Hiroshima-August 6, 1945

[Spiritus Naturae]

I have just finished reading "Hiroshima" by John Hersey and it is quite disturbing and fascinating all at the same time. I have read other books on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all quite aniseptic and technical in their detail of the goings-on 'behind the scenes' in the politics and the tech involved in the creation of the bombs; none of them like this book by John Hersey and his first hand accounts of the everyday people of Hiroshima in the aftermath of that awful day. It was quite a moving work.

Anyone else read this?

Jonathan

[Socrates]

I have just finished reading "Hiroshima" by John Hersey and it is quite disturbing and fascinating all at the same time. I have read other books on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all quite aniseptic and technical in their detail of the goings-on 'behind the scenes' in the politics and the tech involved in the creation of the bombs; none of them like this book by John Hersey and his first hand accounts of the everyday people of Hiroshima in the aftermath of that awful day. It was quite a moving work.
No I haven't read this. But Vork produced outstanding documentation about the circumstances surrounding the bomb at Was Hiroshima A War Crime? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=270357&#post270357)

[billy_pilgrim]

I have read it. Actually, I taught it to a class of High School English students. It's a challenging book for them (for me, too) because it brings the reader face to face with the end result of American power. Whether one believes Truman was justified in dropping the bomb (I do tend to think that), the book powerfully represents the horror of that day from the Japanese perspective. A few students responded well to the book, many others were hostile to it; the "happy few" were bored and apathetic about it, but then there is always a clique of knotheads who are bored and apathetic about everything. Kind of reminded me how in the book of Proverbs there are "simple" people and "fools" (these would be the bored kids) and the mockers (these would be the ones who were hostile to the book), and the wise (these would be the ones who genuinely engaged with the book). The book is a good one to teach, though. It definitely stirs conversation, which is always good in a High School class. try teaching the "Scarlet Letter" sometime. Now that's a tough one to teach even to the most receptive audience.

[guacamole]

It is indeed a difficult and uncomfortable book. It is worth reading if for no other reason than it brings the reader face to face with the too-frequently-"theoretical" consequences of the power in nuclear weapons.

[fototune]

I have just finished reading "Hiroshima" by John Hersey and it is quite disturbing and fascinating all at the same time. I have read other books on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all quite aniseptic and technical in their detail of the goings-on 'behind the scenes' in the politics and the tech involved in the creation of the bombs; none of them like this book by John Hersey and his first hand accounts of the everyday people of Hiroshima in the aftermath of that awful day. It was quite a moving work.

Anyone else read this?

Jonathan






I haven't read this work, but was thinking about the event, after watching "The Last Samurai," yesterday. I found it ironic, that western civilization provided Japan with the technology, to make the transition, from medievalism to modernism, and attempted to destroy its foundational philosophy. Whether the events, and characters of the movie were real, or allegorical doesn’t change the significance.

I also found it interesting how that ancient philosophy embraced the modern weapons of war and eventually used them against western civilization, at Pearl Harbor, and in the Pacific. I then found it very ironic, how western civilization once again used modern technology to crush the re-emergence of this foundational philosophy, at Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. I think that war, as ugly as it is, is part of the growth, and unification of the entire human race. What the Samurai, and Japan were to western civilization then, is what Al-Qaeda, and the Islamic world is to it today.

Of course all one has to do is study history to see this fact, of the continual struggle for dominance, and unification. From Xerxes, to Alexander, to Julius Caesar, to Muhammad, to Napolean, to Hitler, to Osama Bin Laden, the goal has been the same. The human race is a living organism, that sometimes has malignancies, that are eradicated by war. War will continue, until complete harmonious, and tolerant unification occurs, or Jesus returns.

[Ben Franklin]

I found it ironic, that western civilization provided Japan with the technology, to make the transition, from medievalism to modernism, and attempted to destroy its foundational philosophy.



You want ironic...? The point of the Meiji Restoration (conveniently left out of the film) was that the supporting daimyos were AGAINST the Tokugawa shogun because he BOWED to Western influence, and was doing everything in his power to get access to their knowledge. He wanted to avoid in Japan what was then happening in China (Western colonialization). Ironically, the restored Meiji emperor took the exact same path as the Tokugawa shogun, and suppressed the anti-Western daimyos, such as Saigo (made famous by The Last Samurai movie)... :doh:

[Vorkosigan]

It's a challenging book for them (for me, too) because it brings the reader face to face with the end result of American power.

Perhaps you should read the accounts of Japanese invasion and occupation in China. The "end result" of Japanese occupation was 20 million dead. The A-bomb was not "the end result" of American power, but the end result of a chain of fundamentally irrational decisions that brought Japan into war with several of the most powerful nations in the world, all at once, and then refused to contemplate ending the war when it had been crushed.

