Bishop denounces Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Equates to terrorism

[alban]

Just found this quote and thought it was quite accurate. It was said Szilard, a scientist closely associated with the nuclear bomb research.

"If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."

 

[D'Ann]

The one thing that I don't like about the A bomb droppings in 1945, is how it basically signalled the start of the arms race. Apart from that, I don't think much on it. What were the alternatives? Negotiation? Not a chance, the Japanese were too proud. Invasion of Japan.? That would have costs millions of lives (both soldiers and civilians). Even a (hypothetical) naval blockade could have taken years to have effect. All potential alternatives, would have just prolonged the war even further.

Before the bombs dropped in 1945, Japan knew the war was no longer going in its favour. But, that just really increased their will to fight. Kamakazi missions aren't just the only example. The Japanese also put in place in many areas, a plan to exterminate it's POW's. If the US didn't drop the bombs when it did, not only would more soldiers on both sides have died, but also civilians who would be caught in the middle.

As for Japan's sense of "honour" at that time, I can think of some perfect examples where they put it into practice. Nanking and the Korean comfort girls aside. 1942, fall of Singapore and Malaya. Allied troops, including British and Australian soldiers captured and put into POW camps. Fair enough, that's war. But then for the next few years, forced into virtual slavery, being tortured, and executed in numerous ways. Starvation, and tropical illness. Over a third would die in these camps. As well as forced on death marches to kill them off in Borneo. In one incident, 24 Aussie nurses were forced to walk into waist deep water, then machine-gunned down. Only one, by God's grace, survived.

Allied servicemen shot down and captured, were beheaded straight away by their captors. There's one particular famous photograpgh of a blind folded allied servicemen kneeling as a Japanese officer raises his sword. Troops who would be captured in battle, were tied to trees and used for bayonet practice. As well as (in New Guinea anyway), turning to cannabalism.

Japan also gained the title of the first foreign nation to ever attack Australian soil (primarily bombing our city of Darwin, filled with civilians) also killing thousands. That was without provocation.

I'm unsure about what other viable alternatives there were to the bombs. But it's obvious to me, what Japan's sense of honour was all about. As well as their willingness to continue the fight.

A few of my examples were just based on the general Aussie experience of that war. Which was brutal for us enough. However, considering that America didn't just fight in the South Pacific, but all the way to the Philipines, I have no doubt that they would have had these experiences ten fold to us. Plus, any Allied invasion would have been made primarily of U.S troops. Given that fact, I don't know why any American could object to the bombings, unless given a more viable alternative.

Innocents died. But by killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, the US saved millions more.

I didn't know any of this about the Aussies and the nurses... There were so many different parts to WWII. I've studied various parts of WWII, but I have not yet learned about the Aussie's suffering and sacrifice. Thank you for what you wrote.

Pax,

Debbie

 

[Servus Iesu]

Just found this quote and thought it was quite accurate. It was said Szilard, a scientist closely associated with the nuclear bomb research.

"If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."

No one likes dropping atomic bombs.

Please, for the umpteenth time... if you believe it was wrong please show some kind of alternative which would have killed less people. I am an open minded person and am ready to listen to a good solution.

 

[CaDan]

No one likes dropping atomic bombs.

Please, for the umpteenth time... if you believe it was wrong please show some kind of alternative which would have killed less people. I am an open minded person and am ready to listen to a good solution.

I don't know if there was a better solution. There may have been; there may not have been. The past is past and we can only speculate as to the outcomes of paths not taken. But the path we have chosen passes through Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We would do well to remember that.

 

[bostonlass]

And December 13 is the day to remember what Japan did in Nanking 68 years ago. It is the day to remember that the Japanese killed between 260,000 and 350,000 men, women, and children.

April 10 is the day to remember what the Japanese did on Bataan 63 years ago. It is the day to remember that the Japanese killed more than 10,000 wounded, weak, malnourished, dehydrated, and unarmed prisoners of war, most of them by either being shot or bayoneted when they were too weak to walk any more.

