How should we think about war? Understanding Just War Theory

June 22, 2015Matthew BeardUniversity of New South Wales

Broadly speaking, when it comes to war, there are three moral positions available to us.

We can adopt the pacifist position of rejecting the morality of war at all; the realist position that sees war not as a moral enterprise, but as a function of amoral national interest; or the just war position that, under certain conditions, war may be morally permissible, or even necessary.

Most people, even if unaware of it, adopt a form of Just War Theory (JWT), which has informed international law and is frequently invoked by political leaders in discussions of war.

JWT has a long history. In the West it can be traced back at least as far as St. Augustine of Hippo, who lived in the 4th century, though there are traces of these ideas in Aristotle’s writing as well. Traditionally, JWT comprises of two separate areas: jus ad bellum, and jus in bello, each of which corresponds to a different aspect of the ethics of war: the pre-war considerations, and the conduct of war.

Pre-war considerations

Jus ad bellum is concerned with those matters that are necessary in order for the decision to go to war to be a morally good or permissible one. For this reason, it has typically been considered the domain of political leaders. Jus ad bellum comprises of several conditions, each of which have to be satisfied for it to be morally justifiable to engage in war.

The conditions include: just cause, right intention, legitimate authority, and proportionality and probability of success.

Just cause is usually considered the most important criterion of jus ad bellum. It requires, simply, that political communities may wage war only in response to serious wrongdoing.

The most common justification for war is the crime of aggression – the violation of the political sovereignty or territorial integrity of another political community. (Indeed, recent movements have argued that states have a responsibility to protect the victims of aggression).

Right intention requires that the reasons that justify the war also be the reasons why the political leaders commit to military action. This matters mainly because to accept the huge moral harms of war for some lesser goal is vicious, but also because wrongly-intended wars are more likely to justify other moral violations.

Bolded Definitions:

UndertakingCorruptAcceptable

Responsibility

Principle

Rule

Abuses

1

Legitimate authority is a requirement that aims to minimize the frequency with which war occurs, and regulate its declaration by requiring that only the authorized leaders of political communities can authorize war.

Proportionality and probability of success recognize the harm that even just wars can inflict on the global community and on the innocent. It therefore requires that political leaders can reasonably anticipate that the general, impartial state of affairs will be better off if war is engaged in rather than if it is not.

Disproportionate wars cause more harm on the general community than they prevent, and this is no more true than in cases where war is fought against impossible odds. Thus, war can only be just if we can reasonably anticipate achieving success.

Conduct of war

Jus in bello regards the morally correct ways in which war can be waged. It is therefore seen as relevant to warfighters and their officers than to politicians, although the political leadership should never encourage or authorize actions (such as torture) that violate in bello norms.

The first of the principles that JWT insists be upheld [during] war is that of discrimination. Crucially, warfighters may never intentionally attack a person who is innocent. Conventionally, this has been understood to mean that only enemy combatants may be targeted, and that civilians must never be intentionally harmed…

…But JWT holds that an attack that aims to kill legitimate targets but also kills civilians as an unintended side-effect may be morally acceptable. The idea here is that collateral damage may at times be inescapable in war, and that when collateral damage is reasonably guarded against but still cannot be avoided, the attackers are not morally responsible for those deaths because they were unintended. The deaths are, morally speaking, tragic, but not ones that a person ought to be punished for.

Intentionally targeting civilians, by contrast, is a profound moral and legal offence, and ought to be punished with the full force of the law.

And finally, there’s the question of proportionality. As with the ad bellum version, proportionality requires that the force used by warfighters not be excessive to the goals of their operation. It prevents the use of unnecessarily harmful force.

Bolded Definitions:

Control

PredictNormal/regular

Applicable

Serious

2

Document A

Document Note: The following are articles from the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles was the peace treaty that brought World War I to an end. It was signed on June 28, 1919. As part of the treaty, countries on the losing side of the war were forced to agree to specific terms and conditions. The following articles of the Treaty of Versailles applied to Germany. The title of the document is “Articles of Treaty of Versailles.”

87) Germany recognizes the complete independence of Poland. 119) Germany surrenders all her rights and titles over her overseas countries. 159) The German military forces shall be demobilized and reduced not to exceed 100,000 men. 198) The Armed Forces of Germany must not include any military or naval air forces. 231) Germany and her Allies accept the responsibility for causing all the loss and damage to the Allied Powers. 233) Germany will pay [reparations for all damage] done to the civilian population and property of the Allied Governments. [The figure was later set at $33 billion]. 428) To guarantee the execution of the Treaty, the German territory situated to the west of the Rhine River will be occupied by Allied troops for fifteen years.

Document B

Document Note: The following is a map of Europe before and after World War I. The title of the document is “Europe, 1914 and 1923.”

 

3

Document C

Document Note: The following is a speech that Adolf Hitler gave on May 17, 1933, to denounce the Treaty of Versailles.

…All of the problems causing today’s unrest lie anchored in the deficiencies of the Peace Treaty…

…It is not wise to deprive a people of the economic resources necessary for its existence without taking into consideration the fact that the population…will have to be fed. The idea that the economic extermination1 of a nation of sixty-five million would be of service to other nations is absurd… The very idea of reparations…will become a classic example…of how…welfare can be damaged by hasty action.

…The millions of our unemployed constitute2 the final consequence of this development. This is because deliveries of goods in the magnitude3 in question are not conceivable4 without acute danger to the continued existence of the people…

  …The plan of restoring a general international sense of justice was [also] destroyed by the Treaty.

 …Germany had to be branded as the guilty party…This would mean that in future, the vanquished will always bear the blame for conflicts, for the victor will always be in a position to simply establish this as a fact…

 …Germany has disarmed. It has fulfilled the obligations imposed upon it in the Peace Treaty to an extent far beyond the limits of what can be deemed fair or even reasonable. Its army consists of 100,000 men. The strength and character of its police is internationally regulated…

 …According to the information of the League of Nations, France alone has 3,046 aircraft in service while Belgium has 350, Poland 700, and Czechoslovakia 670. In addition, there are innumerable5 quantities of reserve aircraft, thousands of armored vehicles, thousands of pieces of heavy artillery, and all of the technical means required to conduct warfare with chemical gases…

 …The only nation which has reason to fear an invasion is the German nation, which is not only barred from having offensive weapons, but even restricted in its right to possess defensive weapons and prohibited from erecting fortifications on its borders…

 …Now at least we have become acquainted with the consequences and effects of [the Treaty]. Millions of lives destroyed, entire trades ruined, and an enormous army of unemployed-an inconsolable6 wretchedness, the extent and depth of which I would like to convey to the rest of the world today in a single figure: Since the day when this Treaty was signed, which was, as a work of peace…there have been 224,000 [Germans], who have chosen to take their own lives-men and women, young and old alike!...May this also serve to make the other nations understand Germany's unshakable will and determination to finally put an end to an era of human aberration7 in order to find the way to an ultimate consensus of all on the basis of equal rights. 

1 Slaughter2 Form3 Large size4 Possible5 Countless6 Devastating/heart-broken7 Irregularity

4

Document D

Document Note: This is an excerpt from the “Treaty of London,” which was signed in 1915 during World War I. The signers of the treaty included England, France, and Italy.

ARTICLE 2. On her part, Italy undertakes to use her entire resources for the purpose of waging war jointly with France, Great Britain, and Russia against all their enemies.

