The Harry Truman dilemma

[EBSSTF4]

I agree with you in regards to Dresden, but I don’t with regards to Japan. In both cities, the primary targets were military. The death of civilians was, unfortunately, collateral damage.

Over 200,000 mostly civilian deaths

CCC

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

Even from the beginning the necessity and morality was questioned.

Leo Szilard (played a major role in the Manhattan Project)

“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 Nuermberg and hanged them.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower (from his memoir The White House Years)

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."47][48]

Dwight D. Eisenhower (to a journalist)

“…the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

Admiral William D. Leahy (Truman’s chief of staff)

the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.97

General Henry “Hap” Arnold( Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces during World War II) wrote,

“It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse.”

 

[wabrams]

Over 200,000 mostly civilian deaths

Quit getting your “facts” from Wikipedia; we took out an entire Japanese Division in one bombing and in the other a good chuck of their industrial complex.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (from his memoir The White House Years)

Dwight D. Eisenhower (to a journalist)

Easy for someone to say when their theater of operations was literally half a world away.

Admiral William D. Leahy (Truman’s chief of staff)

General Henry “Hap” Arnold( Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces during World War II) wrote,

History has proved them wrong; the Japanese were no where close to surrendering. In fact, once they did surrender and the US came to the mainland, they were extremely well prepared to keep up the fight if we had invaded. Second, if we chose a blockade to pressure them, millions of Japanese civilians would have died from famine.

 

[EBSSTF4]

Quit getting your “facts” from Wikipedia; we took out an entire Japanese Division in one bombing and in the other a good chuck of their industrial complex.

Easy for someone to say when their theater of operations was literally half a world away.

History has proved them wrong; the Japanese were no where close to surrendering. In fact, once they did surrender and the US came to the mainland, they were extremely well prepared to keep up the fight if we had invaded. Second, if we chose a blockade to pressure them, millions of Japanese civilians would have died from famine.

First I do not use Wikipedia, all quotes can be found in several sources.

Secondly, the use off the bombs is not as questionable as the locations.

From my first post

I am sure people will come in on both sides of this issue. Without quoting the catechism, or scripture I am going to put my two cents in. I have my degree in history, and a lot of time was always spent on this subject when we studied WWII (and a theology class i took). My thought has been that this was basically the biggest nuclear weapons test in history. While the war in Japan was greatly shortened, The Bomb could have just as easily been dropped on one of the many islands crawling with enemy troops. It would of taken a little longer for Japan to figure out what was happening, and the war may have been extended a little, but thousands of innocent lives could have been saved.

It is easy to rationalize, but to reiterate,

CCC

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

“The ends justify the means” is the basis of your argument. (Not very Catholic of you)

 

[wabrams]

It is easy to rationalize, but to reiterate,

CCC

“The ends justify the means” is the basis of your argument. (Not very Catholic of you)

It is NOT the basis of my arguement and how DARE you question my faith.

 

[EBSSTF4]

It is NOT the basis of my arguement and how DARE you question my faith.

I base my opinion off of reading 2302-2317 in the Catechism of The Catholic Church as approved by John Paul II in 1997, and hence applies under Papal Infallibility in teachings of faith and moral. This is a Moral issue.

 

[estesbob]

Well said! I have to agree, it was a different mentality in those days. It was more clear cut, right and wrong. The enemy was the enemy and had to be defeated at all costs for God and country and safety of home and family.

My own father was in the U.S. Navy during WWII and luckliy did not see major action, but if the war had dragged on, who knows, I might not be here today.

My father was on a ship off the Coast of Japan when the Bombs were dropped. Although he and my mom are the most Liberal people i know both bristle when someone suggests the bombs should not have been dropped. Dad always said one viewed things quite differently when one was had a personal stake.

 

[Al_Masetti]

If posters here are opposed to our having dropped the Atomic Bomb on Japan, then would they please state how they would have ended the war. What was the alternative that you, in retrospect, would have done?

Thank you.

 

[mosher]

If posters here are opposed to our having dropped the Atomic Bomb on Japan, then would they please state how they would have ended the war. What was the alternative that you, in retrospect, would have done?

Thank you.

I have no problem per se with the use of “the bomb” but rather with how it was used. The strategic plan including causing as much collateral damage as possible hence the reason why they were dropped in heavily populated areas and not directly on military targets. But to answer your question more fully it is a matter of devising a strategy that did not include the use of Atomic Weapons. This is the same path that we would have had to of taken if it had not been invented. And yes, I am well aware of the casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan.