Vorkosigan

[Alden]

Getting back to the original topic...

I read Hershey's book in a twentieth century seminar that I took in college. I thought that it was a very well done work. I particularly enjoyed the first-hand accounts taken from the survivors. I found the book particularly useful when I was teaching the WWII segment of my US history class.

[Just The Facts]

Hi

It is all to easy to suggest that it was their Imperialism and not ours that started WW II.

While you boldly speak of japans invasion of China you leave out the British and Americans forcing the Chinese to buy their opium by sailing ships up their rivers and indiscriminately shelling their cities killing women and children.

you fail to mention that While Japan was viciously taking over Chinese territory we had occupied Chinese land as well for well over 100 years. And as usual the people our government help keep in power were brutal vicious people that murdered their own people. You know like Pinochette,…………… the Shaw of Iran……….Well lets face it the list is soooooooo long that it is a disgrace

Lets not forget who we wiped out over 35 million Native Americans by Disease forced marches and just a general plan of Ethnic cleansing.

Oh yes it is oh so easy to see the speck in thy brothers eye.

[Alden]

Those dirty, dirty Americans!

[Ben Franklin]

It's a challenging book for them (for me, too) because it brings the reader face to face with the end result of American power.





Perhaps you should read the accounts of Japanese invasion and occupation in China. The "end result" of Japanese occupation was 20 million dead. The A-bomb was not "the end result" of American power, but the end result of a chain of fundamentally irrational decisions that brought Japan into war with several of the most powerful nations in the world, all at once, and then refused to contemplate ending the war when it had been crushed.




??? Vork... you quoted billy_pilgrim,
but you ascribe his quote to me...?

Are you addressing me or him...? :huh:

[Ben Franklin]

Hi

It is all to easy to suggest that it was their Imperialism and not ours that started WW II.

While you boldly speak of japans invasion of China you leave out the British and Americans forcing the Chinese to buy their opium by sailing ships up their rivers and indiscriminately shelling their cities killing women and children.

you fail to mention that While Japan was viciously taking over Chinese territory we had occupied Chinese land as well for well over 100 years. And as usual the people our government help keep in power were brutal vicious people that murdered their own people. You know like Pinochette,…………… the Shaw of Iran……….Well lets face it the list is soooooooo long that it is a disgrace

Lets not forget who we wiped out over 35 million Native Americans by Disease forced marches and just a general plan of Ethnic cleansing.

Oh yes it is oh so easy to see the speck in thy brothers eye.

Ummm... Ok, so what's your problem with Japan getting credit where credit is due...? :huh:

[billy_pilgrim]

Perhaps you should read the accounts of Japanese invasion and occupation in China. The "end result" of Japanese occupation was 20 million dead. The A-bomb was not "the end result" of American power, but the end result of a chain of fundamentally irrational decisions that brought Japan into war with several of the most powerful nations in the world, all at once, and then refused to contemplate ending the war when it had been crushed.

Vorkosigan
Actually, just in the past week I've been reading "The Rape of Nanking" by Iris Chang. You don't have to remind me of the brutality of the Japanese. Whether you justify the dropping of the bombs, as Truman did (as I do), by the fact that the atom bomb ended the war without need of an invasion of Japan, you still are confronted with the fact that the end was accomplished by killing thousands of civilians and horribly mutilating and sickening thousands more. What's wrong with students knowing that? It's the truth and nothing more. They can infer whatever they want from it, as we all do when reading history and looking for meaning in it.

[Ryokan]

There is no question that thousands of "innocents" were killed. It is tragic. As I pointed out somewhere around here, and excellent film about this tragedy is the Graveyard of the Fireflies. However, in a total war, every man woman, and child is part of the enemies war machine, and are legitimate targets. And the fault of there deaths lies at the feet of those who brougth about the war, in this case the Japanese high command.

[Ben Franklin]

There is no question that thousands of "innocents" were killed. It is tragic. As I pointed out somewhere around here, and excellent film about this tragedy is the Graveyard of the Fireflies. However, in a total war, every man woman, and child is part of the enemies war machine, and are legitimate targets. And the fault of there deaths lies at the feet of those who brougth about the war, in this case the Japanese high command.

Don't forget Emperor Hirohito who aided and abetted the whole damn thing...!

[billy_pilgrim]

There is no question that thousands of "innocents" were killed. It is tragic. As I pointed out somewhere around here, and excellent film about this tragedy is the Graveyard of the Fireflies. However, in a total war, every man woman, and child is part of the enemies war machine, and are legitimate targets. And the fault of there deaths lies at the feet of those who brougth about the war, in this case the Japanese high command.
Somehow I do not think what you are saying would hold up to much scrutiny. If every man, woman, and child is part of the enemy's war machine, and thus are legitimate targets, does the same rule apply for the "enemy?" That is, is it OK for our enemy to kill civilians indiscriminately, too ... or is that a right soley reserved to us, the good guys? Just because the bad guys do it, doesn't make it right.