ARTICLE 4. Under the Treaty of Peace, Italy shall obtain the Trentino, Cisalpine Tyrol with its geographical and natural frontier, as well as Trieste, the counties of Gorizia and Gradisca, all Istria as far as the Quarnero and including Volosca and the Istrian islands of Cherso and Lussin, as well as the small islands of Plavnik, Unie, Canidole, Palazzuoli, San Pietro di Nembi, Asinello, Gruica, and the neighbouring islets....

ARTICLE 5. Italy shall also be given the province of Dalmatia within its present administrative boundaries....

ARTICLE 6. Italy shall receive full sovereignty over Valona, the island of Saseno and surrounding territory....

ARTICLE 8. Italy shall receive entire sovereignty over the Dodecanese Islands which she is at present occupying.

Document E

Document Note: The following is an excerpt from the article entitled, “Wilson Rejects Treaty of London, but Leaves Door Open,” which was published in 1919 in the New York Times. The article was published amid the Paris Peace Conference, which is the event at which The Treaty of Versailles was signed. The Treaty of Versailles was the peace treaty that brought World War I to an end. It was signed on June 28, 1919. As part of the treaty, signing countries had to abide by the clauses of the document.

It can be asserted very positively that the position of the Government of the United States is …that it will leave no doubt in the minds of the Allied Premiers as to the attitude of the President in rigid 8opposition to…the “secret” Treaty of London…

President Wilson is not disposed9 to engage in further argument over the matter with the allies. His reply will permit no…enforcement of the pact of London.

Document F

Document Note: The following is an excerpt from a speech that Benito Mussolini delivered on 8 Strong9 Willing

October 2, 1935. Mussolini was the fascist dictator that took control of Italy during the 1920s. He delivered the speech right before Italy invaded the African country of Ethiopia.

It is not only an army marching towards its goal, but it is forty-four million Italians marching in unity behind this army. Because the blackest of injustices is being attempted against them, that of taking from them their place in the sun. When in 1915 Italy threw in her fate with that of the Allies, how many cries of admiration, how many promises were heard? But after the common victory, which cost Italy six hundred thousand dead, four hundred thousand lost, one million wounded, when peace was being discussed around the table only the crumbs of a rich colonial booty were left for us to pick up. For thirteen years we have been patient while the circle tightened around us at the hands of those who wish to suffocate us.

We have been patient with Ethiopia for forty years. It is enough now.

The League of Nations, instead of recognizing the rights of Italy, dares talk of sanctions10, but until there is proof…I refuse to believe that the people of France will join in supporting sanctions against Italy.

And until there is proof…I refuse to believe that the people of Britain will want to spill blood and send Europe into a catastrophe11 for the sake of a barbarian country12, unworthy of ranking among civilized nations.

To economic sanctions, we shall answer with our discipline, our spirit of sacrifice, our obedience. To military sanctions, we shall answer with military measures. To acts of war, we shall answer with acts of war…

…Italy! Italy! entirely and universally Fascist! The Italy of the fascist revolution, rise to your feet; let the cry of your determination rise to the skies and reach our soldiers in East Africa. Let it be a comfort to those who are about to fight. Let it be an encouragement to our friends and a warning to our enemies. It is the cry of Italy which goes beyond the mountains and the seas out into the great world. It is the cry of justice and of victory.

Document G

Document Note: The following is a political cartoon from 1898. The title of the cartoon is “China, the Cake of Kings and Emperors.” Those sitting at the table represent Britain, Germany, Russia, France, and Japan.

10 A penalty for disobeying a rule or law11 War12 Ethiopia

Document H

Document Note: This is an excerpt from the “First Open Door Note,” and was written by John Hay in 1899. The “Open Door” refers to a trade policy regarding China that the United States hoped to establish with other World Powers such as Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and Japan.

When the Government of the United States was informed by Germany that it had leased13 [a Chinese port], assurances were given to the ambassador of the United States at Berlin by the German minister for foreign affairs that the rights and privileges insured by treaties with China to citizens of the United States would not suffer or be impaired within the area over which Germany had obtained control.

Wanting to remove any cause of irritation and to insure the commerce14 of all nations in China, [there should be] a formal recognition by the various powers claiming "spheres of interest" that they shall enjoy perfect equality of treatment for their commerce within such "spheres."

The…desired declaration of intentions…[will] insure the benefits of equality of treatment of all foreign trade throughout China.

Document I

Document Note: The following is a clause that the Japanese government proposed to be added to the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles was the peace treaty that brought World War I to an end. It was signed on June 28, 1919. As part of the treaty, signing countries had to abide by the clauses of the document. Upon reading the clause proposed by the Japanese, all Western Power unanimously rejected the inclusion of the clause.

The equality of nations being a basic principle of the League of Nations, the High Contracting Parties agree to accord15 as soon as possible to all states, members of the League, equal and just treatment in every respect making no distinction, either in law or in fact, on account of their race or nationality.

Document J

13 Rented14 Business/trade15 Grant/provide

Document Note: The following is a speech given by Japanese ambassador, Hiroshi Saito. In summer of 1931, Japan invaded Manchuria, a region in China. World leaders viewed the invasion as a sign of Japanese aggression, and condemned the attack. In response to the global outcry, Saito provided the following response.

The conflict in the Far East16 is by no means as simple in origin as some Europeans and Americans seem to think. The trouble did not begin last July. It is a result of the condition of China, which has caused the invasion of foreign armies for more than a century, and is the reason for the presence there today of British, French, Italian, Dutch, and American troops. If China’s house were in order there would be no need for…Japan’s present action…

…The present conflict has been forced upon Japan, and Japan wants it to end as quickly as possible. But she is determined to end it in a way so decisive that a situation like the present can never recur…

…Prince Konoye, Foreign Minister Hirota and War Minister Sugiyama have all stated that Japan is not bent on conquest and has no desire to detach or annex any part of China. What our government and people want is peace and security in the Far East.

Document K

Document Note: The following article in entitled “Japanese Ambassador Notifies Washington, Naval Limits Ended,” which was published in the Madera Tribune on December 29, 1934. At the time, world powers were meeting in Washington D.C. to renew naval limits that had been set previously in 1922. Naval limits dictated how many ships a country’s navy could have.

The Japanese government today in a note of approximately 100 words, abrogated17 the Washington naval limitation treaty. The Japanese ambassador, Hiroshi Saito, called upon Secretary of Stale Cordell Hull at noon and handed him the brief note terminating the treaty as of December 31. At the same time Japan called for new agreements to reduce armaments and promised cooperation in maintaining peace in the Pacific. But Saito said the new agreements must give Japan equality instead of the short end of the 5-5-3 ratio18 provided under the Washington treaty of 1922…

This action paved the way for passing into history the famous 5-5-3 naval ratios for the United States, Great Britain and Japan set up under the Washington treaty. It removed the voluntary undertakings of the three governments not to fortify19 their possessions or colonies in the Pacific.

Document

Document Note: The following is an excerpt from a Neville Chamberlain speech that was given on March 17, 1939. Chamberlain was the prime minister of Britain and was 16 Invasion of Manchuria 17 Abolished18 A clause of the 1922 Naval Treaty that limited the number of ships the Japanese could have in their navy, which limited their reach in the Pacific 19 Strengthen

commenting on the purpose of his foreign policy and the relationship it created with Germany during the 1930s. Remember, Czechoslovakia was created as a result of the Treaty of Versailles and part of the country used to belong to Germany.

