in wartime over the Japanese city of Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945.
The bombing hastened the end of World War II. The blast and its aftereffects killed 140,000 in Hiroshima. Three days after Hiroshima, a second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. That blast and its aftermath claimed 80,000 lives. Six days after the Nagasaki bombing, Japan surrendered.
Whether the United States should have used the atomic bomb has been debated endlessly.
"I honestly believe the use of the atomic bomb saved lives in the long run," VanKirk told The Associated Press in a 2005 interview. "There were a lot of lives saved. Most of the lives saved were Japanese."
But VanKirk said the experience of World War II also showed him "that wars don't settle anything."
"And atomic weapons don't settle anything," he said. "I personally think there shouldn't be any atomic bombs in the world — I'd like to see them all abolished.
"But if anyone has one," he added, "I want to have one more than my enemy."
VanKirk was teamed with pilot Paul Tibbets and bombardier Tom Ferebee in Tibbets' fledgling 509th Composite Bomb Group for Special Mission No. 13.
The mission went perfectly, VanKirk told the AP. He guided the bomber through the night sky, just 15 seconds behind schedule, he said. As the 9,000-pound bomb nicknamed "Little Boy" fell toward the sleeping city, he and his crewmates hoped to escape with their lives.
They didn't know whether the bomb would actually work and, if it did, whether its shockwaves would rip their plane to shreds. They counted — one thousand one, one thousand two — reaching the 43 seconds they'd been told it would take for detonation, and heard nothing.
"I think everybody in the plane concluded it was a dud. It seemed a lot longer than 43 seconds," VanKirk recalled.
Then came a bright flash. Then a shockwave. Then another shockwave.
VanKirk stayed on with the military for a year after the war ended. Then he went to school, earned degrees in chemical engineering and signed on with DuPont, where he stayed until he retired in 1985. He later moved from California to the Atlanta area to be near his daughter.
Like many World War II veterans, VanKirk didn't talk much about his service until much later in his life when he spoke to school groups, his son said.
"I didn't even find out that he was on that mission until I was 10 years old and read some old news clippings in my grandmother's attic," Tom VanKirk told the AP in a phone interview Tuesday.
Instead, he and his three siblings treasured a wonderful father, who was a great mentor and remained active and "sharp as a tack" until the end of his life.
"I know he was recognized as a war hero, but we just knew him as a great father," Tom VanKirk said.
VanKirk's military career was chronicled in a 2012 book, "My True Course," by Suzanne Dietz. VanKirk was energetic, very bright and had a terrific sense of humor, Dietz recalled Tuesday.
Interviewing VanKirk for the book, she said, "was like sitting with your father at the kitchen table listening to him tell stories."
A funeral service was scheduled for VanKirk on Aug. 5 in his hometown of Northumberland, Pennsylvania. He will be buried in Northumberland next to his wife, who died in 1975. The burial will be private.
So ends another of histories chapters closing once, and for all with only memories to look back on. I suppose the bombings were necessary given the alternative would have been disastrous on multiple levels. Not to mention Truman would have been impeached once the public found out that all those people didn't need to die in such a massive undertaking ( invasion of the Japanese home islands).
Either way, how would history have changed had the bombs not been dropped?
What say you oh NSG's unleavened, and leavened masses?
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:47 pm
by Wisconsin9
How would history have changed?
A hell of a lot more people would be dead.
My condolences to his family.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:55 pm
by Soldati Senza Confini
May Mr. VanKirk rest in peace and my deepest condolences to his family.
I disagree with your opinion that a "period of our history closes"; it really hasn't if you consider the atomic age as a period in our history and the legacy of the US entering the atomic age with the iconic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki staying with us even today. His death is only the sealing of a fragment of the whole, but the atomic age moves on without the Enola Gay crew and without Mr. VanKirk.
As to how things may have been different without he bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Not only a lot more people would have died, but we'd have been forced to invade Japan, which then we'd have had to fight until the Japanese surrendered, and millions of Japanese would have died at the hands of the United States and hundreds of thousands of others would have killed themselves in honor. In other words we'd have wiped out the entire Japanese people.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:07 pm
by Point Breeze
There are still hundreds of WWII vets alive in the US... but they're fading fast. I once had the pleasure of meeting someone who was in the Navy before Pearl Harbor occurred. He survived the entire World War, Vietnam, and Korea. Simply incredible.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:15 pm
by Washington Resistance Army
That's sad, it sucks to see all the veterans staring to pass away.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:21 pm
by Libertarian California
Point Breeze wrote:There are still hundreds of WWII vets alive in the US... but they're fading fast. I once had the pleasure of meeting someone who was in the Navy before Pearl Harbor occurred. He survived the entire World War, Vietnam, and Korea. Simply incredible.
