The "Bomb"

The Germans complained about our allied bombing of Berlin in 1944, but continue to send buzz bombs into London even 1945.....civilian areas!!! Who elected Hitler to power?

He conceded not to continue the war when he met with Chamberlain and others in 1938. But Chamberlain new better and returned to England and began preparations for war. England was not even close to being ready. Hitler invaded innocent countries and killed many innocent people, especially Jews.

Morality in War? Impossible, unless you choose to die yourself. Londoners even marched on Churchill to end the fighting. He responded by saying "he would shoot the lot of us." Admittedly he was the right man for the war years, but we voted him out in 1945. No one wanted war, but it was inevitable.

Even dedicated Christians did battle then, and in the US Civil War before that. In the South they even hanged Blacks just for being Black right up to the early 60's.

I am afraid that moral principles are left to the individual and we will face immorality until Jesus returns with power and His glory.

My dear Brother, you are in Ireland. You know the mess that country was in,,,,,,and may still experience some of it. The IRA killed innocent people waiting at bus stations in London until recent years. I'm not sure I want to visit many places in Ireland to-day to be honest.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Roger, I, too recoil at the deaths of non-combatants and children. But the alternative is to wage a pulled-punches war, and to delay the goal of eliminating the enemy's ability (and desire) to make war.

This sounds heartless, but if anybody is going to die, I want it to be the enemy's people, not mine.

 

And Chinese. Ever heard of the Rape of Nanking? Finally, in 2005, Japan formally "apologized" to China for the massacre, although it was considered by some to be a token apology.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/nanking.htm


My mother told me that the US dropped millions of pamphlets to the general population in several Japanese cities telling them to evacuate before we dropped the bombs. Many chose to not evacuate.

Also, an American controlled radio station was broadcasting warnings to the listeners every 15 minutes about impending American bombs.

It was something that had to be done, IMO, to end it. No one knew just how terrible it would be, no one, not even our own government, because it had never been done.

 

Jesus also said there would be "wars and rumors of wars."

 

There is big difference between a war between soldiers and with military targets and the targeting of massive civilian populations.

In the first there will tragically be the tragic loss of women and children. In the second the women and children are the targets. I have a difficult time justifying that whether the weapons are conventional or nuclear.

As I have mentioned before, the firebombing of of Tokyo was just as destructive as either a-bomb. On the night of 9-10 March 1945 alone about 100,000 civilians were killed in Operation Meetinghouse. That is roughly the same number as Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

I won't post a link, but the Wikipedia article on the bombing of Tokyo shows the effect of incendiary firebombing on a civilian population there. One graphic photo shows the charred remains of a woman and her child.

 

Someone said that killing in self defense was justifiable.


How was that bomb being dropped not self defense?


That's absolutely what it was. And it essentially ended the war.

When you are attacked and you defend yourself and you win, you end that attack.


The united states was attacked, our people were attacked. We were at war. That response was absolutely self defense.

It's a horrible horrible thing when the life of a child is taken. Maybe Japan should've thought about that before surprise attacking us.

 

Admiral Yamamoto, from whose carriers the Japanese planes carried out the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, is reported to have written in his diary, "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant."

That he did.

 

A military target was attacked, not the civilian populace. Germany began the bombardment of civilian population centres and the Allies responded with incendiary, fire storm sorties on Dresden and other cities. Even then they were attacking communication and rail centres to a certain extent.

The attacks on Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki had no strategic military value. Their only purpose was to kill enough civilians to make Japan give up. I am not so sure if that kind of attack is justifiable.

 

The target is irrelevant. Military or not, those were innocent people (speaking of those at Pearl Harbor). Just because they were signed up for our country, did not mean that their lives weren't anymore innocent than the people who were sitting in an office building that day in Hiroshima. Let's also not forget that even if it was a military target, children died at Pearl Harbor too. You're trying to justify one over the other. If even 1 child died, that argument holds no merit.

Any act to end the war by the United States, was an act of self defense. And it more than likely saved move lives than by dragging the war out.

 

C4K, you are entirely correct about the firebombings of Tokyo. I believe they were terrible, usually had no military target, and were just as destructive if not more so than the A bombs.

However, both the Nagasaki (port city, production of warships, munitions, other war supplies) and Hiroshima (army depot, 5th Div. headquarters, 2nd Army headquarters, port of embarkation) were rich in military targets.

Ironically, in modern Japan few remember the Tokyo fire bombings (little military value), but all are taught that the atomic bombings were evil. Some radicals (Soka Gakkai Buddhists, radical rightists) even use them to "debunk" Christianity and America. I once had a Soka Gakkai man say that Christianity was evil because a "Christian" dropped the A-bomb. I shocked him by saying I never knew that, and then explaining social Christianity vs. faith in the heart.

I don't believe the firebombings were justified. Were the A-bombings? I am ambivilant, have never really decided. I do believe they persuaded the Japanese to surrender.

They also may have been the hand of God against the evil of Japanese State Shintoism which was responsible for many evils: persecution of Christians (including the execution of missionaries in various countries), the "rape of Nanking," Unit 731 which experimented on prisoners, the Bataan Death March, the Kenpeitai (or Kempeitai, the secret police) wickedness against Japanese civilians, mass murder in the Philippines etc., etc.

The father of Mr. Usuki in my church was Kenpeitai. When he died the family found many letters from after the war from people threatening to kill him for his acts as a secret policeman. This is just one illustration of how evil the Japanese government was.

 

How would you have chosen to end the war with Japan?

 

It is really good to hear from you John and to get your perspective on the situation. Thanks for taking the time to post. It helps in my own consideration of the historical event.

 

I don't know how this applies to the topic. I really don't see a need to personalise the debate. I admitted early on that I really don't know how I feel. Part of good discussion is to be able to work through aspects of a historical event to see various viewpoints.

At one time I tended to see historical events only from a traditional and 'conservative' perspective. I have learned that true learning is that which takes all viewpoints and ideas into consideration. When I taught history I tried to get my students to do more than just know times and events and names, and not to swallow the 'party line' when it came to looking at history.

My 16 year old son just finished studying WWII. I had put this question is his review section. The first sentence was this - 'The dropping of the atomic bombs may or may not have been justified, but it was probably necessary.'

 

Good point, though I am still mulling over the subtle difference in my mind.

 

Originally posted by Bobby Hamilton in response to Roger:

Exactly.

For those who do not agree, it is not an unreasonable question to ask if there was a different course of action that could have been taken to end the war, nor is it off topic.

 

Believe me, I've thought of this one often over the years in Japan. But it's hard to discuss with the Japanese since they are not taught their own country's atrocities, but only that the A-bombs were atrocities.