When I decided to go to Germany I never expected…to escape criticism. Indeed, I did not go there to get popularity. I went there first and foremost…to offer the only chance of averting20 a European war. And I might remind you that, when it was first announced that I was going, not a voice was raised in criticism…It was only later, when it appeared that the results of the final settlement fell short of the expectations…that the attack began, and even then it was not the visit, it was the terms of settlement that were disapproved.

I have never denied that the terms which I was able to secure at Munich were not those that I…desired. But, as I explained then…this was something that had existed ever since the Treaty of Versailles - a problem that ought to have been solved long ago if only the statesmen of the last twenty years had taken broader and more enlightened views of their duty.

After all, the first and the most immediate object of my visit was achieved. The peace of Europe was saved; and, if it had not been for those visits, hundreds of thousands of families would today have been in mourning21 for the flower of Europe's best manhood. I would like once again to express my grateful thanks to all those correspondents who have written me from all over the world to express their gratitude and their appreciation of what I did.

Really I have no need to defend my visits to Germany last autumn, for what was the alternative? Nothing that we could have done, nothing that France could have done, or Russia could have done could possibly have saved Czechoslovakia from invasion and destruction. Even if we had subsequently gone to war to punish Germany for her actions, and if after the frightful losses which would have been inflicted upon all partakers in the war we had been victorious in the end, never could we have reconstructed Czechoslovakia as she was framed22 by the Treaty of Versailles.

But I had another purpose, too, in going to Munich. That was to further the policy which I have been pursuing ever since I have been in my present position-a policy which is sometimes called European appeasement...If that policy were to succeed, it was essential that no Power should seek to obtain a general domination23 of Europe; but that each one should be contented to obtain reasonable facilities24 for developing its own resources, securing its own share of international trade, and improving the conditions of its own people. I hoped in going to Munich to find out by personal contact what was in Herr Hitler's mind, and whether it was likely that he would be willing to co-operate in a program of that kind.…He repeated what he had already said - namely, that this was the last of his territorial ambitions in Europe.

Well, in view of those repeated assurances, given voluntarily to me, I considered myself justified in founding a hope upon them that once this Czechoslovakian question was settled, as it seemed at Munich it would be, it would be possible to carry farther that policy of appeasement which I have described.

20 Avoiding 21 Grieving 22 Created23 Control24 Space/territory

Document

Document Note: The following is an excerpt from General Hans von Seeckt’s book, Thoughts of a Soldier, which was published in 1928. von Seeckt was a German officer who served in World War I and theorized what the future of warfare would entail.

In brief, the whole future of warfare appears to me to lie in the employment of mobile armies, relatively small but of high quality, and rendered distinctly more effective by the addition of aircraft, and in the simultaneous mobilization of the whole forces, either to feed the attack or for home defense.

Document

Document Note: The following excerpts are from Tom Wintringham’s book, New Ways of War, which was published in 1940. Wintringham was a British soldier who evaluated German tactics during World War II.

Excerpt 1

Blitzkrieg tactics and strategy are almost entirely developed with the idea of escaping from the trench deadlock25 that held the armies between August, 1914, and March, 1918. We can only grasp the essence of the Blitzkrieg if we realize that it is an opposite to, a reaction against, the war of trenches that otherwise condemns armies to practical uselessness.

Excerpt 2

One thing admitted by all observers of the German attacks is that they use most of their bombers as a flying artillery26. The second thing that enters into the German formula of warfare, all observers agree, is the use of heavy tanks, so powerfully armored that they are not vulnerable to light anti-tank weapons.

The third main factor in the success of the German tactics and strategy is that they have employed and developed "deep infiltration." This means that their army does not hit like a fist, but like long probing fingers with armored finger-nails. Each separate claw seeks a weak spot; if it can drive through this weak spot. It relies upon surprise, upon the disorganization of its opponents due to the fact that it has broken through to the rear of their position.

Document

Document Note: The following is an excerpt from Hugh Byas’ article, “Japan Quits League to ‘Insure Peace,’” which was published in the New York Times on March 27, 1933. After Japan invaded Manchuria, the League of Nations condemned Japan’s 25 Stalemate/gridlock 26 Weapons used to target enemies from afar

attack and asked the country to remove its troops from Manchuria. The following excerpt details Japan’s response to the request.

March 27 – Count Yasuya Uchida, the Foreign Minister, notified the League of Nations today of Japan’s decision to withdraw because of “irreconcilable27” differences with the League over Manchuria.

It is assumed that the cause of the [resignation] was the League’s failure to grasp actual conditions in the Far East…By losing Japan, the League becomes in effect chiefly a European combination. Viewing this result, the League members have occasion to consider whether they have chosen the best way to discharge28 their mission of securing world peace, it declares. The League’s failure resulted both from defective dealing with Far Eastern peoples and a defective system.

Document

Document Note: The following is an excerpt from a Neville Chamberlain speech, which was delivered on June 10, 1936. Chamberlain was the prime minister of Britain and was commenting on Italy’s recent invasion of Ethiopia.

I would like to make a few observations upon events of the last twelve months and their effect upon the League of Nations and the policy of collective security…which…have given…such disappointing results. 

The circumstances in which the dispute between Italy and Abyssinian29 began appeared to offer an opportunity for the exercise of that policy which could hardly be more favorable for its success. The aggression was…flagrant30, and there was hardly any country to which it appeared that a policy of sanctions31 could be exercised with a greater chance of success than upon Italy.

That policy has been tried out and it has failed to prevent war, failed to stop war, failed to save the victim of the aggression. 

There is no reason why…we should…abandon the idea of the League and give up the ideals for which the League stands. But if we have retained any vestige of common sense, surely we must admit that we have tried to impose upon the League a task which it was beyond its powers to fulfil.

Document

Document Note: The following is an excerpt from Bennett Clark’s speech, “Defense of the First Neutrality Act,” which was given in December 1935. Clark was a 27 Unsolvable 28 Carry out29 Ethiopia30 Obvious31 Restrictions, such as economic, or trade related

democratic senator from Missouri and a supporter of American “neutrality acts” which were passed throughout 1930.

At the present, the desire to keep the United States from becoming involved in any war between foreign nations seems unanimous32 among…American citizens; but it must be remembered there was an…equally strong demand to keep us out of the last war…

…In the light of that experience, and in the red glow of war fires burning in the old countries, it is high time we gave some thought to the hard, practical question of just how we propose to stay out of present and future international conflicts…We know that however strong is the will of the American people to refrain from mixing in other people’s quarrels, that will can be made effective only if we have a sound, definite policy from the beginning....

Some of us in the Senate, particularly the members of the Munitions33 Investigation Committee, have delved rather deeply into the matter of how the United States has been drawn into past wars…As a result of these studies, Senator Nye and I introduced…neutrality legislation…

Senator Nye and I made no claims then, and make none now, that the neutrality proposals will provide an absolute…guarantee against our involvement in war. But we do believe that the United States can stay out of war if it wants to, and if its citizens understand what is necessary to preserve our neutrality.

…Reports from centers of manufacturing and exporting of war implements34 all tell the story: there is a boom in war preparations…Cities with large war-materials plants proudly report reemployment of skilled munitions makers in large numbers, the stepping up of output to as high as three hundred per cent, the rushing to completion of new additions to plants, day-and-night shifts in the brass and copper mills, rising prices and large shipments of these metals, and the acquisition of large capital for immediate wartime scale production…

…There is no proof that the munitions makers are trying to "beat the embargo" which will prohibit shipments to belligerents35 after November 29th, but it stands to reason they are. It needs no stretch of imagination to contemplate the rich profits that would flow from an Italian-Ethiopian war, with England jumping into the fray against Italy, and other European nations following suit on one side or the other.