Isn't this what the Abu Ghraib thing comes down to? So many people have been making excuses for our soldiers, downplaying the significance of what the soldiers did by pointing out the evil of Saddam. No one denies the evil of Saddam. No one denies the evil of what the Japanese did. But there is a general precept which Christians are supposed to follow about doing unto others as you would have done unto you, and about looking to one's own sins before judging others. On a secular level, we also apply a version of the Golden Rule: we follow rules of engagement in war which we hope other countries will also follow. If they don't follow those rules, that doesn't mean "all bets are off."

[Ben Franklin]

On a secular level, we also apply a version of the Golden Rule: we follow rules of engagement in war which we hope other countries will also follow. If they don't follow those rules, that doesn't mean "all bets are off."



A little naive, though. There's nothing moral about war: it's the most amoral "sport" mankind has invented, and even the Bible glorifies it. If Jesus was against warfare, then all Christians should be pacifists. If not, then that's what apologetics is for: "nice" war is an oxymoron, I think.

[billy_pilgrim]

A little naive, though. There's nothing moral about war: it's the most amoral "sport" mankind has invented, and even the Bible glorifies it. If Jesus was against warfare, then all Christians should be pacifists. If not, then that's what apologetics is for: "nice" war is an oxymoron, I think. Naive? I don't know ... sounds unfortunately pragmatic to me. We follow the rule of not intentionally harming civilians or POWs, not because it is morally correct to do so, but because we believe it helps insure that our civilians and POWs are treated with equal regard.

To return discussion to the original topic at hand, what I wrote in my original post is that Hersey's book allows students to see the consequences of Truman's decision to drop the bomb from the Japanese perspective. It's a volatile topic. Some students with whom I read the book responded with openness and sympathy to Hersey's account; others responded with, "They got what they deserved." As teacher, there was no attempt on my part to influence them one way or another on the matter of was it right or wrong to drop the bomb. In fact I respect Truman's decision and do not second-guess it fifty-nine years later. However, I do think it is important that people who read the book at least sympathize with the people of whom Hersey writes. That was what most disturbed me is that some expressed no feeling at all for the suffering of these people. They may have felt sympathy and were suppressing it, but I think it's awful to be so callous to others, even the "enemy." Also, one thing Hersey's book makes clear in an understated way is that the people killed and injured by the bombs were no more an important part of the Japanese war machine than you or I are an important part of the Iraq war machine. One of his protagonists is a German Christian missionary; others were ordinary Japanese going about their daily lives one moment, and literally in the next flash of an instant, they were lying dead or horribly injured in a leveled, burning city.

[WebToaster]

That is, is it OK for our enemy to kill civilians indiscriminately, too ... or is that a right soley reserved to us, the good guys? Just because the bad guys do it, doesn't make it right.

Japan had planned a similar (albeit more devastating) attack on the west coast of the USA for August 15th 1945. Explore the subject of Germany's U-234 submarine (captured by allied navies) sending uranium oxide to Japan. Watch the history channel a lot, or explore from here:
http://www.ihffilm.com/840.html

The point in either argument is that war is quickly becoming a thing which will turn the entire face of the earch into a smoldering reckage of nuclear radiation.

[billy_pilgrim]

Japan had planned a similar (albeit more devastating) attack on the west coast of the USA for August 15th 1945. Explore the subject of Germany's U-234 submarine (captured by allied navies) sending uranium oxide to Japan. Watch the history channel a lot, or explore from here:
http://www.ihffilm.com/840.html

The point in either argument is that war is quickly becoming a thing which will turn the entire face of the earch into a smoldering reckage of nuclear radiation.
I recently heard the oral history of one of the sailors who was aboard the ship that captured the U-234, John Palmer. You should be able to listen to his story here. I think this link is available to the general public ...

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cocoon/vhp/story/loc.natlib.afc2001001.00191/ (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cocoon/vhp/story/loc.natlib.afc2001001.00191/)

He doesn't have a lot to say about it, but it inspired me to read more. We certainly were lucky that submarine never made it to Japan. It wasn't just nuclear material that the Germans were sending to Japan, either, but German rocket technology and parts, as well as the scientists who could reconstruct the German rocket program for Japan. I hadn't heard that Japan had a fixed date for some kind of nuclear strike on the U.S., though. What is your source for that?

[WebToaster]

I hadn't heard that Japan had a fixed date for some kind of nuclear strike on the U.S., though. What is your source for that?