September 18 is the day to remember what the Japanese began 74 years ago. It is the day to remember that the Japanese forced upwards to 200,000 women and girls into service as "comfort women" for the Japanese Army, in which they were tortured, beaten, and raped by as many as 30 men every day, some of them for upwards of eight years.

And, of course, December 7 is the day to remember what the Japanese did 64 years ago. It is the day to remember that the Japanese killed more than 2,400 American servicemen and civilians, by bombing a country they were not at war with.

If we're going to wail about atrocities, then let's wail about those who committed the worst ones, with the greatest amount of barbarism, which killed the most innocent people.

Hint: it wasn't the United States.

Do you have a single twin brother????

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Just found this quote and thought it was quite accurate. It was said Szilard, a scientist closely associated with the nuclear bomb research.

"If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."

Szilard is, of course, right.

That's the difference between being a country that wages aggressive war, commits criimes agaisnt peace and humanity and a country that gets attacked while in peace talks, is the arsonal of democracy and the hope of enslaved peoples around the world.

The weapon is not evil. How it is used may be. Or may not be.

You'd think a person smart enough to get a Ph.D from the University of Berlin and have himself thought of as a genius by Einstein would be able to figure that out.

 

[Cat59]

There was so much evil in WW2 that judgements of this sort become complex and increasingly subjective. My mother lived through this, in London, with bombs and rockets falling around her. Her father died and her uncle was a POW of the Japanese, returning a mental and physical shadow of his former self and dying not long after his return. She developed an acknowledged mistrust, and I would say almost hatred of all things Japanese. Many years later, her son brought home his Japanese girlfriend, who is now his Japanese wife. My mother was forced to face her feelings, her thoughts and attitudes, and look at them in the light of what the Lord was confronting her with and she faced up to the command of the Lord, to love thy neighbour and forgive from the heart, those who had wronged her family and also accept that many she blamed had not hurt her family, had played no part in this.

My take on this is that we cannot undo the past, we can use our retrospectoscope and play imaginary war games in our own homes, but for what purpose? So often these arguments and "ifs" and "buts" just perpetuate the anger and intolerance and prejudices that spawned WW2 in the first place. The people of Japan now are not the people who cruelly tortured my great uncle and we are not the people who decided to drop the bombs. But in my opinion, apologising for the suffering caused by the bombs is not a wrong thing to do, if it helps both us and others to lay aside our hatred and prejudice and to move towards reconciliation.

 

[alban]

No one likes dropping atomic bombs.

Please, for the umpteenth time... if you believe it was wrong please show some kind of alternative which would have killed less people. I am an open minded person and am ready to listen to a good solution.

Well first of all i don't believe i need to. How on earth does the presence of alternatives change the morality of the situation? A common question is if you could go back in time and kill infant Hitler, and my answer would always be no. One can preach endlessly about the 'greater good' but this is a concept which is not found in our faith. Murder is always wrong and therefore no matter how many lives could have been saved by killing Hitler in no way negate the fact that i would be intentionally disobeying God. The same is true here. Even if i accept your premiss that this saved more lives (i don't by the way, see below) then it remains a wrong and evil act; the alternative was quite simply not to drop the bomb.

However, with regards to whether dropping the bomb was necessary then i do not believe it was anyway. A cursory glance at history reveal that numerous key figures in the US military were against the bomb, as there was no significant military benefit from it.
"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 survey.
Other reasons are that the Japanese tried to surrender repeatedly prior to the bomb, but it was rejected by US authorities as they wanted an unconditional surrender (a bit of revenge for pearl harbour?- both the refusal and the bomb that is)

You can try and justify this as much as you want, but i firmly believe that it is not only morally abhorent but contradictory to Christianity.

 

[Servus Iesu]

Well first of all i don't believe i need to. How on earth does the presence of alternatives change the morality of the situation? A common question is if you could go back in time and kill infant Hitler, and my answer would always be no. One can preach endlessly about the 'greater good' but this is a concept which is not found in our faith.