"But, think of the profits!" cry our theorists. "America will never give up her lucrative36 trade in munitions and necessities of life when war starts!"....

Just who profited from the last war? Labor got some of the crumbs in the form of high wages and steady jobs. But where is labor to-day with its fourteen million unemployed? Agriculture received high prices for its products during the period of the 32 Agreed upon33 Weapons 34 Instruments/tools35 Any nation at war36 Profitable

War and has been paying the price of that brief inflation in the worst and longest agricultural depression in all history. Industry made billions in furnishing the necessities of war to the belligerents and then suffered terrific re-action like the dope addict’s morning after. War and depression—ugly, misshapen inseparable twins—must be considered together. Each is a catapult for the other. The present world-wide depression is a direct result of the World War. Every war in modern history has been followed by a major depression.

Document

Document Note: The following is an excerpt from a Time Magazine article that was published on August 28, 1939. The author and title are unknown.

Late Sunday night, the Soviet Government revealed a pact37, not with Great Britain, not with France, but with Germany. Germany would give the Soviet Union…German machinery and armaments38, [and Germany] would buy from the Soviet Union 180,000.000 marks' worth ($72,000,000) of wheat, timber, iron ore, petroleum in the next two years. And at Monday midnight the official German news agency announced from Berlin:

"The Government of the Reich and the Soviet Government have decided to conclude a non-aggression pact with each other. The Reich’s minister of Foreign Affairs, von Ribbentrop, will arrive in Moscow on Wednesday to conclude the negotiations."

To the bewilderment39 of almost everybody else in the world…the announcement was confirmed in Moscow next morning. Russia had got into a peace pact, but not with the nations she had been doing the public dickering40 with.

[The reasons]…which made this…team…[are] at least understandable:

1) Russia wanted as much peace as she could get…If she joined the Allies, it might work out that she had balanced the European war scales; joining Germany tipped them.

2) Russia, while suspicious of Germany, was suspicious of the democracies.

Document

Document Note: The following is an excerpt from Joachim von Ribbentrop’s book, Memoirs, which was published in 1953. von Ribbentrop was Germany’s Minister of Foreign Affairs.

To seek a settlement with Russia was my very own idea which I urged on Hitler because I sought to create a counter-weight to the West and because I wanted to ensure Russian neutrality in the event of a German-Polish conflict (Poland is between German and the U.S.S.R)…

37 Treaty38 Weaponry39 Shock40 Bargaining

…Stalin spoke - briefly, precisely, without many words; but what he said was clear and unambiguous and showed that he, too, wished to reach a settlement and understanding with Germany. Stalin used the significant phrase that although we had 'poured buckets of filth' over each other for years there was no reason why we should not make up our quarrel.

Document A

Document Note: The following is an excerpt from a letter that Winston Churchill sent to FDR on December 7, 1940. Churchill was the Prime Minister of Great Britain and led the country throughout World War II. In the letter, he describes Britain’s current condition during World War II.

As we reach the end of this year I feel that you will expect me to lay before you the prospects for 1941. I do so strongly and confidently because it seems to me that the vast majority of American citizens [believe] that the safety of the United States…[is] bound with the survival of the British Commonwealth. Only thus can…the Atlantic Ocean be preserved in faithful and friendly hands.

The danger of Great Britain being destroyed by a swift overwhelming blow has for the time been receded. In its place, there is a gradually maturing danger, less sudden and less spectacular but equally deadly. This mortal danger is the diminution of sea tonnage...Unless we can establish our ability…to import munitions of all kinds…we may fall…

…Our estimation of the annual tonnage which ought to be imported in order to maintain our war effort at full strength 43,000,000 tons; the tonnage entering in September was only at the rate of 37,000,000 tons and in October at 38,000,000 tons…

…It is indispensable that the merchant tonnage available…for the waging of the war by Great Britain should be substantially increased beyond the one and a quarter million tons per annum which is the utmost we can now build. Only the United States can supply this need....

…Moreover we look to the industrial energy of the [U.S.] for a reinforcement of our capacity to manufacture combat aircraft. Without that reinforcement…we shall not…loosen and disintegrate the German grip on Europe....

…Last of all I come to the question of finance. The more rapid and abundant the flow of munitions and ships…the sooner will our

Bolded Definitions:

ReductionCargo/shipmentsMilitary weapons

Necessary

Break

Purchasing

Stripped … Money

dollars, be exhausted.... The moment approaches when we shall no longer be able to pay cash for shipping and other supplies. While we will do our utmost…to make payments, I believe that you will agree that it would be wrong in mutually disadvantageous if…Great Britain were to be divested of all…assets…

Document B

Document Note: The following is an excerpt from a speech FDR gave to Congress on January 6, 1941. In it, he describes his “Lend-Lease Act.”

Our national policy is this:

First…we are committed to national defense.

Second, by an impressive expression of the public will…we are committed to full support of all peoples, everywhere, who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our hemisphere…

Third, by an impressive expression of the public will…we know that enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people’s freedom....

Therefore, the immediate need is a swift and driving increase in our armament production.

To change a whole nation from a basis of peacetime production of implements of peace to a basis of wartime production of implements of war is no small task…

I…ask this Congress for authority and for funds sufficient to manufacture additional munitions and war supplies of many kinds, to be turned over to those nations which are now in actual war with aggressor nations.

Our most useful and immediate role is to act as an arsenal for them…They do not need man power. They do need billions of dollars of the weapons of defense.

The time is near when they will not be able to pay for them in ready cash. We cannot, and will not, tell them they must surrender, merely because of inability to pay for the weapons...

I do not recommend that we make them a loan of dollars with to pay for these weapons; a loan to be repaid in dollars…

Bolded Definitions:

Weapon

Tools

Military weapons

…For what we send abroad, we shall be repaid, within a reasonable time following the close of hostilities, in similar materials, or, at our option, in other goods of many kinds which they can produce and which we need.

Let us say: "We Americans are concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources, and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you, in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. This is our purpose and our pledge."

Document C

Document Note: The following is an excerpt from a speech made by the democratic senator, Burton Wheeler. Although a Roosevelt supporter in the early 1930s, he emerged by 1939 as one of the nation’s leading opponents of FDR’s foreign policy.

The thoughts I am about to express are not based upon any fear of wild boasts of American conquest by Stalin, Hitler or Mussolini. I know that neither they nor their ideologies will capture the people of the United States…

We sympathize with the oppressed everywhere. We also realize that we have great problems at home, that one-third of our population is ill-fed, ill-housed and ill-clad, and…until this situation is corrected our democracy is in danger.

Believing as I do…I cannot help but feel that we should settle our own problems before we undertake to settle the problems of Asia, Africa, South America and Europe. As Americans, interested first in America, what is our present stake? Our stakes are our independence, our democracy and our trade and commerce…

What is the best way to preserve them? One group feels, as they felt before the last World War, that England is our first line of defense, and that we must go to England's aid every time she declares war…

This group wants to repeal our Neutrality Act.... They want to loan our ships, our guns, and our planes, even though it may involve us in the European conflict. They profess it is necessary for the preservation of our country, our religion and civilization…

…My sympathy for the British is both deep and genuine and is exceeded only by the depth and sincerity of my Americanism. No anti-British feeling dictates my opposition to the repeal of the Neutrality Acts. I oppose [a repeal because it] leads us down that road with only one ending: total and futile war.

