Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Bromsy wrote:


You aren't very well versed in the history of warfare are you? "Not targeting civilians" is a very recent concept. Look at Germany during the 30 years war, for example.

I'm very well versed in it my presumptuous friend. It's not a recent concept, it's existed for some time. Just not adhered to. And even if what you were saying were true, that still doesn't excuse the incident to those of us whose sense of morality goes beyond military doctrine (not having a poke at you - I don't know what your moral stance is)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Killionaire wrote:
"Warn the city to evacuate". That is utter ignorant nonsense. First of all, how do you exactly evacuate 200k people? Where do they go? Do they have cars? Since WW2 Japanese people sure didn't for the most part. Trains? Enough to move 200k people?

And then why would you evacuate? Because your enemy, who you've been fighting tooth and nail for 4 years, says so? Incidentally, in cities producing bombs and planes needed for you to continue the war?

Hogwash. There was no way to save either city. There's no magic humane option that'd work. Save for the choice made.

As for this comment about 'a test', that's utter nonsense. A giant fireball, it's attendant shockwave and thermal flash were all very damned apparent what that'd do to Japanese cities, particularly since more people already died to a single night of firebombing in Tokyo.

How do you evacuate any amount of people for God's sake man? How was Pripyat evacuated or any other city going back a thousand years evacuated? Not easy, but hardly impossible.

There was a humane option, You drop the bomb right outside the city, visible to everyone, and then you say "Surrender or the next 2 won't be warning shots." Simple as. Can't gaurantee it would have forced a surrender, but reckon logic would had prevailed when the military saw it was up against an overwhelmingly powerful weapon.

They tested the bomb in the desert, above ground. And underground. And in the air. They did it in the Bikini Attoll to see it's exact effect on a fleet, both above and below water, and the secondary reason they did it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the first being ending the war obviously) was to see it's exact effects on a city and it's population. If you want to believe otherwise that's fine with me -you're entitled to your opinion.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
How was Pripyat evacuated

24 hours after the fact?

They did it in two days with the sort of expenditure of equipment that would have been impossible in Japan at the time. And Pripyat.had a population a fraction of either city.

If I wanted to evacuate Hiroshima in 1945 I would order everyone to take their earthquake survival kits and go to the local ward offices where local officials (police, fire etc) would organise them to walk out of the city in an orderly manner. It is only 10 miles and could be done in an afternoon.

Sick, disabled and elderly would be assisted by the officials using vehicles.

The problem is what you do with your 200,000 people after the city has been destroyed,. However that is a better problem than having 100,000 people, many of whom are casualties, and 100,000 dead bodies, and a destroyed city.

 Killionaire wrote:
"Warn the city to evacuate". That is utter ignorant nonsense. First of all, how do you exactly evacuate 200k people? Where do they go? Do they have cars? Since WW2 Japanese people sure didn't for the most part. Trains? Enough to move 200k people?

And then why would you evacuate? Because your enemy, who you've been fighting tooth and nail for 4 years, says so? Incidentally, in cities producing bombs and planes needed for you to continue the war?

Hogwash. There was no way to save either city. There's no magic humane option that'd work. Save for the choice made.

As for this comment about 'a test', that's utter nonsense. A giant fireball, it's attendant shockwave and thermal flash were all very damned apparent what that'd do to Japanese cities, particularly since more people already died to a single night of firebombing in Tokyo.

Evidently, per radio discussion, after circling Kokura 3 times, moving to the scondary target of Nagasaki and finding it locked in, they were preparing to move and strike Tokyo, but a break opened in the clouds.

 Killionaire wrote:
The US Pacific Command estimated an invasion of Japan would result in literally over a half million casualties. Not a crazy number considering how die hard and hard fought invasions of half a dozen craphole Islands in the pacific were, much less a homeland.

Add on the mass suicides of families at Okinawa, the minimum cost of ANY invasion of the Japanese home islands would put the rest of the pacific war to shame.

Dropping the atomic bombs was the most moral possible thing to do. It stopped the killing as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Good job reformulating what we've been discussing since page one. Now that you've told us how things are we're sure to change our minds.

