Were the Allies justified in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Matthew Henry on Micah 4:3 (emphasis mine):

I dont want to derail this thread, but not sure what this quote from Henry proves. I was only pointing out that there is scripture to support the view that there will be world peace at some point before Christ returns. Henry doesn't refute that.

 

[pgwolv]

I dont want to derail this thread, but not sure what this quote from Henry proves. I was only pointing out that there is scripture to support the view that there will be world peace at some point before Christ returns. Henry doesn't refute that.

I guess you're referring to "When Christ was born there was universal peace in the Roman empire." I overlooked that, sorry.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

I guess you're referring to "When Christ was born there was universal peace in the Roman empire." I overlooked that, sorry.

No, actually I think Henry is missing the point there, but as I said, I don't want to derail this thread.

 

[Rome2Geneva]

I voted: no. I take issue with the argument that many American soldiers would have lost their lives had we not dropped the bomb. The threat of dying in battle is in the nature of being in the military. You don't use the excuse of saving military lives as a justification for knowingly targeting civilians.

I saw an interview once with one of the pilots of the Enola Gay. He seemed quite pleased with himself when reminiscing on the 100s of thousands of civilians he vaporized. I recall feeling sick listening to him.

I know of nothing in Scripture that would justify this act as normative in war.

 

[lynnie]

Why Nagasaki? Hiroshima was an important military center to be sure, but not Nagasaki. Nagasaki was the most Christianized ( yeah, Catholic) city in all of Japan with essentially no military importance at all.

You'll read old articles that it was the weather that made them change targets. Maybe. Is it possible that some demonic force was at work to try and destroy the oldest and most significant Christian presence in Japan? Since 1549 there were Christians, many of them brutally murdered over the centuries.

I read an old book a while ago with first hand accounts of the bomb and afterwards......lots of priests and doctors and survivors. It was brutal beyond imagining and so many of the dead were Christian. There is no comparison with OT extermination of pagan cities.

Why didn't we drop it on top of the Emperor's palace? Why of all the cities did our military choose ( as a backup) the most Christianized place in the entire nation? What was really going on in the unseen spiritual realm?

 

[pmachapman]

Dropping the bomb on Nagasaki was a war crime by the Allied forces against their own men and the Japanese people.

I have visited Nagasaki, and seen what remains of ground zero - the bomb was dropped directly on top of a prison camp filled with Allied soldiers. The Allied forces were notified where all of the prison camps were, and yet chose to ignore this information.

You could argue that Nagasaki was the secondary target (if memory serves me correctly, a city near Fukuoka was the primary but obscured by cloud), so this was by circumstance, and this was still a strategic port/industrial city (offshore coal mines, ship building), so it wasn't a completely civilian city.

However, I find this especially appalling, as this was the second bomb to be dropped - something I do not believe was necessary, and yet was done as a horrible experiment - note that a different type of bomb was used for each event ("little boy" and "fat man").

In addition, the Allies did not subject Hiroshima or Nagasaki to a lot of bombing prior in the war compared to other industrial centres - these cities felt they had got off comparatively lightly: further proof that this experiment was pre-meditated. The Allied Brass wanted to see what would happen if the atomic bomb was unleashed on populated and built up areas - something they could not test in the Nevada desert.

If the desire was a show of force, to threaten the Japanese military to back down "or else", they could have bombed anywhere else - already burned out Tokyo, a previously bombed industrial centre, even bombing Mt Fuji would have shown the Japanese the destructive power of the atom with minimal casualties, forcing capitulation.

I do think that solely bombing Hiroshima caused fewer fatalities for both Japanese and Allied forces than the planned all-out invasion, but for the reasons outlined above I think the death toll could have been reduced, and I especially think the bombing of Nagasaki was completely unjustified, as it was a pre-meditated experiment over and above its strategic military value.

 

[De Jager]

There is another angle to look at this and it ties into our concept of federal headship.

If we can believe that all of mankind falls because of Adam's sin, and that all the elect are saved because of Christ's work, it is not much of a stretch for me to similarly impute the sins of the nation onto the citizens themselves, or at least to acknowledge some kind of federal representation or connection. The citizens of Japan, in some sense, deserved destruction because of the actions of their leaders. And yes, I would argue the same about our western countries of today, which daily commit atrocities that are hidden from the public view.

 

[Edward]

And the cruelty Japanese troops meted out to the POWs on the Bataan Death March.