Remember, if we lend or lease war materials today, we will lend or lease American boys tomorrow. We [have] received no promise that our ships and sailors and our planes and pilots might not at sometime within the near future be cast into the cauldron of blood and hate that is Europe today.

Our independence can only be lost or compromised if Germany invades the Western Hemisphere north of the equator. This would be fantastic, as it would require the transportation of at least 2,000,000 men, with planes, tanks, and equipment, in one convoy across the Atlantic. This would require two or three

Bolded Definitions:

Weapon

Tools

Military weapons

Bolded Definitions:

Trade/business

CancelClaim

RentPot

Group of ships

thousand transports plus a fleet larger than our Navy, plus thousands of fighter-escorted bombers.

Such a fleet cannot possibly be available…It is not possible for the German Navy to prepare an effective plan for such an invasion which our Navy and Army with our air force cannot defeat…

The cost of this war will come out of the millions of poor people, the common folk of the world who will toil for generations to pay the cost of destruction. War inevitably means back-breaking debt, blighted lives, bedeviled futures…

…America's war ought to be against industrial unemployment and low farm prices.... Let your representatives in Washington know that you have not surrendered the independence of America to war-mongers and interventionists.

Document D

Document Note: The following is an excerpt from a speech made by famed pilot, Charles Lindbergh. Lindbergh was one of the founders of the America First Committee. The following is from the testimony that he gave against the Lend-Lease Act before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In the hope that it will save time and add clarity, I have attempted to outline briefly my reasons for opposition to this bill…I oppose it because I think it represents a policy which will weaken rather than strengthen our nation…

…This bill is obviously the most recent step in a policy which attempts to obtain security for America by controlling internal conditions in Europe. The policy of depleting our own forces to aid England is based upon the assumption that England will win this war. Personally, I do not believe that England will win this war. If she does not win…we will be responsible for futilely prolonging the war and adding to the bloodshed and devastation in Europe…

…The only advantage we can gain by our action lies in the additional time we obtain to prepare ourselves for defense. But instead of consolidating our own defensive position in America, we are sending a large portion of our armament production abroad. In the case of aviation, for instance, we have sent most of it, yet our own air forces are in deplorable condition for lack of modern equipment. The majority of the planes we now have are obsolescent on the standards of modern warfare…

Bolded Definitions:

Trade/business

CancelClaim

RentPot

Group of ships

Bolded Definitions:

Reducing

Pointlessly

StrengtheningWeapon

TerribleOut of date

Risky

What we are doing in following our present policy is giving up an ideal defense position in America for a very precarious offensive position in Europe. I would be opposed to our entering the internal wars of Europe under any circumstances. But it is an established fact today, that our Army and our Air Force are poorly equipped on modern standards, and even our Navy is in urgent need of new equipment. If we deplete our forces still further, as this bill indicates we may, I think we may be in danger of invasion, although I do not believe we are today.

Document E

Document Note: The following is an excerpt from a speech made by the democratic senator, James Byrnes. During the 1930s and early 1940s he was a close ally of FDR, and a vigorous supporter of his foreign policy.

There is nothing altruistic about the determination of the United States to aid nations defending themselves against the forces of aggression. We are moved by reasons more impelling. We know that our own Democracy is menaced by the forces that now seek to destroy those Democracies across the Atlantic…If Great Britain falls, the United States will stand practically alone…

Because of the threat against the security of this nation and hemisphere, a Bill providing aid for Great Britain, drafted not in the White House, but in the Congress, has been introduced. It is apparent that it will meet the opposition of many...

They argue that the Bill gives to the President too much power. If speed were not essential, we might proceed differently. We might have Congress pass separately each step in the granting of aid. But there are four hundred and thirty-five members of the House and ninety-six members of the Senate. From our experience, we know that debate would cause Congress to consume from thirty to forty-five days in passing each Bill. These delays would be beneficial to Hitler. They might be disastrous to us. If power must be lodged with some person, certainly those of us who believe in Democracy can agree that it should be entrusted to the person selected to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy.

…The reason we are feverishly working to provide an Army and Navy is to defend ourselves against the Axis powers. If we could be certain Britain would defeat Hitler we could and would stop appropriating money for military purposes. But we cannot be certain of it. We are certain that each day Britain holds Hitler we are better able to defend America. If Britain can hold Hitler for a year,

Bolded Definitions:

Reducing

Pointlessly

StrengtheningWeapon

TerribleOut of date

Risky

Bolded Definitions:

Created

Tirelessly

Using

Argue

we can hold him forever. Self-preservation, therefore, demands that we now give Britain aid instead of sympathy.

…Great Britain is pressed. But Great Britain fights on, and who can say that the spirit of that democracy has not been lifted to glorious heights by the realization that other democracies eventually would realize the significance of the struggle and would come to Britain's assistance with ships, with planes, with tanks and other materials?

Those who oppose this Bill offer one argument that is designed to strike fear into the hearts of American fathers and mothers. They contend that it will cause us to send American youth to fight in Europe. The President and the Congress of the United States have no intention of sending an American force to Europe…

Admittedly there is danger in any course we pursue. But if we aid Britain, and the theater of war remains in Europe, our own cities will stand intact. Our citizens will sleep amid the serenity that comes from the realization that no bombs will crash through the roof. Our industrial workers will not find it necessary to abandon their machines and take refuge in bomb-proof shelters. Our children will not crouch in terror while hostile airmen hurl death-dealing explosives at their hiding places. So long as Great Britain is able to hold Hitler at bay, America can arm and contribute its share to holding him, without suffering any of the ravages of modern war.

On the other hand, if we fail to aid Britain and next summer the British should succumb to Hitler's assaults, and the British fleet fall into the hands of Hitler, all this will be changed. With the German fleet in the Atlantic and the Japanese fleet in the Pacific every individual, every institution in this hemisphere, will be in peril. We would stand alone, friendless, in a world ruled by madmen…

Document F

Document Note: The following is an excerpt from a speech made by the democratic senator, Tom Connally. Connally was a key supporter of FDR’s international policies.

There has been disseminated misleading information respecting…the Lease-Lend Bill. It has been charged that it constitutes a blank check to the President and that Congress abdicates its authority.

Let us see just what the bill does authorize the Executive to do. It first defines "defense articles" as any weapon, air craft, vessel, or

Bolded Definitions:

Created

Tirelessly

Using

Argue

Bolded Definitions:

SpreadCreatesSurrenders

President

Important

boat; or any other commodity or article for defense. The bill then provides that the President may "when he deems it in the interest of national defense" authorize the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or the head of any other government department to manufacture any defense article for any country "whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States"…

I want to emphasize that before the President may extend aid to any government, he must make a specific finding that the defense of such country is "vital to the defense of the United States". When it is remembered that the President must also consult the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Chief of Naval Operations of the Navy, it may be clearly perceived that the action taken will be in the defense of the United States…

In the face of these limitations and restrictions, the charge that the bill confers unlimited power upon the President is overwhelmingly refuted…

…It has also been asserted that the measure is a war bill. No declaration of war can be made by any agency of the government except Congress. It is the intention of Congress to keep the war away from our shores…

...The cold-blooded dictators, intoxicated by conquest, and backed by the most powerful and relentless military known, threaten the security and safety of democracies everywhere. They await only the moment of their choice to strike down freedom and constitutional government wherever they may exist on the face of the globe. This bill is America’s answer to their challenge. We propose to keep the war away from our shores…

…The British fleet, still master of the seas, if conquered or destroyed would open the Atlantic to Axis naval and air power upon America and the western world. It may be said that Great Britain has promised not to surrender her fleet. But Hitler has not promised not to conquer it.

