Were the atomic bombs necessary

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

War is a whole series of bad options, and only some of them work.

Taking Japanese civilians hostage. If you don't surrender, we will kill them (Japanese civilians, hostages).

Yes, and in so doing, the lives of many many more humans (including Japanese, Chinese and other CIVILIANS) were saved.

I don't accept the idea that its okay to kill civilians to save others, even if more. I am sure there are a half a dozen people whose lives could be saved from the use of your organs.

I largely agree with your position. I felt when I was young that the firebombings of Dresden and Hamburg, of Tokyo and Yokohama were war crimes. My view has evolved over time. Granted Curtis Lemay and Sir Arthur Harris were over zealous to say the least, civilians are (and remain) part of the infrastructure of war. Sherman understood this but for the most part attacked their property. In WWI civilian casualties were avoided with some exceptions when the Germans were marching through Holland and Belgium. It could be argued that it wasn't worse for civilians than it was because it served little purpose in that war.

As a teen I read "Schlachthof fünf" and felt these attacks on civilians were beyond the pale. It has been refreshing that our military has gone to great efforts to minimize "collateral damage". If you think progress hasn't been made since WWII I don't want to hear any more about that. Civilians are not free from responsibility for what happens in their culture or state. We don't want to "unnecessarily" harm civilians but for the most part they aren't innocent of what their cultures or states have perpetrated.

Saying it wasn't necessary to use the a-bombs is like saying it's unnecessary to crack an eggshell to fry an egg. The Japanese had to be shocked into understanding that they were defeated and to act appropriately from then on. I could argue that MacArthur's allowing the monarchy to continue is to some extent responsible for the resurgence of Japanese nationalism. Now that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but they are starting to deny (once again) the atrocities they committed. That is unacceptable.

[BattleMoose]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

We have no idea how much longer Japan would have held out had the bomb not been dropped. We don't know how many civilians were spared as a result of the war ending sooner. We cannot know that. And using that unquantifiable number to justify the bombing of cities is, not particularly strong.

This is quite nonsensical. There is ample reason based upon experience in that very war against that very opponent behind the various very high estimates of Japanese civilian casualties. There is the additional evidence of the preparation of the Japanese population, and it is quite clear that the official position of the Japanese government was for there to be massive sacrifice of civilians.

You don't know how long they would be prepared to starve. I agree they would sacrifice many people charging towards American GIs, given the opportunity. The opportunity does not need to be given. Fundamentally you don't know how long they would be prepared to starve. And there is nothing nonsensical about pointing that out.

And the USSR only invaded China after the bomb was dropped, because the bomb was dropped. And the USSR certainly didn't stop its shenanigans in Europe because Japan accepted peace, at which time the war was already officially concluded.

The USSR at this time was playing serious shenanigans with Japan and the peace process. She was rapidly transporting troops from the West to the East to occupy as much territory in the far east as possible before the conclusion of the war. And was promising to mediate a negotiated peace between Japan and the Allies. Of course she had no intention of doing so but had a strong interest in keeping Japan in the war for as long as possible so she could take possession in the far east. Going so far as to warn Japan of impending air strikes on Formosa, by the USA.

The Soviets did have to actually invade to occupy territory. They did not wake up the day the first bomb was dropped and decide that they better invade.

Hiroshima, August 6. Soviet invasion of Manchuria, August 9.

Japan had hope of a negotiated peace mediated by the USSR. Dropping the bomb made the USSR realise that the war was rapidly drawing to a close, invaded, shattering Japans hope of a negotiated peace.

Was Japan holding out, because it had hope of a negotiated peace? Where there other ways of destroying that hope?

The main point of that was to highlight that there was a lot going on, a lot of moving parts. And while murdering (that is what it was) Japanese civilians might have saved many others elsewhere, the converse might also have been true, even if unlikely. We cannot know. But if we are going to drop a bomb on a civilian population we really ought to know.