All World War II veterans will die by the 2030s. But something I think is amazing is that the last Civil War veteran died in 1956.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:22 pm
by Lingang
Sleep in peace Mr. VanKirk. It is sad, to see all of the people who were alive during these world-changing events pass away, and with them any real memory of these events. Alas, the world keeps turning. But I think those times will always be remembered.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:23 pm
by Pandeeria
Awwww, that's sad.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:24 pm
by California Prime
1--A hell of a lot more people would have died, the Japanese islands would probably be divided like Korea from the soviet invasion to come from the north, a good bit of Japan's culture would be permanently lost, and both the Korean war and Vietnam war could have ended up very differently. Hell the entire cold war may have played out very differently (as in more open warfare, more death).
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:25 pm
by Nickel Empire
It's the end of an era.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:31 pm
by Union of Kiwi Socialists
The United States would fall back on other projects, like the New Zealand-run Project Seal...... a series of blasts designed to trigger a Tsunami.
The role the nuclear bombs played in Japan's decision to surrender rather than the Soviet's Declaration of War has been debated by historians for a long while. But let's say, for the sake of discussion, that Japan doesn't surrender after the Soviets enter the war.
The US will launch Operation Downfall, which would be the largest amphibious invasion in history. World War II continues on into '46 and possibly into '47. Estimates put expected Allied casualties in the Millions, I can only imagine how much worse the Japanese total would be. Culturally in the US you'd see more emphasis placed on the Pacific theater; less movies, games, etc. depicting D-Day, more about the landing in Kyushu. Japan's national psyche was heavily affected by the bombs, I imagine the invasion would have an even larger impact but I'm not familiar enough with their culture to say in what ways. Globally, without seeing the effects of nuclear weapons on humans firsthand, you might see the threat of nuclear war taken less seriously by the great powers, might lead to their use in situations it wasn't historically, like during Korea.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:37 pm
by Point Breeze
The project commenced after US Navy officer E.A. Gibson noticed small waves generated by explosions used to clear coral reefs.
*sigh*
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:38 pm
by Lalaki
As someone who volunteers in a hospital, I have the honor of meeting WWII veterans who have served the United States with distinction.
Although I disagree with the dropping of a nuclear weapon on a civilian area (a military installation or uninhabited area would have provided intimidation without the death of non-combatant innocent people), I still express my sincere condolences to the family.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:02 pm
by Filthy Ginger Bastards
Well, the Soviet Union was set to invade Japan from one side, the US the other. In all likelihood, Japan would have been bisected like Korea.
The nuclear blasts also acted as a show of force by the US, but failed to dissuade Stalin from wider ambitions, and really drove him to steal their nuclear secrets. Not totally effective, but it did give the US control of one of the (potential) major industrial powers in its entirety, avoiding annexation, as was the case in Germany.
It was certainly politically expedient on their part, but had more motives, some less noble, than simply preserving life.
Without nuclear monopoly, the Soviet Union's vast ground army, by virtue of numbers and already being deployed, in many occupied territories would seem to be at an advantage, and would likely have a significant foothold in Japan as well.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:03 pm
by Washington Resistance Army
Filthy Ginger Bastards wrote:Well, the Soviet Union was set to invade Japan from one side, the US the other. In all likelihood, Japan would have been bisected like Korea.
The nuclear blasts also acted as a show of force by the US, but failed to dissuade Stalin from wider ambitions, and really drove him to steal their nuclear secrets. Not totally effective, but it did give the US control of one of the (potential) major industrial powers in its entirety, avoiding annexation, as was the case in Germany.
It was certainly politically expedient on their part, but had more motives, some less noble, than simply preserving life.
Without nuclear monopoly, the Soviet Union's vast ground army in many occupied territories would seem to be at an advantage, and would likely have a significant foothold in Japan as well.
The Soviets had no way of invading Japan.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:07 pm
by Scomagia
A lot more people would have died and Japan would have likely still be recovering. The use of atomic weapons was a necessary and humane action.
Filthy Ginger Bastards wrote:Well, the Soviet Union was set to invade Japan from one side, the US the other. In all likelihood, Japan would have been bisected like Korea.
The nuclear blasts also acted as a show of force by the US, but failed to dissuade Stalin from wider ambitions, and really drove him to steal their nuclear secrets. Not totally effective, but it did give the US control of one of the (potential) major industrial powers in its entirety, avoiding annexation, as was the case in Germany.
It was certainly politically expedient on their part, but had more motives, some less noble, than simply preserving life.
Without nuclear monopoly, the Soviet Union's vast ground army in many occupied territories would seem to be at an advantage, and would likely have a significant foothold in Japan as well.
The Soviets had no way of invading Japan.