As an essential step in our own national defense, to aid Britain in holding the line until we can be more adequately and thoroughly prepared, to keep the war away from our own shores, to furnish supplies and munitions and thus save calling of men to defend our own soil, to oppose and resist the establishment of world dictatorship…We must not wait until the invader sets his footsteps upon our soil or challenges us upon the sea and in the air.

Supreme Court Case: Korematsu V. United States (1944)

Excerpt from majority opinion, authored by Justice Black

The petitioner, an American citizen of Japanese descent, was convicted in a federal district court for remaining in San Leandro, California, a “Military Area,” contrary to Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the Commanding General of the

Bolded Definitions:

SpreadCreatesSurrenders

President

Important

Bolded Definitions:

Person bringing the case to court

LimitSuspiciousSubmit

Western Command, U.S. Army, which directed that, after May 9, 1942, all persons of Japanese ancestry should be excluded from the area…

It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions…

Exclusion of those of Japanese origin was deemed necessary because of the presence of an unascertained number of disloyal members of the group, most of whom we have no doubt were loyal to this country.

We uphold the exclusion order…In doing so were are not unmindful of the hardships imposed by it upon a large group of American citizens…But hardships are a part of war, and war is an aggregation of hardships. All citizens alike, both in and out of uniform, feel the impact of war in greater or lesser measure. Citizenship has its responsibilities as well as its privileges, and in time of war, the burden is always heavier. Compulsory exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direst emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions. But when under conditions of modern warfare, our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger…

It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in an internment camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States…To cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue. Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire.

Excerpt from the dissenting opinion, authored by Justice Jackson

Korematsu was born on our soil, of parents born in Japan. The Constitution makes him a citizen of the United States by nativity, and citizen of California by residence. No claim is made that he is not loyal to this country. There is no suggestion that, apart from the matter involved here, he is not law-abiding well disposed. Korematsu, however, has been convicted of an act not commonly a crime. It consists merely of being present in the state whereof he is a citizen, near the place where he was born, and where all his life he has lived.…

A citizen’s presence in the locality, however, was made a crime only if his parents were of Japanese birth. Had Korematsu been one of four – the others being, say a German alien enemy, an Italian alien enemy, and a citizen of American-born ancestors, – only Korematsu’s presence would have violated the order. The difference between their innocence and his crime would result, not from anything he did, said, or thought, different than they, but only in that he was born of different racial stock.

Bolded Definitions:

Person bringing the case to court

LimitSuspiciousSubmit

Bolded Definitions:

Area

Immigrant

Passed down … ancestors

Now, if any fundamental assumption underlies our system, it is that guilt is personal and not inheritable. Even if all of one’s antecedents had been convicted of treason, the Constitution forbids its penalties to be visited upon him. But here is an attempt to make an otherwise innocent act a crime merely because this prisoner is the son of parents as to whom he had no choice, and belongs to a race from which there is no way to resign. If Congress, in peacetime legislation, should enact such a criminal law, I should suppose this Court would refuse to enforce it.

The Long Shadow: World War II’s Moral Legacy 

2010Ted Grimsrud, Professor at Easter Mennonite University

How much evidence do we have that the war leaders in our most democratic and supposedly “Christian” nations (i.e., the United States and Great Britain) consciously considered moral concerns as they formulated and put into practice their strategies for fighting World War II?

The two central elements…of jus in bello are proportionality and [discrimination]. These are the principles that would lead to limiting a nation’s war-making activities.

Bolded Definitions:

Area

Immigrant

Passed down … ancestors

Bolded Definitions:

Created

Align

As we do moral reflection on the tactics used in World War II, these two elements provide our basic framework. How do the various tactics cohere (or not) with these two general criteria?

…The War itself provides at best mixed evidence—its execution and immediate impact did overwhelmingly violate the criteria of proportionality and [discrimination]. At the same time, the War achieved some good things—most centrally the defeat of Nazism and Japanese imperialism…

Area Bombing in the European war

…The precise day that Germany invaded Poland and the European War began, September 1, 1939, President Roosevelt took to the airwaves with an internationally broadcast speech to call upon the belligerents not to target civilians. He feared that “hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities” would be killed. Let the belligerents “affirm [a] determination that [their] armed forces shall under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment civilian populations or of unfortified cities.”

…Almost certainly Roosevelt directed his words in 1939 toward the Nazis as they invaded Poland. Regardless, this direct statement by the President of the United States, widely broadcast and stated without qualification, certainly made it clear that in the minds of the leaders of the Allies the taboo against directly targeting “innocent human beings” remained powerfully in their consciousness…

…Neville Chamberlain, Britain’s Prime Minister in September, 1939, did seem to have agreed with Roosevelt. He stated on September 14, “His Majesty’s Government will never resort to the deliberate attack on women and children and other civilians for the purpose of mere terrorism.” However, Chamberlain’s successor, Winston Churchill, had no such scruples…

The Royal Air Force had been established as an autonomous part of Britain’s military in 1918, near the end of World War I. The leader of the RAF’s bombers at that time and for years following, Hugh Trenchard, believed strongly in bombing civilian targets. He stated, “The effect of bombing civilian targets would be that the German government would be forced to face very considerable and constantly increasing civil pressure which might result in political disintegration.” The World War I ended before this policy could be implemented, but the pursuit of such a policy based on Trenchard’s convictions [and] its likely effectiveness became central for the RAF during World War II.

…The differences between the philosophies of the Britons and the Americans lay in understandings of effectiveness, not morals...

The British focused more on civilian bombardment as a tactic because they believed it would lead to military success through demoralizing the enemy’s general population. The American doctrine placed priority on causing enemy collapse by focusing on military targets, especially those having most to do with supplying the enemy’s armies.

Bolded Definitions:

Created

Align

Bolded Definitions:Independent

FailureUsedBeliefs

Bombings from Planes

The American priority had the same goal as the Brit’s focus on civilian bombing: “To destroy the will of the people at home.” But the best way to “destroy the will of the people” was indirect. American strategists argued that a focus on “carefully selected targets,” requiring relatively few bombs, “would snap vital threads in the enemy’s ‘industrial web,’ and as a result, secure a quick victory.” These targets may include networks for electricity, transport and oil.

The main weapons Britain had that could be used effectively in war with Germany were its navy and its air force. In the months between the declaration of war in September, 1939, and the actual direct fighting between Britain and Germany that began when the Germans invaded France in May, 1940, the British military chiefs of staffs drew up a strategy for how to defeat Germany. This strategy would focus on [two] central elements: (1) a naval blockade that would greatly reduce access in Germany to food (as well as other raw materials) that would lead to massive starvation in the general population and hence to demoralization and resistance to their government; and (2) use of the bombing of civilian populations to demoralize the population further…

…After France surrendered to Germany in June 1940, the central arena of the war became the air battle between the German Luftwaffe and the RAF known as the “Battle of Britain.” In its “greatest hour,” the RAF staved off the German attack…

…At this point, the British faced a dilemma. Though they could stop the Germans from invading them, they did not have the ability to invade the continent in force…The only real direct way Britain could hit at Germany itself was through the air.