Your basic point is that without total certainty of the future, a decision can not be taken. But you neglect to apply that same principle to your own criticism of what was done.

You misunderstand the basic point(s). One of the points was that if you are going to do something as extreme as killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, you better be very confident with knowledge, about what you are doing and the consequence of that action or inaction are. Such levels of assurity just don't apply to buying milk that might expire tomorrow and you might not be sure if you will be able to use it in time...

So it is a difficult situation, murder some , save some others, probably. But I do hold that murder is wrong. And in the absence of certainty that is what I hold to, that murder is wrong and we should not do it. Not today, not then.

And if one holds, perhaps not entirely unreasonably, that it is a good idea to murder some to save others, then it raises the question. Are you okay with the State murdering you or your loved ones so that their organs can be used to save others?

It is not disease being discussed, it is war. Applying your reasoning means total pacifism. Good luck with that.

I certainly lean to the pacifism side but not to the strawman you are constructing. I am very much drawing a very strong distinction between murder and lawful killings.

EDIT: And I don't know where that disease comment was coming from. The idea of murdering someone to save others is the concept that is being explored. It applies equally to bombing civilians and involuntary organ harvesting.

[stuman]

Dropping the bomb was the right thing to do.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

War is a whole series of bad options, and only some of them work.

Taking Japanese civilians hostage. If you don't surrender, we will kill them (Japanese civilians, hostages).

Yes, and in so doing, the lives of many many more humans (including Japanese, Chinese and other CIVILIANS) were saved.

I don't accept the idea that its okay to kill civilians to save others, even if more. I am sure there are a half a dozen people whose lives could be saved from the use of your organs.

In WWI civilian casualties were avoided with some exceptions when the Germans were marching through Holland and Belgium. It could be argued that it wasn't worse for civilians than it was because it served little purpose in that war.

Warspite1

Holland WWI? Holland was neutral.

Civilian casualties were avoided?

What about the Zeppelin attacks on London or the shelling of towns on the East Coast of England by the German battlecruisers?

[witpqs]

Mine in a different color for convenience.

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

We have no idea how much longer Japan would have held out had the bomb not been dropped. We don't know how many civilians were spared as a result of the war ending sooner. We cannot know that. And using that unquantifiable number to justify the bombing of cities is, not particularly strong.

This is quite nonsensical. There is ample reason based upon experience in that very war against that very opponent behind the various very high estimates of Japanese civilian casualties. There is the additional evidence of the preparation of the Japanese population, and it is quite clear that the official position of the Japanese government was for there to be massive sacrifice of civilians.

You don't know how long they would be prepared to starve. I agree they would sacrifice many people charging towards American GIs, given the opportunity. The opportunity does not need to be given. Fundamentally you don't know how long they would be prepared to starve. And there is nothing nonsensical about pointing that out.

What is nonsensical is your insistence that there is not (and actually was not at the time) sufficient knowledge to reach a reasonable estimate of the likely outcomes. There certainly was. Disagreeing with the course of action chosen is a different matter.

And the USSR only invaded China after the bomb was dropped, because the bomb was dropped. And the USSR certainly didn't stop its shenanigans in Europe because Japan accepted peace, at which time the war was already officially concluded.

The USSR at this time was playing serious shenanigans with Japan and the peace process. She was rapidly transporting troops from the West to the East to occupy as much territory in the far east as possible before the conclusion of the war. And was promising to mediate a negotiated peace between Japan and the Allies. Of course she had no intention of doing so but had a strong interest in keeping Japan in the war for as long as possible so she could take possession in the far east. Going so far as to warn Japan of impending air strikes on Formosa, by the USA.

The Soviets did have to actually invade to occupy territory. They did not wake up the day the first bomb was dropped and decide that they better invade.

Hiroshima, August 6. Soviet invasion of Manchuria, August 9.

You can't have it both ways. You state that the Soviets were going to occupy territory, and you state that the only reason they invaded was that the A-bomb was dropped. I maintain that they were going to invade. Whether they adjusted the date after the A-bomb is not relevant.