Obviously there was complete objectivity when the bombs were dropped. The USA in no way felt themselves to be ethnically, politically or morally superior.



All brought to you from the same country who carried out genocide on the Native Americans and dropped napalm on Vietnamese kids. It's OK though, they have God on their side.

In response to the notion that the dropping of the bombs saved lives, high ranking Japanese officials in the War Ministry stated that Japan was on the verge of surrender anyway. Also, the Potsdam Declaration did not make any mention of the potential devastation that could be wrought by these new weapons so was not really a warning. "Prompt and utter destruction" could be taken to mean anything. Why not carry out a public test of the bomb beforehand? The uranium core was shipped out on the same day as the declaration, hardly the actions of a country who wanted to avoid dropping their new shiny.

One of the criteria from the Target Committee was to "ensure international recognition". Military significance was only one of the other criterion for selection, and a number of cities had been 'preserved', not bombed with traditional incendiaries in order for the power of the weapon to be accurately measured. Hiroshima was seen as a prime target as the hills would magnify the power of the weapon, and those bombing were told not to try to pick out military or industrial targets and instead aim for the centre of the city. Not the actions of an administration aiming to minimise civilian casualties.

Finally, Truman was a politically naive warmonger who put ideology above pragmatism, which, in part, led to the world being divided into two for the next 50 years. For me, the dropping of the bombs was a war crime, period.

I think it should be mentioned that for the first bomb, US bombers repeatedly flew over the city on their way to other targets. Each day, the air raid sirens would go off, and people would head to the bunkers. And then no bombs would fall. Over the course of at least a couple weeks, people gradually began seeing this as posturing and began ignoring the air raid sirens. So, on the day of the bombing, we have plenty of accounts that many, quite possibly "most" of the people in the city completely ignored the warning, which made the human loss that much worse.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think it should be mentioned that for the first bomb, US bombers repeatedly flew over the city on their way to other targets. Each day, the air raid sirens would go off, and people would head to the bunkers. And then no bombs would fall. Over the course of at least a couple weeks, people gradually began seeing this as posturing and began ignoring the air raid sirens. So, on the day of the bombing, we have plenty of accounts that many, quite possibly "most" of the people in the city completely ignored the warning, which made the human loss that much worse.

Complacency kills.

Finally, Truman was a politically naive warmonger who put ideology above pragmatism, which, in part, led to the world being divided into two for the next 50 years. For me, the dropping of the bombs was a war crime, period.

You say this based on what?
How can you be a warmonger, when you're not the one who attacked in the first place?

How can you be politically naive when, under your administration you create the Marshall Plan that brought Europe back, and managed to arrange THE ONE TIME THE UN agreed to military action against a nation?

You sound like a 15 year old who has no conception of what was going on, and buy into the AntiAmerican rant hook line and sinker.

So assume they aren't nuked. These two cities would have quickly been bombed with similar results. The bombers were running out of targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Killionaire wrote:
The US Pacific Command estimated an invasion of Japan would result in literally over a half million casualties. Not a crazy number considering how die hard and hard fought invasions of half a dozen craphole Islands in the pacific were, much less a homeland.

Add on the mass suicides of families at Okinawa, the minimum cost of ANY invasion of the Japanese home islands would put the rest of the pacific war to shame.

Dropping the atomic bombs was the most moral possible thing to do. It stopped the killing as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Good job reformulating what we've been discussing since page one. Now that you've told us how things are we're sure to change our minds.

Nothing will change your minds.

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


The WHY it was wiped out is highly pertinent. Dropping it is an excellent way to make Japan look like the victim.

They dropped bomb because they had it. Other things doesn't matter. Bomb itself was more evil than Japan, USA and whatever.

Unit 731...Rape of Nanking...read all about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

These guys were right there with the Nazis in the WW2 Atrocity Idol competition.

 Frazzled wrote:

Finally, Truman was a politically naive warmonger who put ideology above pragmatism, which, in part, led to the world being divided into two for the next 50 years. For me, the dropping of the bombs was a war crime, period.

You say this based on what?
How can you be a warmonger, when you're not the one who attacked in the first place?

How can you be politically naive when, under your administration you create the Marshall Plan that brought Europe back, and managed to arrange THE ONE TIME THE UN agreed to military action against a nation?