The history channel is my source. Admittedly this may be inaccurate, but from the evidence I think there is little doubt the Japanese planned some kind of dirty bomb attack on the western USA in 1945. The captured German sub (u234) contained materials designed for a dirty bomb attack (uranium oxide) and a super-sub containing Japanese aircraft capable of carrying out the attack on San Francisco was captured at the end of the war.

The more unfortunate part is that you may interpret my post to mean unconditional support for the WW2 war goals of the USA, when in fact I meant that WAR has long since advanced to the point where it is lethal for all living creatures on the face of the earth, and is thus an activity which must be terminated, ASAP.

[Ben Franklin]

Atomic weapons don't bring that lesson home, because mankind has known it for millennia. There are no un-terrible results of war. Families are destroyed, entire races and civilizations are wiped out, people are raped and murdered: it's brutish and ugly. No good comes out of war, but it is forced upon people again and again. It's destruction of everything we hold dear, and if you feel that only atomic weapons are the true bugbears of war, you're missing the truth: war itself is hell. Campaigning against a nuclear holocaust is a short-sighted strategy, which leaves the door open for the next weapon of horror & the next weapon of horror of war, ad nauseaum: it's a never-ending battle when you choose to vilify the weapons of war and not war itself. :pray:

[WebToaster]

There are no un-terrible results of war. Families are destroyed, entire races and civilizations are wiped out, people are raped and murdered: it's brutish and ugly. No good comes out of war, but it is forced upon people again and again. It's destruction of everything we hold dear, and if you feel that only atomic weapons are the true bugbears of war, you're missing the truth: war itself is hell.

I would say the few remaining Jews and Gypsies in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany at the end of WW2 would disagree with your sweeping assessment of war. Had war not been waged upon Hitler, large portions of the world would currently be ruled by Nazi appointed fascist dictators, and the entire world population of Jews, Gypsies, et.al. would be approaching zero.

However, the viewpoint that war can actually achieve some good is quickly coming to an end as countries and groups arm themselves with nuclear, chemical, etc... weapons.

So I believe the truth actually lies in the lethality of the weapons themselves, not in the various degrees and evil nature of warfare itself.

[Vorkosigan]

Had war not been waged upon Hitler, large portions of the world would currently be ruled by Nazi appointed fascist dictators

The fact that the war was morally right does not make it less of a hell. Modern combat is absolutely destructive of human bodies, lives, and property.

One of his protagonists is a German Christian missionary; others were ordinary Japanese going about their daily lives one moment, and literally in the next flash of an instant, they were lying dead or horribly injured in a leveled, burning city.

Their "daily lives" involved supporting the Japanese war machine that was busy butchering civilians across Asia and the Pacific. Hersey glosses over uncomfortable facts. For example, the incompetence of air raid wardens at Hiroshima led them to sound the all clear too early, enabling a much higher death toll than otherwise would have occurred. It was criminal of Japan to go to war without giving thought to its civilians, and criminal to continue to keep people in cities they had been told would be destroyed -- even though we had already bombed, and partially or wholly destroyed many Japanese cities, including 14 on the list we gave them (which included Hiroshima). We certainly meant to kill civilians, but the Japanese cannot escape responsibility for their actions merely because they suffered a lot. Japan was not the victim in WWII, except in the sense that everyone in war is a victim of its madness, brutality, and stupidity.

Vorkosigan

[WebToaster]

The fact that the war was morally right does not make it less of a hell. Modern combat is absolutely destructive of human bodies, lives, and property.

I agree with your point, but this is not what Ben Franklin stated. He said:

There are no un-terrible results of war.

I'm just saying the Jews and Gypsies saved from the concentration camps at the end of WW2 would disagree with Ben Franklin. To say otherwise is to trivialize the victims of fascism.

Personally I think war is quickly becoming an activity which will turn the face of the earth into something resembling the small piece of blackened bread I just dug out of the bottom of my toaster. But to truly believe war is outdated, I must be honest in my assessment of the past failures and success in war.

So, yes, war was sometimes used for un-terrible results in the past such as the end of slavery and fascism, but the Confederates and Nazis did not have nuclear weapons, and in 100 or 200 years, everyone will be capable of mass producing nuclear weapons.

[Ben Franklin]

Hitler's, Stalin's, Hussein's (et allus) attacks on it's own citizens (and others) is a more infamous (?) form of warfare: civil (?) war... If you don't wanna call that "war", that's your right, but that's what I call it. Two wrongs don't make a right to me. Stop war before it starts, not after, that's my message to all.