Japan had hope of a negotiated peace mediated by the USSR. Dropping the bomb made the USSR realise that the war was rapidly drawing to a close, invaded, shattering Japans hope of a negotiated peace.

Was Japan holding out, because it had hope of a negotiated peace? Where there other ways of destroying that hope?

The main point of that was to highlight that there was a lot going on, a lot of moving parts. And while murdering (that is what it was) Japanese civilians might have saved many others elsewhere, the converse might also have been true, even if unlikely. We cannot know. But if we are going to drop a bomb on a civilian population we really ought to know.

Your basic point is that without total certainty of the future, a decision can not be taken. But you neglect to apply that same principle to your own criticism of what was done.

You misunderstand the basic point(s). One of the points was that if you are going to do something as extreme as killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, you better be very confident with knowledge, about what you are doing and the consequence of that action or inaction are. Such levels of assurity just don't apply to buying milk that might expire tomorrow and you might not be sure if you will be able to use it in time...

I understand the basic point fully. You seem both unwilling to grapple with making such a decision and unable to grapple with the fact that others are willing to make such a decision. Those in charge at the time were both willing and able to make the decisions involved. If they had made the decision another way and millions of Japanese - plus many thousands or more of Allies had died as a result then they would be criticized for that. Had they chosen a third course and millions of Japanese had died as a result of both starvation and a Soviet invasion, and on and on to other choices they might have made.

So it is a difficult situation, murder some , save some others, probably. But I do hold that murder is wrong. And in the absence of certainty that is what I hold to, that murder is wrong and we should not do it. Not today, not then.

And if one holds, perhaps not entirely unreasonably, that it is a good idea to murder some to save others, then it raises the question. Are you okay with the State murdering you or your loved ones so that their organs can be used to save others?

It is not disease being discussed, it is war. Applying your reasoning means total pacifism. Good luck with that.

I certainly lean to the pacifism side but not to the strawman you are constructing. I am very much drawing a very strong distinction between murder and lawful killings.

EDIT: And I don't know where that disease comment was coming from. The idea of murdering someone to save others is the concept that is being explored. It applies equally to bombing civilians and involuntary organ harvesting.

"Disease" comes from your analogy of organ transplants, which typically are needed due to disease. Nothing personal was meant![8D] The matter of 'a' government versus one or more individuals (your organ harvesting analogy) is very different than the matter of warfare, where even individuals who disagree with their government get (tragically) caught up in it even without war crimes being involved. I was not making a straw-man argument, I was pointing out that your analogy does not pertain. Your analogy is pretty much a straw man argument in that sense.[:D]

I'm done here! [8D]

[BattleMoose]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

ORIGINAL: witpqs


This is quite nonsensical. There is ample reason based upon experience in that very war against that very opponent behind the various very high estimates of Japanese civilian casualties. There is the additional evidence of the preparation of the Japanese population, and it is quite clear that the official position of the Japanese government was for there to be massive sacrifice of civilians.

You don't know how long they would be prepared to starve. I agree they would sacrifice many people charging towards American GIs, given the opportunity. The opportunity does not need to be given. Fundamentally you don't know how long they would be prepared to starve. And there is nothing nonsensical about pointing that out.

What is nonsensical is your insistence that there is not (and actually was not at the time) sufficient knowledge to reach a reasonable estimate of the likely outcomes. There certainly was. Disagreeing with the course of action chosen is a different matter.

Sufficient knowledge is extremely subjective. You cannot answer pertinent questions with knowledge, as in, how long the war would have lasted had the bomb not been dropped. A good knowledge of that would certainly be required in my view for murdering hundreds and thousands. That you call such a call for knowledge as nonsensical is, odd. I don't get it.

And the USSR only invaded China after the bomb was dropped, because the bomb was dropped. And the USSR certainly didn't stop its shenanigans in Europe because Japan accepted peace, at which time the war was already officially concluded.