You sound like a 15 year old who has no conception of what was going on, and buy into the AntiAmerican rant hook line and sinker.

So assume they aren't nuked. These two cities would have quickly been bombed with similar results. The bombers were running out of targets.

Naive, as Roosevelt and Churchill skillfully dealt with Stalin through the Tehran and Yalta conferences, maintaining strong relations while avoiding making any firm promises about Eastern Europe. As soon as Truman took over relations between the countries declined dramatically, through politically naive moves such as not informing Stalin at Potsdam that the States had a functioning atomic weapon, which made Stalin lose face. Truman stated he was "tired of babying the Soviets" and took a hardline policy against the spread of communism, even when it was not supported by the Soviets, such as in Turkey and Greece, which again shows political naivety. The Truman Doctrine was largely based on Kennan's 'Long Telegram' rather than any political insight on Truman's part.

I terms of me interpreting history as would a 15 year old, I think you'll find that the orthodox historical view you adhere to that the United States offered financial support to Europe out of the goodness of its heart, is by far the least convincing and simplistic, although YMMV. Personally I agree with Stalin that it was 'Dollar Imperialism' and Truman was incredibly hypocritical in accusing the Soviets of attempting to take over the world while at the same time making Western Europe dependent on the dollar.

Getting back to the bombing of Japan, as many people have stated, Japan was on the verge of surrender. My opinion is that Truman was going to drop the bomb no matter what in order to threaten the Soviets, and the selection of a target was based upon showing the power of their new weapon to Stalin.

I don't understand why many Americans take it so personally when actions of their previous governments are criticised. British governments have done lots of gakky things, and I would be the first to criticise them for it, including the bombing of Dresden. I would, however, never crow about it or try to justify it.

Naive, as Roosevelt and Churchill skillfully dealt with Stalin through the Tehran and Yalta conferences, maintaining strong relations while avoiding making any firm promises about Eastern Europe. As soon as Truman took over relations between the countries declined dramatically, through politically naive moves such as not informing Stalin at Potsdam that the States had a functioning atomic weapon, which made Stalin lose face.
***Really? We should tell them everything? Besides, Stalin’s spies knew all about it.

Truman stated he was "tired of babying the Soviets" and took a hardline policy against the spread of communism, even when it was not supported by the Soviets, such as in Turkey and Greece, which again shows political naivety. The Truman Doctrine was largely based on Kennan's 'Long Telegram' rather than any political insight on Truman's part.
***Same policy as Churchill

I terms of me interpreting history as would a 15 year old, I think you'll find that the orthodox historical view you adhere to that the United States offered financial support to Europe out of the goodness of its heart, is by far the least convincing and simplistic, although YMMV.
***I never said that. Quit strawmanning.

Getting back to the bombing of Japan, as many people have stated, Japan was on the verge of surrender.
***BUT IT DIDN’T. Verge is irrelevant until it does. It only surrendered after the TWO Bombs AND the Soviet Manchurian invasion. Plus the entire destruction of its navy, naval air arm, its non Kamikaze airforce, blockade, loss of its shield of islands, hundreds of thousands dead, destruction of most of its cities, and invasion of Okinawa. It could have surrendered at any time, but it didn’t until these final events occurred. The cessation of hostilities was entirely upon them.

My opinion is that Truman was going to drop the bomb no matter what in order to threaten the Soviets, and the selection of a target was based upon showing the power of their new weapon to Stalin.
***Had they surrendered before there would have been no bomb drop. Had Germany kept fighting they would have been dropped on Germany first. We could always threaten the Soviets (and they us) just like we did in the Cold War, setting off test nukes left and right.

I don't understand why many Americans take it so personally when actions of their previous governments are criticised.
***Because the criticism is stupid, done by hindsighters with no skin in the game, who are enthusiastically blind to the level of casualties occurring every day in occupied territories.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

You think, I don't know history?
You don't understeand what I'm trying to figure out: nuclear bombs are EVIL.
You americans always justify the bombings, considering that always you arrive correctly. That enemies always - the evil. And you - always good.
That when somewhere something occurs, it is necessary to destroy it by bombing all (like "arabs are evil, let's kill them").
you justify the most bad weapon at now
You don't understand that it isn't simple the weapon. It is self-liquidation of mankind.
instead of condemnation, you eulogize it
instead of maintenance of balance in the world, you want the unipolar world
But I hope that not all americans such imperialists
Probably in this forum so many warmongers, because they play toy soldiers?