 

[mosher]

It is NOT the basis of my arguement and how DARE you question my faith.

Calm down. Don’t let emotions get in the way of the discussion. And I don’t think he questioned your faith so much as perhaps your understanding of your faith. On this aspect there is a bit of a lack. Instead of spouting vitriol it would be advised to take a read of the materials already cited to answer the question you asked me in regard to mouths and money.

My father was on a ship off the Coast of Japan when the Bombs were dropped. Although he and my mom are the most Liberal people i know both bristle when someone suggests the bombs should not have been dropped. Dad always said one viewed things quite differently when one was had a personal stake.

And this is why ethics cannot be done as situational as there is too much of a cloud over ones judgment when they are “in the fish bowl” so to speak. A healthy dose of detachment is necessary to evaluate an action or series of actions under moral absolutes.

 

[geezerbob]

.
And this is why ethics cannot be done as situational as there is too much of a cloud over ones judgment when they are “in the fish bowl” so to speak. A healthy dose of detachment is necessary to evaluate an action or series of actions under moral absolutes.

Unfortunately, in the real world, decisions regarding war are not made in a detached and totally moral vacuum, especially when a country is in a fight for its very survival and has already suffered hundreds of thousands of deaths. Everything that has happened and everything that could conceivably happen gets thrown into the decision making process and those responsible agonize over the decision. Most, I would suspect, also do a healthy amount of praying for God’s guidance. With war being intrinsically evil, at least for one side or the other, I seriously question whether moral absolutes can be always and universally applied, even for the side which is “in the right.” As I stated before, a little thing called self preservation gets in the way.

I sincerely hope and pray that this country never gets into another conflict dire enough to shake your beliefs.

 

[EBSSTF4]

If posters here are opposed to our having dropped the Atomic Bomb on Japan, then would they please state how they would have ended the war. What was the alternative that you, in retrospect, would have done?

Thank you.

There where military targets without large numbers of civilians available. Many were not considered because of the proximity of prisoner of war camps. Others were islands with no civilians. While both cities had military significance, they also had large civilian populations. When the majority of the population is civilian, they cannot be rationalized away as collateral damage.

As Catholics we are not permitted such moral flexibility.

As Catholics there is no clearer source of our faith and morals than the Catechism.

So once again.

CCC

2314 “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

If anyone can point to church teachings that allow the flexibility to blow up schools homes and hospitals, so long as it is only “collateral damage” I would like to see it.

Try to put yourself in the place of the parents who lost children. It was in many cases worse to be a survivor. Soldiers die in war. We can target soldiers. I would rather see a war drag out than people whose only crime is living in “enemy” territory indiscriminately killed.

 

[estesbob]

I have no problem per se with the use of “the bomb” but rather with how it was used. The strategic plan including causing as much collateral damage as possible hence the reason why they were dropped in heavily populated areas and not directly on military targets. But to answer your question more fully it is a matter of devising a strategy that did not include the use of Atomic Weapons. This is the same path that we would have had to of taken if it had not been invented. And yes, I am well aware of the casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan.

Hindsight is 20/20

 

[Saint_Augustin]

Maybe if the American’s troops had not be so exhausted during the German war, things had be very different with the Japanese war. After the victory in Europe, people wanted to see their sons coming back at home quickly.

Germany and Japan were allied and Truman didn’t want to have more losses with the pursue of a conventional war.

The Atomic Bomb achieved this goal.

Keep in mind that an Atomic Bomb is a weapon to finish a war and not really a weapon to begin a war.

 

[geezerbob]

There where military targets without large numbers of civilians available. Many were not considered because of the proximity of prisoner of war camps. Others were islands with no civilians. While both cities had military significance, they also had large civilian populations. When the majority of the population is civilian, they cannot be rationalized away as collateral damage.

As Catholics we are not permitted such moral flexibility.

As Catholics there is no clearer source of our faith and morals than the Catechism.

So once again.

CCC

If anyone can point to church teachings that allow the flexibility to blow up schools homes and hospitals, so long as it is only “collateral damage” I would like to see it.

Try to put yourself in the place of the parents who lost children. It was in many cases worse to be a survivor. Soldiers die in war. We can target soldiers. I would rather see a war drag out than people whose only crime is living in “enemy” territory indiscriminately killed.