The USSR at this time was playing serious shenanigans with Japan and the peace process. She was rapidly transporting troops from the West to the East to occupy as much territory in the far east as possible before the conclusion of the war. And was promising to mediate a negotiated peace between Japan and the Allies. Of course she had no intention of doing so but had a strong interest in keeping Japan in the war for as long as possible so she could take possession in the far east. Going so far as to warn Japan of impending air strikes on Formosa, by the USA.

The Soviets did have to actually invade to occupy territory. They did not wake up the day the first bomb was dropped and decide that they better invade.

Hiroshima, August 6. Soviet invasion of Manchuria, August 9.

[/quote]You can't have it both ways. You state that the Soviets were going to occupy territory, and you state that the only reason they invaded was that the A-bomb was dropped. I maintain that they were going to invade. Whether they adjusted the date after the A-bomb is not relevant.

I only have it one way. They planned to invade and they adjusted their timetable because the bomb was dropped. You completely ignored the importance of Japan hoping for a negotiated peace through the USSR, and the relevance of that hope being extinguished.

Japan had hope of a negotiated peace mediated by the USSR. Dropping the bomb made the USSR realise that the war was rapidly drawing to a close, invaded, shattering Japans hope of a negotiated peace.

Was Japan holding out, because it had hope of a negotiated peace? Where there other ways of destroying that hope?

The main point of that was to highlight that there was a lot going on, a lot of moving parts. And while murdering (that is what it was) Japanese civilians might have saved many others elsewhere, the converse might also have been true, even if unlikely. We cannot know. But if we are going to drop a bomb on a civilian population we really ought to know.

Your basic point is that without total certainty of the future, a decision can not be taken. But you neglect to apply that same principle to your own criticism of what was done.

You misunderstand the basic point(s). One of the points was that if you are going to do something as extreme as killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, you better be very confident with knowledge, about what you are doing and the consequence of that action or inaction are. Such levels of assurity just don't apply to buying milk that might expire tomorrow and you might not be sure if you will be able to use it in time...

I understand the basic point fully. You seem both unwilling to grapple with making such a decision and unable to grapple with the fact that others are willing to make such a decision. Those in charge at the time were both willing and able to make the decisions involved. If they had made the decision another way and millions of Japanese - plus many thousands or more of Allies had died as a result then they would be criticized for that. Had they chosen a third course and millions of Japanese had died as a result of both starvation and a Soviet invasion, and on and on to other choices they might have made.

I have grappled with it. I fully understand why it was done and I understand the reasons it was done. I happen not to agree with it. The commanders are not above reproach and when many people are killed or die, actions will be examined and criticized.

So it is a difficult situation, murder some , save some others, probably. But I do hold that murder is wrong. And in the absence of certainty that is what I hold to, that murder is wrong and we should not do it. Not today, not then.

And if one holds, perhaps not entirely unreasonably, that it is a good idea to murder some to save others, then it raises the question. Are you okay with the State murdering you or your loved ones so that their organs can be used to save others?

It is not disease being discussed, it is war. Applying your reasoning means total pacifism. Good luck with that.

I certainly lean to the pacifism side but not to the strawman you are constructing. I am very much drawing a very strong distinction between murder and lawful killings.

EDIT: And I don't know where that disease comment was coming from. The idea of murdering someone to save others is the concept that is being explored. It applies equally to bombing civilians and involuntary organ harvesting.

"Disease" comes from your analogy of organ transplants, which typically are needed due to disease. Nothing personal was meant![8D] The matter of 'a' government versus one or more individuals (your organ harvesting analogy) is very different than the matter of warfare, where even individuals who disagree with their government get (tragically) caught up in it even without war crimes being involved. I was not making a straw-man argument, I was pointing out that your analogy does not pertain. Your analogy is pretty much a straw man argument in that sense.[:D]

If killing civilians to save others is okay in one scenario then there is a moral equivalency that it is okay in general. You don't get to pick when an action is moral or immoral. It is either moral or immoral. It is either moral to kill civilians to save others or it is not. This is the essence of both actions. Killing civilians to save others, whether to bomb a city to save others or to take someones organs, the murder is the same and the saving of lives is the same, they are morally equivalent.

