Hiroshima

[JRKH]

First- you have a reputable source that claims the vast majority of the people of Japan had received military training?
Second- Even the infants and the elderly?

See this Article (with sources listed at bottom.)

Third- if they were truly trained to never surrender, why were they just fine after japan did surrender?

Just a quick note on this third one…
This goes to the peculiar psyche of the Japanes people at that time. The people were the subject of a “god” emperor. What he said went. If he said go and die, a great many would do just that.
When the Japanese surrendered, before the Allies came ashore, the Emperor made a radio broadcast announcing the surrender and telling the Japanese people that they were surrendering, by order of their god-emperor. Included in the speech was this warning:
Beware most strictly of any outbursts of emotion that may engender needless complications, of any fraternal contention and strife that may create confusion, lead you astray and cause you to lose the confidence of the world.

In other words, accept the surrender and do not allow any “hotheads” convince you otherwise.
When the Emperor spoke on the Radio, it was the first time most Japanese had ever heard his voice. They then accepted the Surrender and basically looked on General MacArther as a “Shogun”.

Peace
James

 

[Ghosty]

And what you are saying is that Justice no longer applies if mass murders surround themselves with enough human shields. Is that your impression of Catholic Morality?

This is a facile response, and I’m sure you know that. It is indeed immoral to kill civilians simply for the purpose of pursuing justice against murderers. If civilians are collateral victims when stopping ongoing mass murder that can be morally acceptable, but you are talking about killing civilians in order to put mass murderers on trial after the killings have ceased. God would withold justice on Sodom for ten innocent men, while you would have us destroy a country of innocents to bring justice against ten evil men.

And you talk about Japan having a crippled economy and military. Remember that the Allies had recent experience with Germany. Germany had been left with a crippled economy and military, yet came back to cause even more distruction.

You’re assuming no further interventions could have/would have been made after surrender, or at the negotiating table. We don’t know what diplomatic means could have achieved because they were not attempted at all, despite Japan being open to them.

The one and only solution for a lasting peace ( the desire of every Catholic), was for Japan’s government to be entirely replaced.

Again, this is presumption with no basis in fact. We don’t know if lasting peace could have been accomplished without atomic bombing or total-war invasion; Japan extended the invitation to pursue the alternative of diplomatic surrender, but the Allies chose to unleash the bomb instead.

I’m not assuming that peace would have certainly prevailed under these circumstances, but it is the moral imperitive to pursue diplomatic means before escalating violence. This doesn’t mean being naive, but there was absolutely no reason to suspect that the Japanese were dishonest in their offers of conditional surrender. After the cesation of armed conflict the means of preventing future war could have been evaluated and pursued if possible. Perhaps pure diplomacy would have been enough, or perhaps armed conflict would prove inevitable again, but we will never know because the white flag was met with a mushroom cloud.

Peace and God bless!

 

[sidbrown]

Second- Even the infants and the elderly?

I don’t quite see how all of the Japanese infants were trained to kill Americans. How would that work exactly?

 

[Tsuwano]

Unless you consider a city full of civilians a military target because a few factories are there (would you consider nuking Detroit to be licit if we were at war?) then I believe catholic morality would say no- in fact, killing a single Japanese innocent to end the war would be considered immoral.

Hiroshima, at the time of the bombing, was somewhat more than a city with a few factories. It was a major city in Western Japan which had been relatively untouched by the war. It was a major railroad junction and supply base for the Japanese military and there were several military units stationed in the city at the time. In addition, there was a major naval base not far from the city. I have no claims towards the morality or immorality of the bombing of Hiroshima, but I just wish to note that Hiroshima was a military target for very good reasons. The Peace Museum in Hiroshima, to it’s credit, admits to this and explains the reasons Hiroshima became a target.

 

[Tsuwano]

The bombing of Hiroshima was NOT, IMHO, “immoral.”

Some thoughts:

1. As of mid-1945, the US was engaged in a war brought about by Japan, via a sneak attack during time of peace. Japan started the war, and waged it aggressively.
2. During the war, millions of truly innocent people had suffered horrible carnage at the hands of the Japanese. Chinese…Koreans…Dutch from the East Indies…British in Hong Kong…NONE were spared the wrath of the Japanese. If ever the defeat of a nation fulfilled the concept of a “just war,” WWII was it.
3. By the same time, the US was planning the invasion of Japan, with the intent of ending the war.
4. The Japanese nation, by this time, was essentially one where 100% of residents were being armed to defeat and kill all invading enemies. “Civilians” were being armed by the government, and taught to kill americans essentially on sight.
5. American airmen shot down over Japan were usually afforded the same treatment, whether captured by the military, or civilians: Death.
6. The Japanese government had issued orders that upon ANY invasion,ALL allied prisoners of war in Japan – over 400,000 of them – were to be killed.
7. Government estimates indicated that in the planned invasion, the US alone would incur 1 million casualties of soldiers killed or wounded (over and above Japanese deaths,and over and above the murder of the POWs). To give some scale, before the a-bombs, the US placed an order for “purple heart” medals in anticipation of the invasion…in 2010, after Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I & II…the US has still not exhausted its 1945 purple heart order. US soldiers wounded in Iraq, today, get a 1945-era purple heart.