Please remember that our soldiers were little more than kids themselves and that they were somebody’s children, too. I still remember the two sailors knocking on the door when I was about four or five to tell my great aunt that her son wouldn’t be coming home. Did she hurt any less because he was 19 rather than 9?

 

[Al_Masetti]

There where military targets without large numbers of civilians available. Many were not considered because of the proximity of prisoner of war camps. Others were islands with no civilians. While both cities had military significance, they also had large civilian populations. When the majority of the population is civilian, they cannot be rationalized away as collateral damage.

As Catholics we are not permitted such moral flexibility.

As Catholics there is no clearer source of our faith and morals than the Catechism.

So once again.

CCC

If anyone can point to church teachings that allow the flexibility to blow up schools homes and hospitals, so long as it is only “collateral damage” I would like to see it.

Try to put yourself in the place of the parents who lost children. It was in many cases worse to be a survivor. Soldiers die in war. We can target soldiers. I would rather see a war drag out than people whose only crime is living in “enemy” territory indiscriminately killed.

All generalities and no specifics.

If you really want to answer the question, what SPECIFIC actions would you have taken. S-P-E-C-I-F-I-C.

I’m thinking that you really have NO IDEA of alternative actions.

If you look at a map of the invasion beaches we were planning on, you’d see that our targeting was actually cities that hosted military headquarters that would lead the defense.

But even so … if someone is going to be be critical, they have to offer very specific alternatives. Not general principles that have no bearing 60 years later … the ultimate in Monday morning quarterbacking …

AND, if you weren’t there and don’t have really specific alternatives, then perhaps criticism is unwarranted.

 

[EBSSTF4]

All generalities and no specifics.

If you really want to answer the question, what SPECIFIC actions would you have taken. S-P-E-C-I-F-I-C.

I’m thinking that you really have NO IDEA of alternative actions.

D-R-O-P A B-O-M-B O-N A P-U-R-E M-I-L-I-T-A-R-Y T-A-R-G-E-T
(Drop a bomb on a pure military target)

How specific do you need???

This is the third time I have said it.

I don’t have maps of Japanees troop deployments handy, but I am sure the President did. (10 minutes and google I can have them now, but thats not the point)

Why civilians???

Or in an unpopulated area and say “next bomb is headed for your Emperor”

The big hang up Japan had was over their Emperor, and he stayed in power until 1988 or 89(I don’t recall which) when he died.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

CCC

EBSSTF4;

That was a quote from the Catechism, which may or may not be applicable. As you know the Catechism is intended for instruction and general direction. it’s not intended to be used as the final deciding voice on compicated moral issues such as Just War Doctrine and it’s application, which The Great Fathers and Doctors of the Church argued and debated over.
It most definitely shouldn’t be used as the deciding voice in a situation such as this where a President was presented with 2 terrible options, part of which I’ve tried to summarize in my lst post, which described the information on President Truman’s Desk. And, Part of which Al Massetti and Geezerbob have tried to talk about in their posts.

Truman had no good options, not if he wanted to end the war quickly, get Japan out of China, and keep Japan free from the Soviet Union (I know the woman who tried 4 times to escape from a Soviet block country, someone who escaped from Vietnam by boat and I used to know someone whose family escaped by balloon).

I’ve had nightmares of what it would have been like to have been in either Hiroshima or Nagisaki when the bomb was dropped, or to have come into the city shortly thereafter to deal wit the horrific devastation and the human carnage. But has anyone who’s opposing the bomb drops pictured what it wold have been like to have been a POW, knowing the Japanese where going to execute you (until they died, I knew several who were in that position)? Has anyone here placed themselves in one of the ships offshore that would have been the targets of the new jet and rocket Kamikazis (I used to know several who were out in the boats)? Has anyone placed herself or himself in a home with several Blue Stars and a couple of Gold Stars looking out the door at a car with “The Officers” bearing “The Telegram” that says her husband or his father is dead (I got a call like that once)?

Has anyone here who’s condemned Truman put on Truman’s shoes and looked at what was on Truman’s desk on August 5th,1945? Has anyone here asked what would have happened if the team working on the Plague Bombs would have found a way to make the fleas survive the 4-5 days at high altitude (Actually, not all that hard to do)? Has anyone asked how many Japanese woud have died that winter during the blockage? How about Americans in Submarine and Kamikazi attacks? How many Americans, and Japanese, in the invasion?

