Atomic Bomb In WWII

[bobzills]

Maybe so. But the theme of the OP was related to how the RCC viewed the use of bombs; a valid question, though not one I’m interested in. Not a relevant consideration to wonder how the Axis would have viewed it, if they had won, it seems to me.

GKC

Do you beleive that the end justifies the means, in the sense that it is OK to use immoral means to attain a good end?

 

[miguel]

I have, re: Eisenhower. If you step across the line on any other facts I’m aware of, I’ll have at it again.

But the best thing I can do, is recommend that you, or anyone else interested in this or other points of history, find the pertinent literature and read. I’ve suggested a few titles above, I can triple the list, easily.

GKC

I love history. I don’t think I stepped across any line with respect to Eisenhower. That said, I certainly haven’t studied this particular subject for 8 or 9 years as you have. But you got me interested. Thank you for that.

 

[miguel]

It would sure be interesting to see how this thread would read if the Germans and the Japanese had won the war.

Wonder if they’d be beating themselves up, here 60 years after the fact, for “killing innocent enemy women and children”?

I wouldn’t put it so amorally. But you have a point. I can’t imagine the Nazis worrying too much about the innocent people they killed either. But that’s precisely why it’s good that we won. We preserved a civilization where we can discuss such concepts as morality.

 

[GKC]

I love history. I don’t think I stepped across any line with respect to Eisenhower. That said, I certainly haven’t studied this particular subject for 8 or 9 years as you have. But you got me interested. Thank you for that.

You are very welcome. As I said, I can recommend titles, that cover the spectrum. But for my money, one starts with Frank’s DOWNFALL.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Do you beleive that the end justifies the means, in the sense that it is OK to use immoral means to attain a good end?

No. I believe moral means were (in this case) used for a moral end. But interpretations of morality are subjective, and history is somewhat less so. I deal in the history. I

GKC

 

[OldRedleg]

For those of you who think that negotiation could have ended the war without “dropping the bomb” consider this. After the two atomic bombs were dropped the Emperor made the decision to end the war. When he announced this decision to the military and his cabinet there was a revolt from military hardliners in Tokyo. They attacked the Imperial Palace and tried to seize the Emperor in an effort to continue the war.

Even when faced with the destructive power of an atomic bomb there were those in the Japanese military and government who wanted to keep fighting.

Emotions of honor were very strong within Japan on the issue of surrender. Given the cultural context I doubt that any serious attempt at a negotiated surrender would have succeeded. Hitler and his fanatics refused to give up and the cultural context of the Japanese on the issue was even stronger against surrender

 

[GKC]

For those of you who think that negotiation could have ended the war without “dropping the bomb” consider this. After the two atomic bombs were dropped the Emperor made the decision to end the war. When he announced this decision to the military and his cabinet there was a revolt from military hardliners in Tokyo. They attacked the Imperial Palace and tried to seize the Emperor in an effort to continue the war.

Even when faced with the destructive power of an atomic bomb there were those in the Japanese military and government who wanted to keep fighting.

Emotions of honor were very strong within Japan on the issue of surrender. Given the cultural context I doubt that any serious attempt at a negotiated surrender would have succeeded. Hitler and his fanatics refused to give up and the cultural context of the Japanese on the issue was even stronger against surrender

The chief of staff (IIRC) of the Imperial Guards division, whose commander was killed by the mutineers for refusing to join them, was still alive a couple of years ago, and was interviewed, on the last days of the war, and the mutiny, on a history show I saw. Fascinating.

JAPAN’S LONGEST DAY, for an account of the times.

GKC

 

[bobzills]

No. I believe moral means were (in this case) used for a moral end. But interpretations of morality are subjective, and history is somewhat less so. I deal in the history. I

GKC

But does the good end somehow convert the immoral means into a good means in the end? For example, is it OK to kill a few hundred civilians, because in the end, you will save the lives of millions of American soldiers?

 

[GKC]

But does the good end somehow convert the immoral means into a good means in the end? For example, is it OK to kill a few hundred civilians, because in the end, you will save the lives of millions of American soldiers?

You propose a false dichotomy. In the real world, which is what I post about in this thread, the choice was between a number “X” of casualties of all types, Americans, Japanese, all Allies, native peoples of overrun countries, old, young, military, civilian, male, female, and a much larger number, 10X or more, of the same peoples. The moral action is to chose the smaller number. We did.

This you should refer to as consequentialism, or proportionality.

Fewer dead people of all types. End of the war. Good.

GKC

 

[JimG]

But does the good end somehow convert the immoral means into a good means in the end? For example, is it OK to kill a few hundred civilians, because in the end, you will save the lives of millions of American soldiers?

Thousands of civilians were killed in the course of WW-II, on all sides, with perhaps the sole exception of the United States civilians. Because the war was fought in Europe, on the soil of our Allies and our enemies, and not on our soil, we had hardly any civilian casualties. That was not the case for all other participants.

 

[bobzills]

You propose a false dichotomy. In the real world, which is what I post about in this thread, the choice was between a number “X” of casualties of all types, Americans, Japanese, all Allies, native peoples of overrun countries, old, young, military, civilian, male, female, and a much larger number, 10X or more, of the same peoples. The moral action is to chose the smaller number. We did.

This you should refer to as consequentialism, or proportionality.

Fewer dead people of all types. End of the war. Good.

GKC

So, in your view, then, it is OK then to kill a few hundred civilians in order to bring about a good end, such as an end to a terrible war which if continued, would result in far greater casualties?

 

[GKC]

So, in your view, then, it is OK then to kill a few hundred civilians in order to bring about a good end, such as an end to a terrible war which if continued, would result in far greater casualties?

Sorry. As I said, except for pointing out the consequences of your position, in terms of the butcher’s bill, I deal in history.

GKC

 

[bobzills]

Sorry. As I said, except for pointing out the consequences of your position, in terms of the butcher’s bill, I deal in history.

GKC

I can understand why you would not want to answer this embarassing question.

 

[GKC]

I can understand why you would not want to answer this embarassing question.

One might assume that you had read my post #706 (even if you had forgotten the many other earlier posts), but then one would be at a loss to explain your post #708.

I even gave you the possible titles for such a position, in ethics.

GKC

 

[Oakleaf]

We are talking about worldly kingdoms (countries) here. Jesus was very clear: His Kingdom is not of this world.

Killing a human being is a spiritual crime that carries a moral burden. Period. That is the spiritual point of view. Ask any vet how they feel about being a hero lauded by society. That blood never washes off.

Mixing up Caesar and God leads to self-contradictory views. As humans, we are self-contradictory beings, but truth is truth.

 

[neat62]

bobzills;4209487

So, in your view, then, it is OK then to kill a few hundred civilians in order to bring about a good end, such as an end to a terrible war which if continued, would result in far greater casualties?

Yes.