[BattleMoose]

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose



You don't know how long they would be prepared to starve. I agree they would sacrifice many people charging towards American GIs, given the opportunity. The opportunity does not need to be given. Fundamentally you don't know how long they would be prepared to starve. And there is nothing nonsensical about pointing that out.

What is nonsensical is your insistence that there is not (and actually was not at the time) sufficient knowledge to reach a reasonable estimate of the likely outcomes. There certainly was. Disagreeing with the course of action chosen is a different matter.

Sufficient knowledge is extremely subjective. You cannot answer pertinent questions with knowledge, as in, how long the war would have lasted had the bomb not been dropped. A good knowledge of that would certainly be required in my view for murdering hundreds and thousands. That you call such a call for knowledge as nonsensical is, odd. I don't get it.

And the USSR only invaded China after the bomb was dropped, because the bomb was dropped. And the USSR certainly didn't stop its shenanigans in Europe because Japan accepted peace, at which time the war was already officially concluded.

The USSR at this time was playing serious shenanigans with Japan and the peace process. She was rapidly transporting troops from the West to the East to occupy as much territory in the far east as possible before the conclusion of the war. And was promising to mediate a negotiated peace between Japan and the Allies. Of course she had no intention of doing so but had a strong interest in keeping Japan in the war for as long as possible so she could take possession in the far east. Going so far as to warn Japan of impending air strikes on Formosa, by the USA.

The Soviets did have to actually invade to occupy territory. They did not wake up the day the first bomb was dropped and decide that they better invade.

Hiroshima, August 6. Soviet invasion of Manchuria, August 9.

I only have it one way. They planned to invade and they adjusted their timetable because the bomb was dropped. You completely ignored the importance of Japan hoping for a negotiated peace through the USSR, and the relevance of that hope being extinguished. [/color]

Your basic point is that without total certainty of the future, a decision can not be taken. But you neglect to apply that same principle to your own criticism of what was done.

You misunderstand the basic point(s). One of the points was that if you are going to do something as extreme as killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, you better be very confident with knowledge, about what you are doing and the consequence of that action or inaction are. Such levels of assurity just don't apply to buying milk that might expire tomorrow and you might not be sure if you will be able to use it in time...

I understand the basic point fully. You seem both unwilling to grapple with making such a decision and unable to grapple with the fact that others are willing to make such a decision. Those in charge at the time were both willing and able to make the decisions involved. If they had made the decision another way and millions of Japanese - plus many thousands or more of Allies had died as a result then they would be criticized for that. Had they chosen a third course and millions of Japanese had died as a result of both starvation and a Soviet invasion, and on and on to other choices they might have made.

I have grappled with it. I fully understand why it was done and I understand the reasons it was done. I happen not to agree with it. The commanders are not above reproach and when many people are killed or die, actions will be examined and criticized.

I certainly lean to the pacifism side but not to the strawman you are constructing. I am very much drawing a very strong distinction between murder and lawful killings.

EDIT: And I don't know where that disease comment was coming from. The idea of murdering someone to save others is the concept that is being explored. It applies equally to bombing civilians and involuntary organ harvesting.

"Disease" comes from your analogy of organ transplants, which typically are needed due to disease. Nothing personal was meant![8D] The matter of 'a' government versus one or more individuals (your organ harvesting analogy) is very different than the matter of warfare, where even individuals who disagree with their government get (tragically) caught up in it even without war crimes being involved. I was not making a straw-man argument, I was pointing out that your analogy does not pertain. Your analogy is pretty much a straw man argument in that sense.[:D]

If killing civilians to save others is okay in one scenario then there is a moral equivalency that it is okay in general. You don't get to pick when an action is moral or immoral. It is either moral or immoral. It is either moral to kill civilians to save others or it is not. This is the essence of both actions. Killing civilians to save others, whether to bomb a city to save others or to take someones organs, the murder is the same and the saving of lives is the same, they are morally equivalent.