I don't think the infant Hitler analogy necessarily applies.

Murder is always wrong and therefore no matter how many lives could have been saved by killing Hitler in no way negate the fact that i would be intentionally disobeying God. The same is true here. Even if i accept your premiss that this saved more lives (i don't by the way, see below) then it remains a wrong and evil act; the alternative was quite simply not to drop the bomb.

It would seem to me that by the above logic you are saying wars cannot be fought. Bombings of any kind during WWII killed hundreds of innocent civilians because there was no such thing as a smart bomb. If we had invaded Japan we would have killed many innocent civilians.

However, with regards to whether dropping the bomb was necessary then i do not believe it was anyway. A cursory glance at history reveal that numerous key figures in the US military were against the bomb, as there was no significant military benefit from it.
"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 survey.
Other reasons are that the Japanese tried to surrender repeatedly prior to the bomb, but it was rejected by US authorities as they wanted an unconditional surrender (a bit of revenge for pearl harbour?- both the refusal and the bomb that is)

At last someone is trying to offer some kind of evidence on this issue. I am willing to hear what you have to say about this. If the historical data is there I am ready to believe it. What sort of surrender were the Japanese prepared to accept? Would they have agreed to leave all of the territories that they conquered? Would they have agreed to disarm? If so then I think you have a point. A temporary peace in which the Japanese began re-arming though was not an option.

You can try and justify this as much as you want, but i firmly believe that it is not only morally abhorent but contradictory to Christianity.

The fact is that it happened. I don't really like defending it but I am bothered by all the political statements about America which always surround the event. I am not an American jingoist. I was not in favor of invading Iraq. However, I will defend America whenever someone makes it sound like America was somehow evil and immoral for dropping the bomb whereas Japan was a poor victim. Japan's record of brutality during the war shows otherwise.

If someone wants to make the sober point that each side committed evil acts during the course of the war without painting America as 'bad guy' and Japan as 'victim' then I am ready to agree.

 

[StPaul]

I don't think the infant Hitler analogy necessarily applies.



It would seem to me that by the above logic you are saying wars cannot be fought. Bombings of any kind during WWII killed hundreds of innocent civilians because there was no such thing as a smart bomb. If we had invaded Japan we would have killed many innocent civilians.



At last someone is trying to offer some kind of evidence on this issue. I am willing to hear what you have to say about this. If the historical data is there I am ready to believe it. What sort of surrender were the Japanese prepared to accept? Would they have agreed to leave all of the territories that they conquered? Would they have agreed to disarm? If so then I think you have a point. A temporary peace in which the Japanese began re-arming though was not an option.



The fact is that it happened. I don't really like defending it but I am bothered by all the political statements about America which always surround the event. I am not an American jingoist. I was not in favor of invading Iraq. However, I will defend America whenever someone makes it sound like America was somehow evil and immoral for dropping the bomb whereas Japan was a poor victim. Japan's record of brutality during the war shows otherwise.

If someone wants to make the sober point that each side committed evil acts during the course of the war without painting America as 'bad guy' and Japan as 'victim' then I am ready to agree.

Actually,... I would like to add in another 2 cents...

There was most definately another way (and a much less expensive way) to bring about the Surrender of Japan.

First of all,... with the Japanese mindset at the time (as with any Major Power, but moreso with Japan) the will of the people has to be broken. An enemy can be faced with all the odds not in their favor and still fight... if they had the will to. Most of the time, this is accomplished by bombing Strategic military targets (for example the Ball-Bearing plants in Germany).

Prior to the droppings of the ABombs, the US were engaged in Japanese-Mainland Bombing,... but these bombs were not the traditional bombs dropped- yet they caused the most fear amungst the Japanese people. These bombing raids would drop incinery devices that would start fires. The reason why this struck the most fear with the Japanese people is because their main architecture was that of wooden structures--It was the most abundent resourse at the time.