[billy_pilgrim]

Their "daily lives" involved supporting the Japanese war machine that was busy butchering civilians across Asia and the Pacific. Hersey glosses over uncomfortable facts. For example, the incompetence of air raid wardens at Hiroshima led them to sound the all clear too early, enabling a much higher death toll than otherwise would have occurred. It was criminal of Japan to go to war without giving thought to its civilians, and criminal to continue to keep people in cities they had been told would be destroyed -- even though we had already bombed, and partially or wholly destroyed many Japanese cities, including 14 on the list we gave them (which included Hiroshima). We certainly meant to kill civilians, but the Japanese cannot escape responsibility for their actions merely because they suffered a lot. Japan was not the victim in WWII, except in the sense that everyone in war is a victim of its madness, brutality, and stupidity. Vorkosigan This will be a rather lengthy post. For those upset that we are off topic, I promise that near the end, I return to the subject of Hersey ...

No one escaped judgement for their actions, and no one is suggesting sympathy with the Japanese government or military. You can't blame civilians for what their government and military did, especially in a fascist dictatorship. Civilians have very little power over their government in a totalitarian state. To call them "supporters" of the war machine is like calling a slave a "supporter" of his slave master. Obviously, we recognized that truth in Iraq, else we would have simply flattened cities from the air before sending troops in to clean up the mess. Throughout the war, Bush said that our war was with Saddam Hussein and his thugs, not with the Iraqi people.

I'm not arguing with you on the point that long-running wars usually do devolve into wholesale slaughter, as World War II did. By the end of the war, there was very little concern for precision bombing because it had been proven a bedtime story told to soothe people on the homefront. Even so, the concept that civilians are and ought to be protected is still a good value worth preserving. Just because it doesn't happen very often that militaries obey that rule is no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water.

OK, next point ... the brutality of the Japanese military is a red herring in this argument. When considering the ethicality of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagsaki, it is pretty irrelevant what the Japanese government did to "deserve" the destruction of those two cities. Revenge is not much of a defense in a court of law, and it is not much of a defense in war.

And final point ... clarify something for me. You write above about Japan having a list of cities that were to be bombed. Do you mean they knew what cities we were going to hit with an atomic weapon? If so, you will have to back that up. Strategically, it would have been foolish and contrary to military practice to give out a list of targets. Also, I believe Hersey does mention the Japanese giving the all-clear too soon. The reason, I think, was that it was only one plane that flew over. They thought it was reconnaissance. Plus, bombers flew over all the time; they had no idea that this day was any different than another. On the subject of Japan being warned, here is a passage from the official military account of the decision to drop the bomb:

"Nothing would have been more damaging to our effort," wrote [Secretary of War] Stimson, "than a warning or demonstration followed by a dud-and this was a real possibility." With this went the fear expressed by Byrnes, that if the Japanese were warned that an atomic bomb would be exploded over a military target in Japan as a demonstration, "they might bring our boys who were prisoners of war to that area." http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_23.htm

[DunnySaze]

No one escaped judgement for their actions, and no one is suggesting sympathy with the Japanese government or military. You can't blame civilians for what their government and military did, especially in a fascist dictatorship. Civilians have very little power over their government in a totalitarian state.

I disagree both that civilians should recieve blanket absolution from blame and that they are powerless in a dictatorship. It's clear from the Nazi experience in Germany that a great many civilian authorities were complicit and indeed were actively in support of the atrocities committed there. True, most were simply silent, but many were active supporters.

Secondly, even in facism the rulers need the support of the people, or at the very least their apathy to what is going on around them. Hitler's program to extirpate the power of the Chuch for instance had to be reigned in due to populist revolt, as was his euthanisation program. I'm not saying the civilian population had full blame identical to that of the government and military, nor am I saying they had all the power in the world. I am saying that to say they had no power and no blame is going too far in the opposite direction, IMO.

To call them "supporters" of the war machine is like calling a slave a "supporter" of his slave master. Obviously, we recognized that truth in Iraq, else we would have simply flattened cities from the air before sending troops in to clean up the mess. Throughout the war, Bush said that our war was with Saddam Hussein and his thugs, not with the Iraqi people.

When the Guandong Army siezed Manchukuo in 1932 it was widely lauded by the Japanese civilian population. And when Prime Minister Tsuyoshi was assassinated the same year, although the perpetrators were jailed, their act was widely seen as patriotic and in Japan's best interests.

Even so, the concept that civilians are and ought to be protected is still a good value worth preserving. Just because it doesn't happen very often that militaries obey that rule is no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water.

I agree. That some civilians do support a given regime does not indict them all. They should not be painted with the same brush. Nor should they be totally exonerated, which is my main point.

And final point ... clarify something for me. You write above about Japan having a list of cities that were to be bombed. Do you mean they knew what cities we were going to hit with an atomic weapon?

I think he was talking about convential high explosive and incendary bombings. Curtis LeMay had a list of cities to bomb; Omuta, Hamamatsu, Yokkaichi, Kagoshima, Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka, Kobe, Nagoya, Kawasaki, perhaps a few others. Kyoto was off limits because of it's religious and cultural significance; Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Niigata, and Kokura were also off limits as thse cities were being reserved for the atom bomb. He did drop leaflets on some of the cities, letting them know what was coming. This not only saved lives, but was psychological warfare leading to working leaving their jobs and the economy to suffer still more.