 Freakazoitt wrote:


You think, I don't know history?

We don't have to think it when you demonstrate it so aptly

You americans always justify the bombings, considering that always you arrive correctly. That enemies always - the evil. And you - always good.

The only person who holds that position in this thread is you.

Probably in this forum so many warmongers, because they play toy soldiers?

Rule 1

 LordofHats wrote:


We don't have to think it when you demonstrate it so aptly

what do I have to speak? "thank you that dropped a bomb! Japanese deserved death! it is a pity, what them there were only two boms"?
I don't want to do so

 LordofHats wrote:


The only person who holds that position in this thread is you.

Then apologize for a bombing to Kilkrazy
None of Americans won't make it. At you doesn't go in that you can make something wrong

 LordofHats wrote:


Rule 1

it is a mean joke about one topic here

 Freakazoitt wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

You think, I don't know history?
You don't understeand what I'm trying to figure out: nuclear bombs are EVIL.
You americans always justify the bombings, considering that always you arrive correctly. That enemies always - the evil. And you - always good.
That when somewhere something occurs, it is necessary to destroy it by bombing all (like "arabs are evil, let's kill them").
you justify the most bad weapon at now
You don't understand that it isn't simple the weapon. It is self-liquidation of mankind.
instead of condemnation, you eulogize it
instead of maintenance of balance in the world, you want the unipolar world
But I hope that not all americans such imperialists
Probably in this forum so many warmongers, because they play toy soldiers?

What country are you from? Was it evil that the Allies (Brits, USA, USSR, and strangely Brazil) liberated it? Were we warmongers for doing so?
How is it Imperialist warmongers blah blah when the USA was attacked? Japan and Germany declared was on the US not the other way around.


Can you take a breath and restate. I understand you are ESL and applaud your typing, but this is rushed so clarification would be helpful.

Then apologize for a bombing to Kilkrazy
None of Americans won't make it. At you doesn't go in that you can make something wrong

Germany and Japan defeating - ok, that's good. But it is bad to eulogize nuclear bombing. Doing it, you do possible use of the nuclear weapon in the future.

Then apologize for a bombing to Kilkrazy

Kilkrazy is British If anything, I'd apologize to him for ruining perfectly good tea (but I won't because tea sucks and everyone knows it was Native Americans who tossed it into the bay! ).

None of Americans won't make it. At you doesn't go in that you can make something wrong

You could also realize that there is a difference between being proud of something, and simply accepting that it was done. WWII was the text book example of total war. However horrible it was, the bombings were a continuation of a state of conflict all sides were fighting. Apologizing for this particular act is... pointless. Never mind that multiple posters in this thread have expressed regret for the bombing or commented on how lamentable it was (I literally did it 10 posts into the thread).

it is a mean joke about one topic here

It's a topic you started seemingly for the sole purpose of expressing how evil you think America is. I'm sorry everyone disagrees with you.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Germany and Japan defeating - ok, that's good. But it is bad to eulogize nuclear bombing. Doing it, you do possible use of the nuclear weapon in the future.

Bad to eulogize - do you mean celebrate? If so, I don't know of anyone who celebrates it. In the US I don't know anyone who celebrates anything about WWII other than its end (VE and VJ day, but no one remembers even that any more).

No one on this board so far is saying it was a good thing, only a lesser bad thing that helped end the war and saved lives as a result.

VJ day ceased to be a Federal Holiday in 1975 (except in Rhode Island).

The History Channel remembers it with Band of Brothers and The Pacific Marathons

 LordofHats wrote:
VJ day ceased to be a Federal Holiday in 1975 (except in Rhode Island).

I suspect even in Rhode Island it is not a Federal holiday.