With the A-bombings…the war ended. No invasion. No 400,000 alliwed POWs murdered. No 1 million US casualties. No unspeakable blood in the streets.

Compared to that calling the a-bombing of Hiroshima “immoral” is IMHO not realistic or accurate. “Unfortunate?” Maybe. Immoral? No. There’s a time to sing “Kubaya.” There’s also a time to sing “Onward Christian Soldiers.”

I can’t speak to all the points you make, but I can state that point number 5 is false. Though some downed airmen were killed upon landing, sometimes by angry mobs, it is also true that there were POWs who had been shot down over Japan and who were returned to the U.S. after the war. It is also a tragic fact that a handfull of American POW’s were being held in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the atomic bombs were dropped and were incinerated along with the rest of the population. These men are also remembered in the Peace Museums in both cities.

 

[Tsuwano]

Under catholic morality the entire war was illicit, from the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931 to Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939, to the Attack on Pearl Harbor and right down the line…
The use of the A-Bomb did much to “correct” the immoralities already existing.

Peace
James

One immoral act does not correct another immoral act. Both acts offend God.

 

[Tsuwano]

They weren’t civillians. They were trained to kill, read a book why don’t you, the Japanese were taught to blow themselves up, and never surrender. Including civillans. These were not civillians by today’s standard, they were combatants.

This is a false statement. I know numerous Japanese who survived the war, including my wife’s grandmother. They were civilians in every sense of the word and were certainly not combatants. Did they wish victory for their nation? Of course, but not one of them was taught to blow themselves up. Not one of them received training in how to kill. Not only have I read more than one book concerning the war in Japan, I’ve actually interviewed Japanese who lived through it. You’ve been captured by someone’s propaganda and your own imagination. Again, I do not speak to the morality or immorality of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but I do feel it necessary to correct some rather foolish statements that have appeared in this thread.

 

[JRKH]

One immoral act does not correct another immoral act. Both acts offend God.

This is quite true. My only intent was to show that selecting one single immoral act from among the literally thousands of immoral acts committed during, what was essentially, one big immoral act and holding it up for scrutiny is folly.

As Catholics and Christians, it is far better for us to seek the root causes of these things so we can help the world, hopefully, avoid them in the future.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Redratfish
They weren’t civillians. They were trained to kill, read a book why don’t you, the Japanese were taught to blow themselves up, and never surrender. Including civillans. These were not civillians by today’s standard, they were combatants.

If this is true then the article I linked to on the “Volunteer Fighting Corps” must be blatantly false…(along with the Japanese Army produced photograph accompanying the article.) For according to this article civilians WERE being conscripted into these “Volunteer” units and WERE receiving combat training and WERE intended to be used both in regular combat as well as “guerilla” resistance fighters behind American lines.
The article goes on to note that these some units actually saw combat against the Russians in the last days of the war.

I do not mean to disparage your or those you interviewed. My guess is that these units hadn’t gotten very far by the time the war ended, yet the fact of their formation, complete with commander, fit right in with what the Allies would have expected from the Japanese in defending the home islands.

Peace
James

 

[Light1111]

Don’t forget: while both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, during World War II, what is seldom discussed (or even known) is that prior to those events, U.S. forces used “incendiary bombs” (e.g. fire bombs) to destroy huge percentages of literally dozens of Japanese towns. Robert McNamara recounted these towns and the percentages of land/lives lost in the film “Fog of War,” and even 50-something years later, he was moved to tears as he considered those events (he was partially responsible for the decisions leading up to the bombings).

McNamara: “Tokyo was a wooden city. . . and it just burned!”

 

[JRKH]

Don’t forget: while both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, during World War II, what is seldom discussed (or even known) is that prior to those events, U.S. forces used “incendiary bombs” (e.g. fire bombs) to destroy huge percentages of literally dozens of Japanese towns. Robert McNamara recounted these towns and the percentages of land/lives lost in the film “Fog of War,” and even 50-something years later, he was moved to tears as he considered those events (he was partially responsible for the decisions leading up to the bombings).