[WebToaster]

Hitler's, Stalin's, Hussein's (et allus) attacks own it's own citizens and others is a more infamous (?) form of warfare: civil (?) war... If you don't wanna call that "war", that's your right, but that's what I call it. Two wrongs don't make a right to me. Stop war before it starts, not after, that's my message to all.

Hi Ben Franklin,

Yes, I can agree war should be stopped before it started. However, Hitler did not wage a civil war. He conquored land, then herded off the Jews and Gypsies in the occupied lands to the death camps. Stalin waged war against his own people, but also occupied the entirity of east Europe and parts of Japan and Korea. Hussein attacked Iran, Kuwait, and even had an incursion into Saudi Arabia. So I'm not sure where you get the idea their wars were limited to civil war.

[billy_pilgrim]

I disagree both that civilians should recieve blanket absolution from blame and that they are powerless in a dictatorship. It's clear from the Nazi experience in Germany that a great many civilian authorities were complicit and indeed were actively in support of the atrocities committed there. True, most were simply silent, but many were active supporters.

Secondly, even in facism the rulers need the support of the people, or at the very least their apathy to what is going on around them. Hitler's program to extirpate the power of the Chuch for instance had to be reigned in due to populist revolt, as was his euthanisation program. I'm not saying the civilian population had full blame identical to that of the government and military, nor am I saying they had all the power in the world. I am saying that to say they had no power and no blame is going too far in the opposite direction, IMO.
Oh, I agree with that. I don't necessarily absolve anyone of blame. However, there is no way to bomb only the bad civilians and leave the rest in peace. Thus, all civilians must be off limits if at all possible.

Looking at the issue another way, and speaking of our own experience, how complicit do you feel in the war in Iraq? Al Qaeda definitely feels that you are complicit in the American war machine. Do you accept that categorization, and would your death in a terrorist attack be justified and legitimate since you are a de facto supporter of American policy? I don't know whether you are a supporter of American policy, but that just proves the point. We can judge the German and Japanese civilians as props to the military regimes that rule them, but the same argument can be used against us.

Side note: Back in the mid-nineties, I read a controversial, then-new book on the complicity of the average German civilian in the Nazi regime. I think the author was someone named Daniel Goldstein or Goldberg or Goldfarb. Pretty sure about the "Daniel." No idea on a title and I can't find it doing an author search at Amazon. Does anyone remember this book? I've been trying to think of it all morning.

[DunnySaze]

Oh, I agree with that. I don't necessarily absolve anyone of blame. However, there is no way to bomb only the bad civilians and leave the rest in peace. Thus, all civilians must be off limits if at all possible.

I agree. I certainly do not advocate carpet bombing Fullujah or anything of the sort. But such theoretical positions often cannot be adhered to in the fog of war. Especially when the bad guys look like the civies. Accidents happen. Sometimes certain individuals don't get the message and it tarnishes everyone (e.g. My Lai).

Looking at the issue another way, and speaking of our own experience, how complicit do you feel in the war in Iraq? Al Qaeda definitely feels that you are complicit in the American war machine. Do you accept that categorization, and would your death in a terrorist attack be justified and legitimate since you are a de facto supporter of American policy?

I do not accept it as I am neither a) a supporter of the invasion, nor b) an American.

I don't know whether you are a supporter of American policy, but that just proves the point. We can judge the German and Japanese civilians as props to the military regimes that rule them, but the same argument can be used against us.

We can and do draw lines in the sand on a case-by-case basis. It's one thing to remain silent and do nothing, quite another to actively report on your neighbors. Don't get me wrong, there was active if ineffectual resistance in Germany by Germans too.

However bombing civilian centers simply because some of them might be active participants in the war effort is/was wrong. I do not support this, nor do I absolve all civilians in general.

Side note: Back in the mid-nineties, I read a controversial, then-new book on the complicity of the average German civilian in the Nazi regime. I think the author was someone named Daniel Goldstein or Goldberg or Goldfarb. Pretty sure about the "Daniel." No idea on a title and I can't find it doing an author search at Amazon. Does anyone remember this book? I've been trying to think of it all morning.

Daniel Goldhagen. (1996) Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust.

Other titles:

Robert Gellately (2001) Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany.

Christopher Browning (1992) Ordinary Men: Reserve Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland.

Also - Hamburg Institute for Social Research (mid 1990) Vernichtungskrieg: Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941 bis 1944, a photographic exhibit of Wehrmacht crimes.