Two major factors limited what the RAF was able to do. One was the inefficiencies of bombing technology at that point in the war. The planes simply were unable to hit their targets with any accuracy. Britain’s military studied the efficiency of bombing in 1941. A report published in August, concluded: “The bombing campaign was a massively wasteful effort….Many bomber aircraft never found their targets at all; even in good weather on moonlit nights, only two-fifths of bombers found their targets, but in hazy or raining weather only one in ten did so.”

The second problem, made more clear during the course of the war, was the RAF’s doctrine that focused on demoralizing enemy civilian populations over targeting specific targets that would undermine the military capabilities of the enemy. After the United States Air Force (USAF) joined the war in 1942, the American strategy focused more on precision bombing, centering especially on oil supplies. Britain, though, continued to attack cities and terrorize the general population…

…Even with the knowledge that their bombing attacks were inefficient and ineffective, the RAF embarked on an extraordinary campaign of aerial terrorism

Up until the summer of 1941, though certainly most of Britain’s air attacks had largely hit civilian targets, the stated policy was not to target civilian populations. This officially changed on July 9. On that day, Britain’s War Cabinet approved a directive that switched its focus from oil and navel targets to “destroying the morale of the civil population as a whole and of industrial workers in particular.”

For the next several years…the RAF bombed as many German cities as they could…By 1944, the tide of the War had clearly turned against the Germans…With greatly

Bolded Definitions:Independent

FailureUsedBeliefs

Bombings from Planes

Bolded Definitions:

Policy

Military order

lessened defense capabilities in Germany, and ever increasing production of bombing materials in Britain and the United States, the RAF greatly expanded its attack on German cities…

Finally the War ended in May 1945, and the bombing stopped. Interestingly, the British government did not honor the RAF or Bomber Command for its campaign. When Churchill went on the BBC on May 13, 1945, six days after the German surrender, to address the nation and the world with his victory speech and to name those to whom Britain owed gratitude for the successful war effort, he probably consciously did not mention Bomber Command…

The Alliance with the Soviet Union

Now…I will consider another, more general, theme important to our overall concern of assessing the moral legacy of World War II. This assessment is based on…the moral values that were stated by the Allies as the basis for going to war, the values that provided the main rationale for asking for total support for the war effort.

One element of taking these values seriously is to ask how the conduct of the war itself served (or violated) those values. Part of this question has to relate to a huge element of the Allied war effort: the alliance established with the Soviet Union…

This is how historian Michael Bess summarizes the issue in his book examining the “moral dimensions of World War II”: “Great Britain and the United States only succeeded in beating down the evils of Nazism through an alliance with a regime that was in many ways equally as vicious as Hitler’s. This simple fact often gets lost, somehow, amid the celebration of the great [Allied citizen soldiers who] triumphed over the Germans and Japanese.

“This is misleading in two ways. First, the overwhelming bulk of the killing of Nazis was not done by [Allied] citizen soldiers at all, but rather by the soldiers of the Red Army: the ratio is about four German soldiers killed by the Russians for every one killed by the British and Americans. And second, the triumphant powers at the end of World War II included one of the most ruthless, murderous regimes in the history of humankind: the Soviet allies.”

Bess concludes his treatment of the moral conundrum with this comment: “The great victory on the Eastern Front presents an awe-inspiring, and simultaneously horrifying, spectacle: a complex picture rather far from the straightforwardly ticker-tape jubilation that we usually associate with V-E Day. Soviet bravery, Soviet resourcefulness, Soviet ruthlessness, Soviet mass murder; the suffering of the Russian people, a suffering unlike anything else in this war except perhaps that of the Jews.”

…Many of the details of the mass killings in the Soviet Union—the forced starvation of millions of Ukrainians in the 1930s, for example, and the deaths of thousands upon thousands—were not widely known in 1941. However, enough was known to make it clear that Joseph Stalin and his police state embodied an utter disregard for human life. If the true enemy in the War was the spirit of Nazism—the tyranny, the threatened obliteration of Western civilization, the threat to democracy—how would this “enemy” be defeated should the alliance serve to empower a parallel spirit, the spirit of Stalinism?

Bolded Definitions:

Policy

Military order

Bolded Definitions:

Problem

CelebrationDay of German surrender

RepresentedOppressionDestruction

Basic

…In a fundamental sense, the Soviet war against the Nazis satisfied “just cause” criteria. The Soviet Union was attacked in a war of conquest. The Soviets had a far stronger case for “just cause” than the British and the Americans. And, whereas Hitler always expressed an element of respect for Anglo-American culture, he had made it clear that he viewed the Russian peoples as lesser humans, that he had utter hatred for Communism, and he went to war to conquer and dominate the Soviet Union. The people of the Soviet Union were literally fighting for their very existence…

Nonetheless, the tactics of the Soviets utterly violated the jus in bello criteria—partly, of course, because the tone set by the Nazi invaders was one of utter brutality…

After the Soviets turned back the Nazi onslaught, they began an inexorable march toward Berlin. This campaign was carried out without restraint or moral compunction. Rape and pillage, terror and retribution were the order of the day.

Of course, the United States and Britain do not bear responsibility for the Soviet conduct…Nonetheless, there is still a sense in which Americans are stained by the Soviet behavior as they did directly benefit from their defeat of the Nazis…

There is another important point to note that underscores the problematic element of the alliance with the Soviets. The Allies’ stated agenda for the War was to defeat tyranny and further democracy. However, the victory by the tyrannical Soviet Union and the resultant dominance granted the Soviets over hundreds of millions in Central and Eastern Europe hardly furthered that agenda. In fact, one could even argue that the outcome of the War for that region defeated the Allies’ agenda.

We may use Poland as an example. The Poles were under threat from the Nazis in 1939. Britain and France committed themselves to go to war with Germany should Poland be violently aggressed upon. Germany attacked and war was declared—and Britain and France did little to stop Germany’s conquest. Poland then became a major scene of battle and the object of incredible atrocities, both toward ethnic Poles and millions of Polish Jews. When the War ended, six years later, Poland’s population was decimated twice over—one-fifth of the people in Poland had been killed, countless others wounded, and deprived of livelihoods. Then, in the end, even though the powers who had gone to war on Poland’s behalf defeated the Nazis, Poland ended up annexed into the Soviet Empire.

…If we are honest, we will admit that the war versus the tyrannical Nazis was mostly won by the equally tyrannical Soviet Unions (remember Bess’s point above that for every German soldier killed by the British and American forces, four German soldiers were killed by the Soviets). And, we will also admit—because this follows directly from the point I just made—that probably the largest beneficiaries of this victory verses the tyrannical Nazis were the equally tyrannical Soviets…

Unconditional Surrender

Given the reluctance of the American people and many Congressional representatives to get behind Roosevelt in his push for military intervention in 1940, it was inevitable that the supporters of intervention would pull out all stops in their efforts to win the

Bolded Definitions:

Problem

CelebrationDay of German surrender

RepresentedOppressionDestruction

Basic

Bolded Definitions:

Forcefully taken

Unwillingness

Propaganda

Pursuit

public relations battle. So, the rhetoric emphasizing the extreme evils of the Axis powers powerfully shaped the perceptions of the policy-makers, the warriors, and the general public.