I am glad you are done. I am not glad that you cannot see the equivalency of killing civilians to save others.

[Quixote]

Gentlemen, this debate is now five pages long. It's also pointless. It's pointless in the same way that debates on religion are pointless. This is not a debate based on fact, it's a debate based on feelings and ethics. There can be no winner or loser, since it's a matter is personal opinion. A Christian, a Muslim, and an atheist could go at it for 20 pages on this forum (if it were allowed) and at the end of that debate, exactly no one here would change their minds about their own religious beliefs. The topic being discussed here amounts to the same thing. If you enjoy this type of thing, and know that whatever you write will change almost no one's opinion, then have fun with the discussion for as long as Bill allows it to continue, or until it peters out in another few pages, but please stop believing that you'll actually change anyone's mind, regardless of how well structured you think your arguments are...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Quixote

Gentlemen, this debate is now five pages long. It's also pointless. It's pointless in the same way that debates on religion are pointless. This is not a debate based on fact, it's a debate based on feelings and ethics. There can be no winner or loser, since it's a matter is personal opinion. A Christian, a Muslim, and an atheist could go at it for 20 pages on this forum (if it were allowed) and at the end of that debate, exactly no one here would change their minds about their own religious beliefs. The topic being discussed here amounts to the same thing. If you enjoy this type of thing, and know that whatever you write will change almost no one's opinion, then have fun with the discussion for as long as Bill allows it to continue, or until it peters out in another few pages, but please stop believing that you'll actually change anyone's mind, regardless of how well structured you think your arguments are...

Warspite1

"as long as Bill allows it to continue" why would he stop it? It's been an interesting debate with both "sides" putting their case forward in a sensible fashion. No one has been abusive or gone off the deep end - which is commendable given the subject under discussion.

Will anyone change their mind? I suspect that those posters with strong opinions (and a post contribution to match!) will not be changing their view anytime soon. However, there are plenty of people who read and do not post. Maybe for some there will be ideas and viewpoints they had never considered - maybe/maybe not. However, regardless of whether or not that is the case, it is healthy to have these debates - these exchange of views - every now and again.

"No winner or loser" not really the point. It would be nice to think that one can present a point(s) in such a way as to persuade another to change their mind or perhaps reinforce something they were unsure of - and as per the above - maybe that has happened. But in the absence of a smoking gun, a piece of evidence one way or another (which btw doesn't exist) then this debate is all about reviewing an action taken 70 years ago by someone and whether or not one feels that action was justified, understandable, and yes, even morally correct. I don't think it ever hurts to re-examine the past - on the contrary, it can help us with our current thinking.

I for one find it an interesting topic and thank my fellow forumites for expressing their opinions and ideas in the way they have.

[rjopel]

The Soviet Invasion of Manchuria was long planned and discussed by the Allied leadership. At Yalta? the Soviets promised they would enter the Pacific War 3 months after the surrender of Germany. They started to withdraw forces from the Eastern Front in April for refit and movement to the Far East. The Soviet's hold 9 May as VE day. The invasion on Manchuria was on 9 Aug. Exactly 9 months to the day.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Reaper

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1660845#sthash.lZWDv5Kk.dpuf

Interesting Russian move against the U.S.

What is the opinion of the board here ?

Honestly, I'm pretty much a "peacenik" when it comes to such things. Most people here would disagree on my opinions on the matter, but I'll be more impressed when Russia cleans up its own act. I get tired of all the political hypocrisy in this world. Putin and Company are equally repugnant.