[billy_pilgrim]

I do not accept it as I am neither a) a supporter of the invasion, nor b) an American. :blush:Sorry for my assumption that you were American. If you were American, Al Qaeda would consider you by default a legitimate target regardless of your stand on American foreign policy.


Daniel Goldhagen. (1996) Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust.
That's it ! Thank you.

[Vorkosigan]

No one escaped judgement for their actions, and no one is suggesting sympathy with the Japanese government or military. You can't blame civilians for what their government and military did, especially in a fascist dictatorship.

I don't agree. The paradox of authoritarian government is that it has no legitimacy; it rules only so long as it can suppress dissent and keep the citizenry happy. Ironically, the democracies did a better job with unpopular decisions precisely because they had legitimacy. One reason Germany was so long switching over to a war economy was precisely the Nazi's lack of legitmacy. In Japan the situation was completely different -- Japan had been Nazified back in the 1880s, and so they had been under authoritarian control for more than 50 years when the war began. Japanese authoritarianism was a lot more legitimate.

Civilians have very little power over their government in a totalitarian state. To call them "supporters" of the war machine is like calling a slave a "supporter" of his slave master.

Nevertheless, the slaves unfortunately became part of the war machine. By killing Japanese workers the war was materially shortened and Allied deaths lessened. Another reason Hiroshima had to be flattened was that it was the major transshipment point between Honshu, the main island, and Kyushu, where we were going to invade. There was never any question but that the city was going to completely wiped out and many civilians dead, the only question was when and how.

Obviously, we recognized that truth in Iraq, else we would have simply flattened cities from the air before sending troops in to clean up the mess. Throughout the war, Bush said that our war was with Saddam Hussein and his thugs, not with the Iraqi people.

He lied, though, as the thugs were quickly rehabilitated an re-installed in places of power, albeit quietly. The war was about oil and power, and more and more, I suspect, the will-to-destruction -- the petulant revenge for the illegitimacy of his own election and the fact that the electorate rejected him.

I'm not arguing with you on the point that long-running wars usually do devolve into wholesale slaughter, as World War II did. By the end of the war, there was very little concern for precision bombing because it had been proven a bedtime story told to soothe people on the homefront. Even so, the concept that civilians are and ought to be protected is still a good value worth preserving. Just because it doesn't happen very often that militaries obey that rule is no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water.

I certainly agree with that. But in WWII that was never going to happen. It started out with indiscriminate killing of civilians as a matter of policy, in China, and deteriorated from there. War is a sickness that only grows worse over time....as our own behavior in Iraq shows. The longer we occupy it, the worse out behavior will get.

OK, next point ... the brutality of the Japanese military is a red herring in this argument. When considering the ethicality of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagsaki, it is pretty irrelevant what the Japanese government did to "deserve" the destruction of those two cities. Revenge is not much of a defense in a court of law, and it is not much of a defense in war.

No, the brutality of the Japanese is the reason the Bombs were dropped. The ABomb had to be dropped because the Japanese were simply going to go on fighting and never stop, murdering and destroying their way into annihilation on a global scale. What the A-Bombs did was show the government that its plan to cause maximum destruction to invading US forces, and sacrifice its own people, would all be for nothing, for the ABombs could accomplish from the air what the Japanese yearned for on the ground, without the loss of a single US life.

And final point ... clarify something for me. You write above about Japan having a list of cities that were to be bombed. Do you mean they knew what cities we were going to hit with an atomic weapon? If so, you will have to back that up.

No, we dropped a list of 36 cities and the Japanese were warned that they would be bombed. No mention of the Abomb; no need, since we had already proved we could destroy Japanese cities at will. There are copies still extant, you can find a photo in Frank's Downfall.

Strategically, it would have been foolish and contrary to military practice to give out a list of targets.

It was done, though, over the objections of the bomber crews. Doesn't seem to have had much effect. Some children had already been evacuated. But the nature of Japanese industry was such that it could not be dispersed like the Germans did in response to Allied bombing.

Also, I believe Hersey does mention the Japanese giving the all-clear too soon.

Really? I haven't read that book in a long time.....that's what I get!

Vorkosigan

[billy_pilgrim]

A couple quick words, and then I think I've said all I can say ...

He lied, though, as the thugs were quickly rehabilitated an re-installed in places of power, albeit quietly. The war was about oil and power, and more and more, I suspect, the will-to-destruction -- the petulant revenge for the illegitimacy of his own election and the fact that the electorate rejected him. He didn't lie about not targeting civilians. There was no deliberate, indiscriminate targeting of civilians. "Precision bombing" and other such euphemisms may be as useless today as in 1945, but I don't believe there was ever any intention on our part to actually target civilians, as there was in World War II.