Tame compared to some of the things that they did. Cannibalism of prisoners. Sometimes they killed the prisoners before butchering them and dining; sometimes they started cutting off parts for dinner from the still living prisoners.

When it came to raping female prisioners, the Japanese could keep up with the Soviets.

Slaughtering patients, doctors, and nurses at captured hospitals. Compared to the Japanse, the SS was downright honorable St. Elizabeth's at the battle of Arnheim. The Japanese were inhuman beasts at Alexandra Hospital in Singapore.

 

[Edward]

the bomb was dropped directly on top of a prison camp filled with Allied soldiers. The Allied forces were notified where all of the prison camps were, and yet chose to ignore this information.

You could argue that Nagasaki was the secondary target (if memory serves me correctly, a city near Fukuoka was the primary but obscured by cloud),

Let's mix some facts into that.

First, the primary target was Kokura. Nagasaki was the secondary. Kokura was obscured by a mix of clouds and smoke - some from a nearby raid which had occured earlier, some from a factory intentionally generating smoke.

The bomb itself landed about 2 miles from the actual target point. (The epicenter was a tennis court, not a filled prison camp.)

And let's talk about that so-called "prison camp filled with Allied soldiers". POWs killed in the bombing included one Brit and seven Dutch POWs. On the other hand, one American and 24 Australians survived. Must have been a really tiny camp on that tennis court.

Dropping the bomb on Nagasaki was a war crime

As I noted in an earlier post, Nagasaki had less than half as many deaths as the firebomb raid on Tokyo 5 months earlier.

 

[chuckd]

A couple of random thoughts.

When the U.S. declared war on Japan, what did they declare war on? The Emperor? It’s military? The entire population? It’s land?

If an American soldier walked down the streets of Nagasaki, how would its civilians greet him?

All civilians are potential militia, but that doesn’t mean we can kill them indiscriminately.

 

[KMK]

I think it is more accurate to say the US (not the Allies) dropped the bomb. Due to a secret agreement between Roosevelt and Churchill, the US had to ask for Britain's consent, but not Russia's. Truman's diary reveals that he casually mentioned a new bomb to Stalin at Potsdam, but gave no specifics, nor asked for consent.

 

[KMK]

And I admire Truman's decision, BTW. World wars kill a lot of people. That's why they are to be avoided.

 

[De Jager]

One can also point out that Japan started the whole deal with an unprovoked attack.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

One can also point out that Japan started the whole deal with an unprovoked attack.

Well, it debatable as to whether or not it was "unprovoked". Different people put different definitions or thresholds on what exactly counts as a "provocation". The US was heavily sanctioning Japan and enacting embargoes because of Japan's moves in China etc.

Did these things merit a sneak attack against Pearl Harbor? I wouldn't say so, but the US wasn't just off in the corner minding its own business and then got attacked for no reason at all.

 

[greenbaggins]

I used to think that neither bomb was morally justifiable. It's a lot more complicated, however, than the simple principle of not attacking civilians, which I think is an excellent principle for just war theory. Some responses that complicate this have already been made (imprecise technology, leaflets dropped, etc.). I don't think it is a just argument to go from fewer US military casualties straight to a justified bomb. I do think it is more cogent to go from fewer Japanese civilian casualties to the bomb. The Japanese did not believe in just war theory. It is all very well for one side to adhere to it as best they can. From what I have seen, the US tried to do that. But it is almost certain that millions of Japanese civilians would have died in a homeland invasion of Japan. The Japanese of the day were much like Muslim radicals in using civilians as shields. The Japanese knew about our just way theory, and, in effect, used their civilians as shields for the military, instead of the other way around, as is proper. How to end the war, then? The bomb presented itself as the way to end the war quickest. Even Nagasaki, then, could have an argument about it that goes like this: "Japan, this is what will happen to your civilians on a much larger scale if you don't surrender." This is the kind of language Japan understood at the time, and it was convincing. It is a tragic testimony to the viciousness of human sin that such things happened. But to blame the US for war crimes on this issue does not take into account the completely different approach to war that Japan had from the US.

I think a fair number of people have hinted at the problem of nuke versus conventional bombs, which, in the case of Tokyo and Dresden, did more damage in the aggregate than the nukes did, but people tend to put the atomic bomb in a completely separate category from all other bombs, because just one of them can cause so much destruction. We need to stop putting the atom bomb in a completely separate category than conventional weapons, even if the world does not do this. Just because it is more powerful does not mean it is a completely different question than conventional bombing, especially when considering the lack of precision in WW2.