[Chris21wen]

A very emotive subject.   I wonder what the 100,000s of GIs and their equivalents in the other armed forces thought, immediately before the war ended, immediately after and finally when they knew how?

[LoBaron]

The way this debate is shaped is unsurprizing (like the 100 times that topic popped up on this forum before already).

The Moose hit the core of the problem with this post:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
In no war before or since has the USA demanded unconditional surrender. WWII was different for us in ways I don't think Europeans understand. The war in the PTO was a war of fury, begun by deceit and a sneak attack that struck at deeply-held American notions of how nations should behave. There was also a very significant racial factor not present in the ETO. These are two reasons for my previous comments concerning HST's thoughts about use of the Bomb at Potsdam, documented in many places but very well in the Pulitzer-winning biography by David McCullough. It simply did not occur to him not to use it given the 2.5 year extant policy of unconditional surrender, that Japan had started the war, and that he had a potential means to bring about surrender without expending any more American lives. The US public simply did not equate Japanese civilian lives with US servicemen's. Japanese lives were worth less. Period.

It's a well-written and argued book if one is interested in the sweep of the policy. If you have an extensive WWII library it's worth the minimal price to include it, even if you disagree with its conclusions.

Judging a historical event - as monstrous and society-shaping as WWII - using 21st century western peacetime culture ethics inevitably leads to failure to understand. As does any debate using those standards as a baseline. As does any debate involving 20/20 historical hindsight as a baseline.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron



Judging a historical event - as monstrous and society-shaping as WWII - using 21st century western peacetime culture ethics inevitably leads to failure to understand. As does any debate using those standards as a baseline. As does any debate involving 20/20 historical hindsight as a baseline.

+1
This is so true. And it is a valid consideration that applies to every single past event, no matter the side you're looking from.
Was the 146 BC genocide of Carthago necessary? Were the Romans committing crimes against humanity? It all depends on the valours you're using to judge...and it's pointless to use present-days values to judge past events.
On the same string, it is pointless to judge axis powers acts with the western countries "glasses". Different ethics, different common-accepted morales, different values.
History should be read and studied with an emotions-free point of view, with neutral "glasses".

In this view, the use of A-Bombs was necessary and usefull. Full stop. Just like strat bombing italian cities (and civilians) was usefull (for the allies) to crack the morale of Italian people in order to get Italy out of the war. If thousands of Italian citizens's lifes was the price to be paid, doesn't really matter.

Now, try to apply the same logic to the bombings of London, to the anti-partisan warfare in Italy, the bombing of Warsaw or to the Kamikaze attacks.

...neutral glasses

[BattleMoose]

Its true that the Fourth Geneva Convention, which primarily protects civilians was only agreed to in 1949, after the war. Its not exactly using modern standards to judge historical events. Only four years after the war there was an international agreement to properly protect civilians. The ethics and morals at the time were well placed for people then to know that murdering civilians was wrong.

Now, try to apply the same logic to the bombings of London, to the anti-partisan warfare in Italy, the bombing of Warsaw or to the Kamikaze attacks.

...neutral glasses

I can only think that that comment was directed at me. I have been extremely consistent in the issue that murdering civilians is wrong. I have not been specific to the A-bombs. I hold that murdering civilians is wrong, from London, to Italy to Warsaw et cetera. If there is an inconsistency here, a non-neutrality, feel free to point it out. Although the kamikaze comment is odd, no civilians were involved. I don't see an issue with it.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

Its true that the Fourth Geneva Convention, which primarily protects civilians was only agreed to in 1949, after the war. Its not exactly using modern standards to judge historical events. Only four years after the war there was an international agreement to properly protect civilians. The ethics and morals at the time were well placed for people then to know that murdering civilians was wrong.

Now, try to apply the same logic to the bombings of London, to the anti-partisan warfare in Italy, the bombing of Warsaw or to the Kamikaze attacks.