These tactics, which started out with the targeting of strategic military targets-but would cause the most collateral damage (thus resulting in a very high loss of Civilian life), were scrapped for such reasons.

God Bless

 

[Servus Iesu]

Good points.

 

[alban]

I don't think the infant Hitler analogy necessarily applies.

I think it does- certainly it's not a perfect analogy but is asking whether it's right to committ one evil with the aim of preventing evil further down the track. It's perhaps not not a good analogy but it does represent the moral dilema being faced.

It would seem to me that by the above logic you are saying wars cannot be fought. Bombings of any kind during WWII killed hundreds of innocent civilians because there was no such thing as a smart bomb. If we had invaded Japan we would have killed many innocent civilians.

I fully accept a countries right to defend itself and its future freedom. The question is whether the two nuclear bombs when beyond that right- it is my opinion they did. As you point out however this is a line of argument which could open one to accusations of pacificism etc.

At last someone is trying to offer some kind of evidence on this issue. I am willing to hear what you have to say about this. If the historical data is there I am ready to believe it. What sort of surrender were the Japanese prepared to accept? Would they have agreed to leave all of the territories that they conquered? Would they have agreed to disarm? If so then I think you have a point. A temporary peace in which the Japanese began re-arming though was not an option.

Bear with me on that- i'll do a bit of digging.

The fact is that it happened. I don't really like defending it but I am bothered by all the political statements about America which always surround the event. I am not an American jingoist. I was not in favor of invading Iraq. However, I will defend America whenever someone makes it sound like America was somehow evil and immoral for dropping the bomb whereas Japan was a poor victim. Japan's record of brutality during the war shows otherwise.

If someone wants to make the sober point that each side committed evil acts during the course of the war without painting America as 'bad guy' and Japan as 'victim' then I am ready to agree.

My apologies- upon re-reading my post i can see how it could have been construed as a veild attack on Iraq and all that, but that was not my intention. The two nuclear devices were not solely a product of America. Britain and many other nations were both directly and indirectly involved with all the deaths that occured as a result of the bombs.

 

[Richard]

I don't have a problem with dropping the bombs in theory as a necessary military tactic but I maintain that it is more than a coincidence that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the most heavily Catholic cities in Japan, not to mention Harry Truman was a Freemason. Call me a conspiracy theorist but I don't like it.

I honestly doubt that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an attempt to rid of Catholics in Japan.

 

[Forever trying]

I have read a few comments here, that sound as if we should apologise to the Japanese, that the "methods" that America and her allies employed were wrong. Statements to that effect anyway.

My thoughts on the matter is this. Germany has gone out of its way to try to make amends for the wrongs it committed in its evil past. Including being the aggressor in two worlds wars which cost the world dearly.

Japan has consistently refused to take any responsibility for their actions. No admission of wrong doing, and no compensation for the pain inflicted on civilians who crossed the paths of its army. Especially those in Korea and China. I understand that after WW2 they were not required to make any such admission or payments. But you would hope the government would have the morality to make such a statement. Especially after so long.

The fact that successive Japanese governments have continually avoided the issue of their wrong doing in the war tells me two things. Either, like and ostrich, they want to bury their head in the sand and pretend it never happened. Or subconsciously, many don't believe that they did anything to be sorry for.

Either way, I see no reason for those from the allied nations (including and especially the US), to say sorry for their methods of fighting back against an aggressor. Particularly until Japan itself apologises for its brutal and unprovoked attack against other nations.

 

[Wolseley]

I think it may possibly have something to do with Japanese culture---"saving face", and whatnot. You don't save face by admitting that your country was full of war criminals who murdered millions of innocent people.

 

[isshinwhat]

The Japanese never speak of WWII in their schools.

 

[alban]

I have read a few comments here, that sound as if we should apologise to the Japanese, that the "methods" that America and her allies employed were wrong. Statements to that effect anyway.