I certainly agree with that. But in WWII that was never going to happen. It started out with indiscriminate killing of civilians as a matter of policy, in China, and deteriorated from there. War is a sickness that only grows worse over time....as our own behavior in Iraq shows. The longer we occupy it, the worse out behavior will get. Yes. Thankfully, things are looking better and better for the June 30 handover. Sistani just today endorsed the new government. We'll see how it goes, but we do need to leave as soon as possible while fulfilling our responsibilities to the Iraqis.

No, the brutality of the Japanese is the reason the Bombs were dropped. The ABomb had to be dropped because the Japanese were simply going to go on fighting and never stop, murdering and destroying their way into annihilation on a global scale. What the A-Bombs did was show the government that its plan to cause maximum destruction to invading US forces, and sacrifice its own people, would all be for nothing, for the ABombs could accomplish from the air what the Japanese yearned for on the ground, without the loss of a single US life. Well, there is a difference between "brutality" and the will to fight. It's a small distinction. But I would maintain that on the level of our present debate, Japanese genocide in China, Japanese kamikaze attacks, Japanese treatment of POWs (all clear evidence of brutality) are separate and irrelevant to the issue of whether to drop the bomb on them. I don't dispute their will to fight (or their brutality, for that matter). The bombs were dropped because the Japanese would not give up otherwise--and it took two bombs to do it, which is inexcusable of the Japanese government, in my opinion.

It was done, though, over the objections of the bomber crews. Doesn't seem to have had much effect. Some children had already been evacuated. But the nature of Japanese industry was such that it could not be dispersed like the Germans did in response to Allied bombing. OK. I don't need to check your source. You sound knowledgable to me, so I'll defer to your assessment. I would have sided with the bomber crews on that issue, though.

Really? I haven't read that book in a long time.....that's what I get! Well, someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I read it and taught it two years ago. It's been awhile for me, too.

[Ben Franklin]

Hi Ben Franklin,

Yes, I can agree war should be stopped before it started. However, Hitler did not wage a civil war. He conquored land, then herded off the Jews and Gypsies in the occupied lands to the death camps. Stalin waged war against his own people, but also occupied the entirity of east Europe and parts of Japan and Korea. Hussein attacked Iran, Kuwait, and even had an incursion into Saudi Arabia. So I'm not sure where you get the idea their wars were limited to civil war.

It's not an exclusive argument. You pointed out there were no "un-terrible" results of war, and I'm pointing out the terrible things that were happening, in Iraq, for example, were caused by Hussein's war on his own people: the U.S. invasion is just another war of aggression adding more suffering to it's own and Iraq's people. Going to war against against another bully just means that even more people are gonna suffer, it deosn't stop what Hussein already did. Better he never did it, that's my point. If you'd like a more clear example (albeit ficticious), view Kurosawa's "Shichinin no Samurai" (Seven Samurai) to see what "good" result came out of their "just war" vs. a Japanese Hussein.

[WebToaster]

It's not an exclusive argument. You pointed out there were no "un-terrible" results of war, and I'm pointing out the terrible things that were happening, in Iraq, for example, were caused by Hussein's war own his own people: the U.S. invasion is just another war of aggression adding more suffering to it's own and Iraq's people. Going to war against against another bully just means that even more people are gonna suffer, it deosn't stop what Hussein already did. Better he never did it, that's my point. If you'd like a more clear example (albeit ficticious), view Kurosawa's "Shichinin no Samurai" (Seven Samurai) to see what "good" result came out of their "just war" vs. a Japanese Hussein.

No, no, no.... I argued there WERE (historically) un-terrible results of war. There still remains the item which you have left unanswered: Do you suppose the Jews and Gypsies saved from the concentration camps at the end of WW2 would say there were no un-terrible results of war? I would hazard to guess they would say war saved their lives. The war on Hitler saved millions and millions of lives. Was the war on Hitler wrong? You seem to write this off as a 'civil war' in Germany alone, but suppose the person saved was from Poland. Are you ready to say he/she should have died of starvation, or Nazi gas rather than to upset your notion of peace?

If you still have sovereignty of a plethora of nations, then war against each nation grows more and more dangerous to the entire human race. That's my point. Under the current system of sovereignty of 'bullies' we are obliged to let each bully kill thousands, or millions before some sort of international outrage reaches a peak and the UN confronts the bully. That is, unless the 'bully' sits on the security council, where they could veto any outrage of their mass executions. And there is always the possibility that the bully could produce a pause in UN actions while they completed the genocide. (Care for any examples?)

[Ben Franklin]

Do you suppose the Jews and Gypsies saved from the concentration camps at the end of WW2 would say there were no un-terrible results of war



Hitler waged war on ther aforementioned ethnic groups, and many died. Yes, this is a terrible result of war. It's that simple. If you have to kill people to stop others from being killed, that's also terrible. Stop the madness now...!