McNamara: “Tokyo was a wooden city. . . and it just burned!”

Never seen that movie. Sounds interesting…

As to the facts about conventional bombing etc, these things had been brought up earlier by myself and others. In addition to the firebombings of the Japanese cities, we mentioned the grievious loss of life at places like Hamburg, London, and Dresden.

Peace
James

 

[tjm190]

Hiroshima, at the time of the bombing, was somewhat more than a city with a few factories. It was a major city in Western Japan which had been relatively untouched by the war. It was a major railroad junction and supply base for the Japanese military and there were several military units stationed in the city at the time. In addition, there was a major naval base not far from the city. I have no claims towards the morality or immorality of the bombing of Hiroshima, but I just wish to note that Hiroshima was a military target for very good reasons. The Peace Museum in Hiroshima, to it’s credit, admits to this and explains the reasons Hiroshima became a target.

I’m not claiming Hiroshima wasn’t a valuable target, and I’m not saying I think it shouldn’t have been nuked- but again, conventional bombs can target buildings and intentionally picking a weapon that will maximize collateral damage and make discretion impossible doesn’t fly under Catholic morality.

 

[JRKH]

I’m not claiming Hiroshima wasn’t a valuable target, and I’m not saying I think it shouldn’t have been nuked- but again, conventional bombs can target buildings and intentionally picking a weapon that will maximize collateral damage and make discretion impossible doesn’t fly under Catholic morality.

Perhaps it is time for a bit of a check back here. The OP did not ask about whether the A-Bomb could be justified under “Catholic” morality, only whether it could be justified.
Here is the OP:

History Records that about 100 thousand people died in hiroshima when the A BOMB was drop.
Is the decision to do it fully justifiable? claiming that thousands of lives were save
and it ended the horrible pacific war. Are a large majority of the people killed truly innocent ?
If they are is it still justifiable but unfortunate? Is this just a case of self defense?

In fact it appears that the OP is not asking if dropping the Bomb was “moral” at all. Rather the question put was - was it Justifiable?

There is no doubt that the dropping of the A-Bomb was fully justifiable to those who’s responsibility it was, at that time, to make the decision.
Of course, now that peace has been restored and the full effects of nuclear weapons are understood, we can debate the issue - but those making the decision did not have that luxury the full effects were not well understood.
The Fact is that the US possessed a weapon that could stop the war. The morality of using the weapon was questionable, but no more questionable than the morality of continuing the conventional war - for how knows how long.

The use of this “immoral” weapon brought to an end one of the most immoral periods in history. In that sense, to those people, and at that time, it was fully justifiable

Peace
James

 

[sidbrown]

Perhaps it is time for a bit of a check back here. The OP did not ask about whether the A-Bomb could be justified under “Catholic” morality, only whether it could be justified.
Here is the OP:

In fact it appears that the OP is not asking if dropping the Bomb was “moral” at all. Rather the question put was - was it Justifiable?

There is no doubt that the dropping of the A-Bomb was fully justifiable to those who’s responsibility it was, at that time, to make the decision.
Of course, now that peace has been restored and the full effects of nuclear weapons are understood, we can debate the issue - but those making the decision did not have that luxury the full effects were not well understood.
The Fact is that the US possessed a weapon that could stop the war. The morality of using the weapon was questionable, but no more questionable than the morality of continuing the conventional war - for how knows how long.

The use of this “immoral” weapon brought to an end one of the most immoral periods in history. In that sense, to those people, and at that time, it was fully justifiable

Peace
James

I reject that for the reasons already listed above.

 

[Tsuwano]

This is quite true. My only intent was to show that selecting one single immoral act from among the literally thousands of immoral acts committed during, what was essentially, one big immoral act and holding it up for scrutiny is folly.

As Catholics and Christians, it is far better for us to seek the root causes of these things so we can help the world, hopefully, avoid them in the future.

Peace
James

I can agree with you on this, though I also think it is necessary to investigate those individual immoral acts to the degree possible so that at least some recognition can be given to those who were victims. We cannot dismiss the unjust murder of one POW, for example, simply because that individual act happened within a larger context of atrocity. We owe it to humanity and our desire for justice, if true justice is unavailable, to reflect on all immoral acts if we are to avoid them in the future.

 

[Tsuwano]

If this is true then the article I linked to on the “Volunteer Fighting Corps” must be blatantly false…(along with the Japanese Army produced photograph accompanying the article.) For according to this article civilians WERE being conscripted into these “Volunteer” units and WERE receiving combat training and WERE intended to be used both in regular combat as well as “guerilla” resistance fighters behind American lines.
The article goes on to note that these some units actually saw combat against the Russians in the last days of the war.

