- This topic has 6 voices and 24 replies.
-
Posts
-
…or “why dropping the atomic bomb was justified”The Nanking Massacre aka The Rape of Nanking
In December of 1937, the Japanese Imperial Army marched into China's capital city of Nanking and proceeded to murder 300,000 out of 600,000 civilians and soldiers in the city. The six weeks of carnage would become known as the Rape of Nanking and represented the single worst atrocity during the World War II era in either the European or Pacific theaters of war.
After the destruction of the POWs, the soldiers turned their attention to the women of Nanking and an outright animalistic hunt ensued. Old women over the age of 70 as well as little girls under the age of 8 were dragged off to be sexually abused. More than 20,000 females (with some estimates as high as 80,000) were gang-raped by Japanese soldiers, then stabbed to death with bayonets or shot so they could never bear witness.Pregnant women were not spared. In several instances, they were raped, then had their bellies slit open and the fetuses torn out. Sometimes, after storming into a house and encountering a whole family, the Japanese forced Chinese men to rape their own daughters, sons to rape their mothers, and brothers their sisters, while the rest of the family was made to watch.
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/nanking_massacre.htmThere were 300,000 deaths or about 1/2 the population of Nanking. More than the combined deaths of the 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japan which ended the war. Hiroshima-approx 140,000 deaths; Nagasaki-approx 70,000
I'd never heard of this. Just another horrible chapter in mans history. No one is innocent are they?
I was always more interested in the European theatre of WWll. Just recently started learning more about the Pacific side. The Japanese, during that war, were far more brutal than the Germans. I read that, when they captured an American, they would tie him to a tree, stab him repeatedly with their bayonet, then decapitate him. (now I know where the Islamic Jihadists got their ideas).
Not to sound like I am stereo typing but it is interesting how some cultures have no problem with being cruel.
Agree. I don't think you're stereotyping, Stumpfoot, that's just the way it is unforunately. The similarities between the Japanese of WWll and modern day Jihadists surprised me. Education, training, warped religious interpretations, etc.
I had heard of the Rape of Nanking before when I saw an author discuss her book about it which came out a few years ago (unfortunately she was mentally unstable and Iris Changcommit suicide [/wiki]within the last year or two).I don't, however, think that anything of the sort would be a “justification” for dropping the bomb. Whether or not it was in fact justified – which I'm not certain of – I don't think that viciousness on the part of one group morally enables a similar viciousness onto that group and others associated with it. I think that war can only be waged in light of the common good rather than according to a rationale which seeks to punish.
Phid, it is a moral “tightrope”. 😕 Interesting you used the word punish. I think punishment is justified in some circumstances. It ended the war. If it didn't end, I'd have more of a moral problem with the use of atomic bombs. Or maybe it's because I'm just a warmonger. 😐
Let me put it this way – you punish people, and you punish countries, but you don't do it through war. If Japanese soldiers were guilty of their actions, then they should be brought to justice through established means. This differs from vengeance. I think if war is ever used for as a means of punishment then the worst of humanity would be experienced.
I've tried and tried to agree with the justifications of the nuclear bombing of Japan, and I just cannot ultimately come to grips with it. Did the dropping of atomic bombs save American lives….probably…..could we have waited a little bit longer to see if Japan would surrrender? Yes I believe we could have. The Japanese were already sending out feelers for conditional surrender. Could we have lived with a conditional surrender? I'm sure we could have. Everything worked out okay, but did we have the right to use such destructive power on a nation who was basically already beaten militarily? I value Japanese life as much as I do American life from a Christian point of view. Now if the bombs were used to destroy military targets instead of civilian areas, I would have no problems with the attack. The bottom line though to me is that Japan was all but beaten and one bomb should have been enough much less than two. I feel we used Hiroshima and Nagasaki to send Russia a message not to try and take any more European territory in the wake of the Nazi surrender. Part of me feels that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also revenge for Pearl Harbor and Bataan. Not justifiable in my book.
Perhaps we could just say America was immature at the dawn of the nuclear age, and gave in to the temptation of trying out its new toy. Granted Truman wanted to hasten the end of the war and shock the Russians into foregoing their territorial ambitions, but it might be too easy to criticize looking back on a situation that cannot be recreated. Maybe Truman made the best decision he could based on the information he had at the time. Then again, maybe there was racial hatred of the Japanese for Pearl Harbor and Bataan. Historians will never come to a consensus on this issue, and if they could, would they be genuine enough in their findings to leave a posterity of intellectual honesty for the rest of us? I somehow doubt it. Revisionism will always be with us I'm afraid. 🙁
Donnie you bring up some good points. I'm not certain of the morality of Truman's actions, though now after sixty years to reflect on it I think that we know much better now. The indiscriminate killing of tens of thousands is obviously the biggest hurdle any moral analysis would have to face. And you are right – the lives of the Japanese were worth as much as the lives of the Americans. This is why war cannot be fought in the spirit of vengeance, but must be part of a goal for the common good.
Though all to often man is not qualified to judge what is the common good. I can say for a certainty those Japanese did not see it that way. And all those women and children who died had nothing to do with pearl harbor.Does anyone know if those numbers for Nagasaki and Hiroshama include those who got sick and died from the fallout after the initail blast?
Does anyone know if those numbers for Nagasaki and Hiroshama include those who got sick and died from the fallout after the initail blast?
I do not believe so. I think those numbers mentioned resulted from the initial blasts.
Though all to often man is not qualified to judge what is the common good. I can say for a certainty those Japanese did not see it that way. And all those women and children who died had nothing to do with pearl harbor.
I think, though, that man can judge what is the common good through the use of his reason. The common good might include destruction on a people or their property. In any just war this could be the case (if military activity in Iraq/Afghanistan were merely done to benefit defense contractors, for example, it would be unjust and we should not support it). However, I'm not certain that dropping the atomic bombs on Japan were moral actions, and Donnie mentioned some good reasons why it might not have been.