And the big question of all, what would have happened if the Japanese had managed to get theirs over here? How would the American people and Congress have reacted if they found out Truman didn’t use the Bom in August, 1945 because of the qualms mentioned here? What would have happened to him and his advisors after we had been attacked by Bubonic Plague (and possibly other bio-agents the Japanese were developing and producing), the fleet had been sunk by jet and rocket Kamikazis, the men on shore had then been slaughtered and then an atomic bomb used on us by the Japanse he refused to bomb with the same device?

Morality and ethics isn’t as cut and dried as you’d like it to be. It’s a lot messier than that. And, “Situational Ethics” is our best attempt to apply eternal unchanging principles to changing situations that happen because of our fallen nature. And, When we do this, we may may look at the Catechism, but we also look at the people who created Just War doctrine, the Councils of the Church, and the writings of the Doctors of the Church and the Popes on this issue in the hopes they’ll shed light.

And then, we look at the Geneva Convention to tell us the Law, not the Teaching of the Church, but man’s best attempt to legislate the unlegislatible.

And, In all of this, we have to remember that the Teaching of the Church and the Law were written for man, Man wasn’t created for the Law, and we are trying to apply Law to a desparate fight for national survival, not some police action or a football game.

Ribozyme wanted a discussion where posters listened to each other and tried to respond to each other with respect and charity. I can’t say that’s happening, and I can’t say very many here are really hearing their brothers and sisters.

I’ve been on both sides of this issue, philosphically. What really swung me was knowing people who would have died and knowing the human cost if Truman didn’t do it. The details on the Bological experiments and bio-warfare and the papers on the Japanese bomb (their plants were in N. Korea - that’s why the Sovies developed theirs so quickly) confirmed my decision.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

D-R-O-P A B-O-M-B O-N A P-U-R-E M-I-L-I-T-A-R-Y T-A-R-G-E-T
(Drop a bomb on a pure military target)

How specific do you need???

This is the third time I have said it.

I don’t have maps of Japanees troop deployments handy, but I am sure the President did. (10 minutes and google I can have them now, but thats not the point)

Why civilians???

Or in an unpopulated area and say “next bomb is headed for your Emperor”

The big hang up Japan had was over their Emperor, and he stayed in power until 1988 or 89(I don’t recall which) when he died.

President Truman thought of everything you’ve written, and then some.He rejected the “Demonstration” you describe" as it would have completely lost its aftect if it had been a dud or a fizzle.

The emperor was needed to get Japan to surrendor, and the emperor lived near the center of Tokyo, The Forestorms actually came close to his palace. Since Tokyo was and is a major city, the Emperor has to be disqualified according to your standards.

The way Japan was sructured there were very few pure military targets. Military bases, war industries and munitions manufacturrers were all placed in an around Japanese cities. Another problem was that Japan, unlike Germany was prepared for “Total War”, By 1945, Housewives trained with the military and were planning to fight alongside the men when the Allies invaded. Even children were conscripted to manufacture arms and ammunition.

One could say that, thank’s to Japan’s military leaders and her Emperor, Japanese society had become a Death Cult much like many of the societies in the Middle East. The Atomic Bombs were necessary as a form of very butal shock theraoy which gave most of the cabinet cover to surrender before most of Japan became Soviet Occupied territory.

Part of judging moral choices is knowing the alternatives and the consequences of each choice.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Al_Masetti]

D-R-O-P A B-O-M-B O-N A P-U-R-E M-I-L-I-T-A-R-Y T-A-R-G-E-T
(Drop a bomb on a pure military target)

How specific do you need???

This is the third time I have said it.

I don’t have maps of Japanees troop deployments handy, but I am sure the President did. (10 minutes and google I can have them now, but thats not the point)

Why civilians???

Or in an unpopulated area and say “next bomb is headed for your Emperor”

The big hang up Japan had was over their Emperor, and he stayed in power until 1988 or 89(I don’t recall which) when he died.

How specific?

Provide the latitude and longitude of the targets in 1945. Not today’s Google. Use 1945 intelligence and 1945 technology.

 

[EBSSTF4]

How specific?

Provide the latitude and longitude of the targets in 1945. Not today’s Google. Use 1945 intelligence and 1945 technology.

Now you are being just silly. The President had all the information needed avaliable to him in 1945.