 

[KMK]

It could be argued that Japanese atrocities in China alone deserved an atomic bomb.

 

[Edward]

If one wants to talk about Allied war crimes in World War II, one could get more traction out of the British terror bombing of Germany or the US mustard gas in Italy.

 

[Tom Hart]

Plenty has been said about the so-called pragmatism of avoiding further casualties, and that civilian deaths are preferably avoided in war.

Is it possible that that is a simplistic Western approach to the topic? Try looking at things from the perspective of the subjects of the Japanese Empire. Consider that the bombs put a swift end to an evil régime.

The Chinese suffered unspeakable horrors under the Japanese. The Rape of Nanking is a famous incident, and hardly an isolated one. Countless Koreans were enslaved by the Japanese. Promised well-paying factory jobs, they were sent to prison islands and were often never given any wages. Young girls (Korean as well as Chinese, Filipina, and others) were forced into sex slavery to serve the Japanese soldiers on the Chinese front. In Korea itself, once an independent kingdom, but reduced in 1910 to the Japanese province of Cho-sen, press freedom was tightly restricted, and, in the 1930s, even the Korean language was curtailed, to the point that every Korean was required to speak Japanese in schools. They were also made to worship the Emperor. I’ll add that Korean Christians (mostly in the area of modern Pyeongyang) were persecuted for refusing to worship the Emperor. Anyone who stood up to the Japanese colonial government was likely to be tortured and killed.

There was of course a lively Korean independence movement, and a provisional government-in-exile in China. However, the Japanese were simply too strong; had the bombs not been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Korea’s liberation from brutal colonial occupation would never have been achieved.

Korea celebrates its independence day on August 15th, six days after the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

 

[Tom Hart]

My grandmother was German. She lived and suffered through World War II. Her own sister was raped by a Russian soldier.

Oma used to say that Germany got what it deserved. They wandered far from God, they put themselves under wicked leaders, and they suffered the consequences.

I do wonder what Japanese Christians might say about the nuclear bombs.

 

[Edward]

once an independent kingdom

One of the Korean princes was on the senior military staff at Nagasaki. He didn't survive.

Maybe it's time to talk about the Japanese atomic bomb program, since the heavy water facility was located in Korea

(Interistingly, the separator facility in Tokyo was destroyed in the March firebomb raid, disrupting the atomic bomb program.

Evidence isn't clear on whether the Japanese were actually able to assemble and test an atomic bomb in Korea; government officials dispute contemporary published reports, and the Soviets blocked access to the area. So determining how far the Japs got with their program depends on whether you trust news reports from the mid-1940s or more recent Department of Energy sources.

 

[Edward]

Japanese Christians

A rather scarce commodity, that.

 

[Tom Hart]

One of the Korean princes was on the senior military staff at Nagasaki. He didn't survive.

I did not know that. I just looked him up. Yi U.

Well before 1945, the Korean royals had been absorbed into Japanese the imperial family. The last king of Joseon was Sunjong, a Japanese puppet installed in place of his somewhat more stalwart father. (The Japanese deposed him anyway in 1910, favouring more direct colonial rule.) Sunjong was married to a Japanese princess. Their marriage was said to be a happy one, in spite of its apparently political purpose. Their descendants today live in America.

 

[Morgan]

Being in the military, I would say that 99% of what is done cannot be justified biblically much less an atomic bomb. Trying to justify civilian deaths by "possible" greater numbers of deaths if it had not been done is not the answer either. I was lost when I was in the military, my views are totally different now. Many things that go on in our military, especially during war, are not common knowledge. There is very little I can justify biblically. I know a guy that kept a ring (meant to write necklace) of human appendages during Vietnam, yes, he had pictures of it. War just allows depraved men to be more depraved. Is a military necessary? I think so but there is s much evil and sin involved in all of it.

 

[pmachapman]

Must have been a really tiny camp on that tennis court.

Apologies if my facts were wrong, I am working of my memory of a visit there several years ago. I walked around the leveled camp and remember walking to the marker for the epicenter. I don't remember it being 2 miles but I am sure Google has a better memory than me.

I stand by my statement that the second bomb dropping was unnecessary and done primarily for experimental purposes rather than strategic.

Visiting the bomb museum was one of the most sobering experiences I have ever done. You end your museum tour with a map showing the number of nukes in every country. Only two or three countries had their numbers scratched out and incremented. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to discover those countries.