Pft. Technicalities

 LordofHats wrote:

Kilkrazy is British If anything, I'd apologize to him for ruining perfectly good tea (but I won't because tea sucks and everyone knows it was Native Americans who tossed it into the bay! ).

no, I saw as you threw tea into water

 LordofHats wrote:

You could also realize that there is a difference between being proud of something, and simply accepting that it was done. WWII was the text book example of total war. However horrible it was, the bombings were a continuation of a state of conflict all sides were fighting. Apologizing for this particular act is... pointless. Never mind that multiple posters in this thread have expressed regret for the bombing or commented on how lamentable it was (I literally did it 10 posts into the thread).

Not truly. war was the most terrible, but the chemical and bacteriological weapon wasn't used there (well, again except Japanese. But it doesn't mean that they can be killed in any way, especially civilians)

 LordofHats wrote:

It's a topic you started seemingly for the sole purpose of expressing how evil you think America is. I'm sorry everyone disagrees with you.

 Freakazoitt wrote:

Not truly. war was the most terrible, but the chemical and bacteriological weapon wasn't used there (well, again except Japanese. But it doesn't mean that they can be killed in any way, especially civilians)

Strategic bombing in WWII killed over 2 million civilians. Just over 10% of that number were killed by the atomic bombs, about half of all Japanese killed by allied bombing. The bombing of civilian targets was accepted by all sides in the war. 30,000,000 civilians were killed between 1937 and 1945. 8 million in China alone (another 6 in Germany and Russia). So yeah. Apologizing for killing 200,000 in a specific manner seems a rather empty gesture.

It's terrible yes, but it is the nature of the war the Axis and Allies were fighting. There is no point in apologizing for any specific bombing, especially when all sides took an equal part in that particular act.

Your comments induced it to do me

Except that those comments haven't been made unless you simply don't understand what people are saying.

 LordofHats wrote:

Then apologize for a bombing to Kilkrazy

Kilkrazy is British If anything, I'd apologize to him for ruining perfectly good tea (but I won't because tea sucks and everyone knows it was Native Americans who tossed it into the bay! ).

None of Americans won't make it. At you doesn't go in that you can make something wrong

You could also realize that there is a difference between being proud of something, and simply accepting that it was done. WWII was the text book example of total war. However horrible it was, the bombings were a continuation of a state of conflict all sides were fighting. Apologizing for this particular act is... pointless. Never mind that multiple posters in this thread have expressed regret for the bombing or commented on how lamentable it was (I literally did it 10 posts into the thread).

it is a mean joke about one topic here

It's a topic you started seemingly for the sole purpose of expressing how evil you think America is. I'm sorry everyone disagrees with you.

I'm British, my wife is Japanese. Without going into details there are various aspects of WW2, its aftermath and modern attitudes to the period, that we don't see completely eye-to-eye about.

Although I'm British I believe the Allies were on the side of the angels in WW2. Mass bombings such as Dresden IMO were the Nazis sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind. Ditto the nuclear attacks in Japan. They started the war, and they could have surrendered earlier rather than forcing us to obliterate them.

However it is also true that my mother-in-law, who was born in 1941, has no family historical documents dating from before 1945 because her home and all its contents -- photo albums, portraits, etc. -- were burned down in the Tokyo fire bombing raid. That sort of destruction of a small child's world is not something for anyone to be proud of.

The fact that the Axis powers did worse stuff than the western Allies (sorry, modern Russians but the Soviets did some pretty gakky stuff too) does not mean mass air raids and atom bombs were jolly good things.

I don't think we disagree quite that much;

Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime. ~ Ernest Hemingway

^probably the most direct to the point thing Hemingway ever put on paper

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Obviously there was complete objectivity when the bombs were dropped. The USA in no way felt themselves to be ethnically, politically or morally superior.
All brought to you from the same country who carried out genocide on the Native Americans and dropped napalm on Vietnamese kids. It's OK though, they have God on their side.

Do you know what country also had God on its side and felt itself ethnically, politically and morally superior?
That's right:


Sorry guys, it was past time for this thread

And thus, no "America BAD!!!" thread is complete without Godwin rising like a fat wiener dog vampire from the grave.

Never Again!!!!