...neutral glasses

I can only think that that comment was directed at me. I have been extremely consistent in the issue that murdering civilians is wrong. I have not been specific to the A-bombs. I hold that murdering civilians is wrong, from London, to Italy to Warsaw et cetera. If there is an inconsistency here, a non-neutrality, feel free to point it out. Although the kamikaze comment is odd, no civilians were involved. I don't see an issue with it.

warspite1

Well although we come at this argument from different sides, and we have drawn different conclusions, I totally agree with your first point. Some of these comments seem to suggest we are talking about an event 200 years ago and so we should not judge them by today's standards.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose



I can only think that that comment was directed at me. I have been extremely consistent in the issue that murdering civilians is wrong. I have not been specific to the A-bombs. I hold that murdering civilians is wrong, from London, to Italy to Warsaw et cetera. If there is an inconsistency here, a non-neutrality, feel free to point it out. Although the kamikaze comment is odd, no civilians were involved. I don't see an issue with it.

No, sorry, wasn't directed at you. I wasn't talking to someone specifically.

[Dixie]

On the assumption that dropping the bombs removed the requirement to land on the Japanese mainland and directly led to shortening the war, then yes, dropping the bombs was necessary. We can pretty much all agree that killing civilians is wrong, unfortunately that is how WW2 was fought and plenty of civilians died who didn't deserve to.

The thing is, since 1945 there has been a big change in the way we fight wars. Since the end of the war we have generally moved towards the model of professional armed forces. If you're in the military it's because you want to be, you've chosen to put yourself into some potentially dangerous situations. In WW2 the militaries were conscript forces. The guys who would have waded ashore onto Japan would (for the most part) not have chosen to be there, they didn't deserve to die either. Add to that the additional PoWs who would have died if Japanese had carried out their plan to kill all PoWs in Japan if the Allies came ashore. Plus the civilians living in the occupied territories who also didn't deserve to die.

[Ormbane]

I'm not sure that "were the atomic bombs necessary" is exactly the right question, especially since there were alternatives which may or may not have been more or less "desirable". The debate seems to revolve around the question of whether or not using them was "justified" or even "moral".

Once upon a time, in a place called Chu Lai, there was a particular Vietnamese barber that cut my air, and the hair of other American soldiers. The talk among the troops was how various perimeter guards were getting their throats slit in the night for not being alert enough on guard duty. One day our Vietnamese barber didn't come to work. He was found dead in the concertina wire by the perimeter. Apparently he had been among those slitting throats but unfortunately enough for him one of the guards was alert and host him. Was he a civilian? He wasn't wearing a uniform. Was it acceptable to kill him sneaking through the perimeter but not in his village? Suppose we had known about him and had shot him in the village before he had managed to cut some throats would it have been acceptable?

How about the guys working the Red Ball Express in WW2 - were they civilians? They wore uniforms but (for the most part) were not involved in firefights. Were they more or less innocent than people not in uniform that drove war supplies to where they were needed?

What makes a person "innocent" and at what point does a "civilian" not contribute to the war effort?

What do we say about the wars in recent history where soldiers have been killed by women and children?

I sometimes think about people that protest capital punishment self-righteously and ignorantly waving their placards with the quote "Thou shall not kill". Actually a more accurate translation would be "Thou shall not murder" but in any case the Law of Moses, from which the quote is taken, mandates capital punishment for various offenses.

When we talk about "murdering innocent" people is there something behind those words other than manipulative emotional slogans? For me to benefit from a discussion like this we have to get past the stage of waving placards with manipulative slogans.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: rjopel

The Soviet Invasion of Manchuria was long planned and discussed by the Allied leadership. At Yalta? the Soviets promised they would enter the Pacific War 3 months after the surrender of Germany. They started to withdraw forces from the Eastern Front in April for refit and movement to the Far East. The Soviet's hold 9 May as VE day. The invasion on Manchuria was on 9 Aug. Exactly 9 months to the day.

I think you meant "3 months to the day." So, they didn't even change the date by a single day! Thanks.