 

[Tom Hart]

Apologies if my facts were wrong, I am working of my memory of a visit there several years ago. I walked around the leveled camp and remember walking to the marker for the epicenter. I don't remember it being 2 miles but I am sure Google has a better memory than me.

I stand by my statement that the second bomb dropping was unnecessary and done primarily for experimental purposes rather than strategic.

Visiting the bomb museum was one of the most sobering experiences I have ever done. You end your museum tour with a map showing the number of nukes in every country. Only two or three countries had their numbers scratched out and incremented. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to discover those countries.

Is it possible that there’s some bias on display at that museum? The Japanese government has made a point of exaggerating their people’s victimhood. Most Japanese today have no idea of the atrocities committed in the name of the Japanese Empire.

 

[Edward]

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to discover those countries.

South Africa under white leadership dismantled its bombs. I would expect that Israel has expanded its capacity.

Question - do you also believe what you were taught in school?

 

[jwithnell]

It is telling that much of the public debate didn't develop until after the war generation started passing away.* Those engaged in the war wanted to stop it. Right then. People who served in the Pacific (like my father in law) were convinced the Japanese would not stop fighting because the Kamikaze attacks demonstrated a culture that would fight to the death. They also knew that the Japanese readily blended civilian with military, such as when they approached "fishing" vessels that suddenly opened fire. They also knew that getting a foothold on any island (and Japan is a bunch of islands) required sending waves of men into meat grinders. (Think about repeating Normandy on a smaller scale again and again.) What's most telling is that Japan did not stop the war after the first bomb. * I realize the scientists debated the potential use of these weapons.

 

[pmachapman]

Is it possible that there’s some bias on display at that museum? The Japanese government has made a point of exaggerating their people’s victimhood. Most Japanese today have no idea of the atrocities committed in the name of the Japanese Empire.

There is a bias - to me one imposed by the Allied occupation, rather than from the Japanese govt. The feeling I got from the museum was not one of Japanese victimhood, but human despair and warning.

EDIT: And yes you are right that there is little recognition or apology for the atrocities committed during the war (at least as far as my experience is concerned), although that museum was not a place for those things to be discussed. I unfortunately am yet to visit the Tokyo Imperial War Museum, so cannot comment on how the war is officially portrayed by the Japanese govt.

The Allied occupation effected many forced changes in Japanese culture and law during the re-education, one interesting enough was a law banning any form of mandatory medical procedure (I assume because of Unit 731), a law which has made the news recently. There has always been kickback in parts of Japanese society against the post-war changes - when I was there, I saw a "patriotic truck" driving around flying flags and playing songs from the war to the effect of "kick out the foreigners". I even bought an Iron Cross from a rather proud old man in a Tokyo flea market for a couple of dollars as he waxed glowingly about his side in the war.

Question - do you also believe what you were taught in school?

Depends. My minor was in History at University, however since becoming a Christian after graduating 15+ years ago, I have spent most of my time re-evaluating and critiquing what I learned.

I have spoken to German and Japanese men to hear their side of what went on in the war, gone through my wife's grandfather's disturbing personal photos of Dachau as he went about resettling the prisoners, and listened to my grandfathers' explaining all the lies in the history books regarding the Allied side in both wars, backed by their own witness and evidence. I now know why they never talked about it until much later in life.

I am currently going through my wife's grandfather's papers (he was a Lieutenant-Colonel in the war and afterwards was appointed to the UNRRA), and have discovered that many of the problems and current events that are flowering now were germinated in the war/post-war period. Some people and organisations play the long game.

They also knew that getting a foothold on any island (and Japan is a bunch of islands) required sending waves of men into meat grinders.

I fully agree. Meat grinders for both sides - and so I think that atomic weaponry was immediately more humane for the Japanese than an invasion. I argue only that it could have been used more humanely and potentially achieved the same outcome.

 

[Edward]

Trench warfare in World War I was a war crime for which many of the European generals should have been executed.

 

[pmachapman]

Trench warfare in World War I was a war crime for which many of the European generals should have been executed.

Yes, my paternal grandfather was 14 when he went to the Somme with the Durham Light Infantry (via an altered birth certificate), and after emigrating to Canada was perma-banned from the Royal Canadian Legion for stating the General Haig should have been tried as a war criminal. It humbled me as a snotty teenager to think that my grandfather underwent far worse than I was at that age.