I do not mean to disparage your or those you interviewed. My guess is that these units hadn’t gotten very far by the time the war ended, yet the fact of their formation, complete with commander, fit right in with what the Allies would have expected from the Japanese in defending the home islands.

Peace
James

If the article is implying that all Japanese nationals were combatants in the war, then yes, the article is false. Yes, there were volunteer units, consisting of high school children and the elderly, who trained as medics and firefighters, and some may have even been trained to fight the enemy if necessary, but this by no means includes the entire population of Japan. It must also be noted that there were Japanese who opposed the war and, to the extent possible, did not cooperate with the authorities in planning for an invasion of the mainland. The popular image in the West of the Japanese people as one monolithic mass of paranoid, militaristic, and fanatical soldier ants is false. It is the product of wartime propaganda and possibly a racist view existing at the time of a foriegn, non European enemy. John W. Dower’s classic study, War Without Mercy: Race and Power in The Pacific War, gives a very good explanation of this from both the Japanese and American perspectives. It is well worth reading.

 

[tjm190]

Perhaps it is time for a bit of a check back here. The OP did not ask about whether the A-Bomb could be justified under “Catholic” morality, only whether it could be justified.
Here is the OP:

In fact it appears that the OP is not asking if dropping the Bomb was “moral” at all. Rather the question put was - was it Justifiable?

There is no doubt that the dropping of the A-Bomb was fully justifiable to those who’s responsibility it was, at that time, to make the decision.
Of course, now that peace has been restored and the full effects of nuclear weapons are understood, we can debate the issue - but those making the decision did not have that luxury the full effects were not well understood.
The Fact is that the US possessed a weapon that could stop the war. The morality of using the weapon was questionable, but no more questionable than the morality of continuing the conventional war - for how knows how long.

The use of this “immoral” weapon brought to an end one of the most immoral periods in history. In that sense, to those people, and at that time, it was fully justifiable

Peace
James

Since we are on a Catholic forum in the moral theology section, it would seem appropriate to assume that the question refers to justification under Catholic morality- and under Catholic morality, the disproportionate use of force resulting in mass casualties is not fully justifiable.

 

[JRKH]

I can agree with you on this, though I also think it is necessary to investigate those individual immoral acts to the degree possible so that at least some recognition can be given to those who were victims. We cannot dismiss the unjust murder of one POW, for example, simply because that individual act happened within a larger context of atrocity. We owe it to humanity and our desire for justice, if true justice is unavailable, to reflect on all immoral acts if we are to avoid them in the future.

Precisely -
So - instead of holding up the use of the A-Bomb and asking was it justifiable, We need to ask, Why was it found necessary?
What brought us to that point?

That way we can hopefully avoid reaching such a horrific point again.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

If the article is implying that all Japanese nationals were combatants in the war, then yes, the article is false. Yes, there were volunteer units, consisting of high school children and the elderly, who trained as medics and firefighters, and some may have even been trained to fight the enemy if necessary, but this by no means includes the entire population of Japan. It must also be noted that there were Japanese who opposed the war and, to the extent possible, did not cooperate with the authorities in planning for an invasion of the mainland. The popular image in the West of the Japanese people as one monolithic mass of paranoid, militaristic, and fanatical soldier ants is false. It is the product of wartime propaganda and possibly a racist view existing at the time of a foriegn, non European enemy. John W. Dower’s classic study, War Without Mercy: Race and Power in The Pacific War, gives a very good explanation of this from both the Japanese and American perspectives. It is well worth reading.

I agree with you once more that those who conducted and participated in the war had a slanted, racist view. I also think that this view was, to large extent, reciprocated by the Japanese.
While many of the underlying premises were undoubtedly false, the fact remains that these were the premises that the people of that time were working with when they made the decision to use the A-Bomb…
As for the article, the photograph accompanying the article would seem an odd way to train people for firefighting duty…
I understand that these units were primarily formed for support purposes, but the article also makes clear that this role was to be changed and they were to be trained for both regular and irregular warfare against the invading army.

The whole thing is just so complicated…Who really knows what the right answer is.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Since we are on a Catholic forum in the moral theology section, it would seem appropriate to assume that the question refers to justification under Catholic morality- and under Catholic morality, the disproportionate use of force resulting in mass casualties is not fully justifiable.

Noted…

And one could wonder whether, if the President of the US had been Catholic, if the decision would have been different. Frankly, I suspect not.

Peace
James