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Obviously there was complete objectivity when the bombs were dropped. The USA in no way felt themselves to be ethnically, politically or morally superior.
All brought to you from the same country who carried out genocide on the Native Americans and dropped napalm on Vietnamese kids. It's OK though, they have God on their side.

Do you know what country also had God on its side and felt itself ethnically, politically and morally superior?
That's right:

Spoiler:

Sorry guys, it was past time for this thread

Alright, I want to make sure some of you all understand

Got Mit Uns

The Prussian Order of the Crown was Prussia's lowest ranking order of chivalry, and was instituted in 1861. The obverse gilt central disc bore the crown of Prussia, surrounded by a blue enamel ring bearing the motto of the German Empire Gott Mit Uns.

At the time of the completion of German unification in 1871, the imperial standard bore the motto Gott mit uns on the arms of an Iron Cross.[4] Imperial German 3 and 5 mark silver and 20 mark gold coins had Gott mit uns inscribed on their edge.

German soldiers had Gott mit uns inscribed on their helmets in the First World War.[5] To the Germans it was a rallying cry, "a Protestant as well as an Imperial motto, the expression of German religious, political and ethnic single-mindedness, or the numerous unity of altar, throne and Volk".[6] The slogan entered the mindset on both sides; in 1916 a cartoon was printed in the New York Tribune captioned "Gott Mit Uns!", showing "a German officer in spiked helmet holding a smoking revolver as he stood over the bleeding form of a nurse. It symbolized the rising popular demand that the United States shed its neutrality".[7]

In June 1920 George Grosz produced a lithographic collection in three editions entitled Gott mit uns. A satire on German society and the counterrevolution, the collection was swiftly banned. Grosz was charged with insulting the army, which resulted in a 300 German Mark fine and the destruction of the collection.[8]

During the Second World War Wehrmacht soldiers wore this slogan on their belt buckles,[9] as opposed to members of the Waffen SS, who wore the motto Meine Ehre heißt Treue ('My honour is loyalty').[10] After the war the motto was also used by the Bundeswehr and German police, it was replaced with "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" ("Unity and Justice and Freedom") in 1962 (police within the 1970s), the first line of the third stanza of the Lied der Deutschen.

Scout Snipers, already discussed from another thread with "Battlefield Humor" also confirmed from a former Marine that "SS' been in played with that particular type of units

As for Tyrann. You Sir are a Chucklehead. For you are a HUGE Chucklehead. For that incident you mention of napalm and kids you are referring to this this incident and Iconic picture

Black and White pic and a bit "graphic" if you not familiar about that incident during the Vietnam War

Kim Phúc and her family were residents of the village of Trang Bang, South Vietnam. On June 8, 1972, South Vietnamese planes dropped a napalm bomb on Trang Bang, which had been attacked and occupied by North Vietnamese forces.[2] Kim Phúc joined a group of civilians and South Vietnamese soldiers who were fleeing from the Caodai Temple to the safety of South Vietnamese-held positions. A South Vietnamese Air Force pilot mistook the group for enemy soldiers and diverted to attack. The bombing killed two of Kim Phúc's cousins and two other villagers. Kim Phúc was badly burned and tore off her burning clothes. Associated Press photographer Nick Ut's photograph of Kim Phúc running naked amid other fleeing villagers, South Vietnamese soldiers and press photographers became one of the most haunting images of the Vietnam War. In an interview many years later, she recalled she was yelling, Nóng quá, nóng quá ("too hot, too hot") in the picture. New York Times editors were at first hesitant to consider the photo for publication because of the nudity, but eventually approved it. A cropped version of the photo—with the press photographers to the right removed—was featured on the front page of the New York Times the next day. It later earned a Pulitzer Prize and was chosen as the World Press Photo of the Year for 1972.

After snapping the photograph, Ut took Kim Phúc and the other injured children to Barsky Hospital in Saigon, where it was determined that her burns were so severe that she probably would not survive.[3] After a 14-month hospital stay and 17 surgical procedures including skin transplantations, however, she was able to return home. A number of the early operations were performed by a Finnish plastic surgeon Aarne Rintala (1926–2014).[4][5]

Edit

Bolded and color on the nationality of the pilot and country