Though it may have been unfounded, it was feared that the Soviet Union, could have invaded Northern Japan, and we'd end up with another North Korea-like situation.
If the Atomic Bombs were not dropped, Operations Olympic and Coronet (collectively known as Operation Downfall) would have taken place, which would have been the largest invasion in the history of mankind. A million American and Allied Causalities were estimated, and rightly so, as the Imperial Japanese Army (unlike the IJN), still held a rather large portion of its fighting strength, and were rather battle hardened. Another thing we would see, is the use of American and British Jet Fighters (such as the P-80 and the Gloster Meteor), against the remainder of the IJAAF, and the IJN.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:16 pm
by Lalaki
Scomagia wrote:A lot more people would have died and Japan would have likely still be recovering. The use of atomic weapons was a necessary and humane action.
But why on a civilian area? Why not on a major military base in the Pacific, or even on mainland Japan? Innocent civilians should not be attacked in war. The use of nuclear weapons would have given the Japanese a clear sign that it was time to surrender, even on a different area.
Washington Resistance Army wrote: The Soviets had no way of invading Japan.
Though it may have been unfounded, it was feared that the Soviet Union, could have invaded Northern Japan, and we'd end up with another North Korea-like situation.
If the Atomic Bombs were not dropped, Operations Olympic and Coronet (collectively known as Operation Downfall) would have taken place, which would have been the largest invasion in the history of mankind. A million American and Allied Causalities were estimated, and rightly so, as the Imperial Japanese Army (unlike the IJN), still held a rather large portion of its fighting strength, and were rather battle hardened. Another thing we would see, is the use of American and British Jet Fighters (such as the P-80 and the Gloster Meteor), against the remainder of the IJAAF, and the IJN.
Eh, it was unfounded. The Soviets just had no way to transport enough men and equipment to Japan. Not to mention they probably wouldn't take any beachheads given they had no experience in that and the Japanese were beyond fanatical. It would have been horrible all around, I've seen pictures of schoolchildren training with sharpened sticks to charge American forces. Needless to say, in the end it was good the bombs were dropped and the Emperor stepped in otherwise it would have gotten worse.
Scomagia wrote:A lot more people would have died and Japan would have likely still be recovering. The use of atomic weapons was a necessary and humane action.
But why on a civilian area? Why not on a major military base in the Pacific, or even on mainland Japan? Innocent civilians should not be attacked in war.
Unfortunately, the war at that point had already inflicted many civilian casualties. As I said, the atomic bombings saved more lives than they took and that extends to civilians as well.
Scomagia wrote:A lot more people would have died and Japan would have likely still be recovering. The use of atomic weapons was a necessary and humane action.
But why on a civilian area? Why not on a major military base in the Pacific, or even on mainland Japan? Innocent civilians should not be attacked in war. The use of nuclear weapons would have given the Japanese a clear sign that it was time to surrender, even on a different area.
Hiroshima was home to the 2nd General Army as well as a number of military factories. It was important to be knocked out if Operation Downfall was going to proceed.
Scomagia wrote:A lot more people would have died and Japan would have likely still be recovering. The use of atomic weapons was a necessary and humane action.
But why on a civilian area? Why not on a major military base in the Pacific, or even on mainland Japan? Innocent civilians should not be attacked in war. The use of nuclear weapons would have given the Japanese a clear sign that it was time to surrender, even on a different area.
The US had been firebombing Civilian Targets for a year before the Atomic Bombs were dropped, and even before that in Germany.
Also, the US had already taken, or bombing the living crap out of every Japanese base in the Pacific. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were the only two targets worth striking any more.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:31 pm
by The Remnants of Kobol
My condolences. It always makes me sad to hear about World War vets passing. Of all vets, they help us remember the most what hell war is and why it shouldn't be something to glorify.
As for the bomb. Dropping the weapons was necessary. Estimations for the invasion of Japan put causalities at over a million Allied and several million Japanese. With such a defeated military and weakened economy from a war likely going into '47 and taking so many lives, the US probably would not have been unable to dissuade the Soviets from taking the rest of Europe.
Point Breeze wrote:There are still hundreds of WWII vets alive in the US... but they're fading fast. I once had the pleasure of meeting someone who was in the Navy before Pearl Harbor occurred. He survived the entire World War, Vietnam, and Korea. Simply incredible.
All World War II veterans will die by the 2030s. But something I think is amazing is that the last Civil War veteran died in 1956.
Must have been amazing for him to witness the technological advancement within his life. In his youth, he probably didn't even know what electricity was and fought his battles with nothing but a black-powder muzzleloader and bayonet - and by the time he died, people were fighting wars with supersonic jets and atomic bombs. It must have felt pretty strange for that man to recall his early youth.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:44 pm