My thoughts on the matter is this. Germany has gone out of its way to try to make amends for the wrongs it committed in its evil past. Including being the aggressor in two worlds wars which cost the world dearly.

Japan has consistently refused to take any responsibility for their actions. No admission of wrong doing, and no compensation for the pain inflicted on civilians who crossed the paths of its army. Especially those in Korea and China. I understand that after WW2 they were not required to make any such admission or payments. But you would hope the government would have the morality to make such a statement. Especially after so long.

The fact that successive Japanese governments have continually avoided the issue of their wrong doing in the war tells me two things. Either, like and ostrich, they want to bury their head in the sand and pretend it never happened. Or subconsciously, many don't believe that they did anything to be sorry for.

Either way, I see no reason for those from the allied nations (including and especially the US), to say sorry for their methods of fighting back against an aggressor. Particularly until Japan itself apologises for its brutal and unprovoked attack against other nations.

But surely there you're adopting a very childish attitude- ie. well i won't say sorry until he does.

 

[Forever trying]

No it is not a childish attitude. In fact, I personally am unsure if the allied nations should even have to apologise for anything.

Japan was the instigator. In terms of the attitude of its military and government, it was more brutal in how it approached war than the Germans. Geneva convention was not employed at all. At least in Germany, there were officers and officials who became so disenchanted with Hitler, that they tried to remove him. Even POW's rights were respected on a level. There was no such known move in Japan.

The Allies adopted the methods considered neccessary to fight an enemy, who made no distinction at all between soldier and civilian. An enemy, who out of their own foolish pride, refused to surrender to conventional means, and was still planning systematic murders of POW's and civilians. The methods that the Allies employed to defeat Japan, were brought about by the way Japan fought the war. The more brutal the aggressor, the more brutal must be the defenders. By doing what it did, the US saved millions of lives (including any British) who would have died in an invasion. As well as ending the war by years. A benefit, even for the Japanese.

I see no reason for us to apologise to a nation, who continually denies any wrong doing, and in many ways, brought about their own destruction.

 

[Wolseley]

The Allies adopted the methods considered neccessary to fight an enemy, who made no distinction at all between soldier and civilian. An enemy, who out of their own foolish pride, refused to surrender to conventional means, and was still planning systematic murders of POW's and civilians. The methods that the Allies employed to defeat Japan, were brought about by the way Japan fought the war. The more brutal the aggressor, the more brutal must be the defenders.

A distasteful, but unfortunately necessary fact of war. You have to be willing to do what your enemy is doing, or he will defeat you.

If you want to win a war, you can't say to the enemy, "I know you're using 155-mm howitzers and 500,000 pound daisy-cutter bombs, but I find those weapons to be offensive, and they bother my sense of fair play, so instead, I'm going to fight by the rules I feel comfortable with, and all I'm going to use are water balloons and this little dart pistol with a rubber suction cup on the end. May the best man win."

That's a quick way to lose.

In World War I, the Allies refused to use poison gas. But the Germans started using it, so we started using it. But we didn't set the perameters for that conflict---they did.

In World War II. the Allies didn't start bombing civilian population centers. The Germans did, beginning with the Spanish Civil War and progressing up through the inavsion of Poland and the Battle of Britain. And we, realizing how much war production was being manufactured in the cities---by civilians---to supply the armies, followed suit. But again, we didn't set the perameters for that conflict---they did.

At least in the Pacifc, we were more restrained than the Japanese were. Their idea was to kill as many of us as possible, then commit seppuku; ours was for them to either surrender or die. When surrenders did take place, they tortured and beheaded their captives; we sent ours to nice cushy POW camps.

 

[Ave Maria]

My opinion, yes, it was immoral to nuke Nagasaki and Hiroshima but then again there likely wasn't a moral alternative either. So what should we have done? I can honestly say that I don't know. All I know is that if I had been the Commander in Chief at that time, I would have done some serious praying about the situation.