…Roosevelt only felt free to pursue war following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt’s “day of infamy” speech on December 8, 1941, set the tone for the prosecution of the War: “The United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the empire of Japan…No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the utmost, but will make certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again….”

…The American people thus received a powerful message…their enemies needed to be crushed…with absolute victory that would forever eliminate the Nazi and imperial Japanese threats…

…However, at the heart of the unconditional surrender—and the means that would be required to achieve that outcome—lay serious tensions with…the jus in bello criteria. As such, the demand for unconditional surrender stood in tension with the stated moral values the War was based upon.

In fact, just war thought opposes unconditional surrender. At its core, the just war view assumes the requirement to wage war in ways that limit damage as much as possible…

One of the reasons why requiring unconditional surrender is morally problematic is that to achieve that extreme outcome requires inflicting immense damage on the enemies to bring them to the point of utter obeisance…

Roosevelt made his insistence on unconditional surrender official early in 1943 when British and American leaders held a conference in Casablanca, Morocco. This was how Roosevelt stated it in the press conference at the end of the meeting: “Peace can come to the world only by the total elimination of German and Japanese war power…The elimination of German, Japanese, and Italian war power means the unconditional surrender by Germany, Italy, and Japan…It does not mean the destruction of the population of Germany, Italy, or Japan, but it does mean the destruction of the philosophies in those countries which are based on conquest and the subjugation of other peoples.”

As it turned out, the insistence on unconditional surrender, especially in the war with Japan, did directly “mean the destruction of the population” of that country—as it did with Germany to only a somewhat lesser degree. In both cases, by the end of 1944 that the Allies were going to defeat the two Axis powers had become clear. For example, both Germany and Japan had by this time lost the ability to defend their countries from Allied aerial attacks. Yet both Germany and Japan fought on—surely in part because they had no incentive to surrender at that point in order to seek better terms…

The British RAF in Europe greatly intensified its air attacks on German cities during the final few months of the war. The US Air Force only began bombing Japan’s cities at the end of 1944. In the nine months remaining in the war, the Americans dropped roughly the same number of tons on Japan as did the Britons and the Americans dropped on Germany during the entire course of the War.

Bolded Definitions:

Forcefully taken

Unwillingness

Propaganda

Pursuit

Bolded Definitions:

Respect/obedience

Beliefs

Reason

Extreme

…The main rationale for the grotesque destruction visited on these defenseless civilian populations after the outcome of the War had been decided stemmed from the “need” for unconditional surrender…

...Roosevelt’s declaration had a huge impact on the direction the War would take…By insisting on unconditional surrender, the Allies would greatly increase the likelihood of the Axis fighting to the bitter end with enormous costs for everyone, leading to an [unheard of] level of devastation

[For example,] Churchill feared that the Axis would interpret Roosevelt’s statement as a commitment by the Allies not only to destroy the Axis armies but also their very societies. In fact, Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels did seek to exploit Roosevelt’s statement in warning Germans of the Allies’ intent to conquer and then enslave them…

Another effect of Roosevelt’s demand for unconditional surrender was to undermine Hitler’s internal opponents who had been scheming for some time how to overthrow their Fuhrer. They could no longer hope for concessions from the Allies should they take such a step…the potential of their movement to gain wider support was severely weakened…

…By insisting on unconditional surrender at what turned out to be about halfway into the War, Roosevelt increased the intensity of the violence. He insured that from then on, the violence would not be limited by any restraint from the Allies but only by the eventual full defeat of the Axis powers.

The Destruction of Japan

Japan’s surprise attack at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii was a remarkable success at the time. The Americans were taken totally by surprise and suffered extraordinary damage to their Pacific fleet…

…Japanese leaders knew their only hope in military conflict with the massively more powerful forces of the United States lay in striking early, and hoping that by doing so, they would hurt the Americans badly enough that the Americans would quickly choose to make a peace suitable for Japan’s interests.

As it turned out, brilliant as this first strike was for Japan, it ended up being an utter disaster. The Japanese war leaders misread the Americans. Instead of collapsing in the face of Pearl Harbor, that act of aggression galvanized American sentiment and focused American energies on crushing the Japanese. Once the U.S. unleashed its overwhelming war industry, defeat of Japan became inevitable.

It took a while, though, for the tide to turn. The first several months following Pearl Harbor saw the Japanese pushing the Americans ever further out of the Pacific combat arena—most notably driving American troops out of the Philippines. Partly the American setbacks were the result of the extreme damage the Japanese had done to the American naval forces. However, it was also the case that the Roosevelt administration all along had its sights more focused on the war in Europe…

Bolded Definitions:

Respect/obedience

Beliefs

Reason

Extreme

Bolded Definitions:

Limitation

Stimulated

Unavoidable

…While the naval forces were being rebuilt, the American military began a fairly gradual process of turning the tide against the Japanese, a process that gathered steam as the resource base strengthened and as the tide in the European war turned against the Nazis.

The American strategy to defeat the Japanese centered on driving the Japanese forces eastward, island by island, culminating in attacks on the Japanese homeland. Roosevelt made clear with his “unconditional surrender” doctrine that these attacks would have as their goal the utter defeat of the Japanese war effort and the Japanese war party leading the country.

Though the Japanese fought tenaciously, they simply did not have the firepower and resources to resist the ever-expanding American war machine. It took just about three years of struggle before the Americans were ready to begin a serious assault on the Japan homeland itself. November 1944 was when long-range attacks commenced, but they did not reach full operation until March 1945…

By this time, the United States had reached the point of inevitable victory in the war. The issues at stake in the attacks on Japan itself were not about deciding the winner of the War; the issues were rather about the nature of the American victory. With the commitment to unconditional surrender, and a strong conviction about avenging Pearl Harbor, American forces sought to inflict heavy air attacks and either achieve unconditional surrender without the need of a ground invasion of Japan or, if failing that, at least severely weaken Japan’s “will to resist” the invasion when it came.

With this commitment to full-scale bombing of Japan, the 1939 comments of Roosevelt opposing the targeting of civilian populations were long forgotten. Roosevelt had stated then, in a radio address broadcast in Europe, he was afraid “hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities would be killed.”

…The centerpiece in the American aerial assault on Japan was precisely the tactics Roosevelt had spoken against in 1939: “bombardment from the air of civilian populations [and] unfortified cities.” The actual orders given to the US Air Force commanders stated that their mission was “disruption of railroad and transportation system by daylight, coupled with destruction of cities by night.” In the actual event, the focus from the start was on attacking the civilian population. The actual bombing of railroads had only just begun when the Japanese surrendered in August 1945.

The campaign that began in March focused on cities. The first major step came in March with nighttime bombing of four major Japanese cities—Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe. These cities each were made up mainly of wooden structures, and the bombings had the purpose of creating overwhelming firestorms with incendiary bombs. The defenselessness of these cities may be seen in the American decision to strip the planes of their guns in order to allow them to carry more bombs—they had nothing to fear from counterattacks.

On March 9, 1945, the first of these attacks was unleashed on Tokyo. The Japanese capital had 1,667 tons of incendiary bombs dropped on its most densely populated areas. The bombs created a ferocious firestorm that left over 85,000 people dead. The other three major cities then received among them over 9,000 tons of incendiary bombs and experienced death and destruction parallel to Tokyo’s.

Bolded Definitions:

Limitation

Stimulated

Unavoidable

Bolded Definitions:

BeliefCause/carry out

Defenseless

Fire

This campaign continued from March until the end of the War in August. Historian, Grayling reports: “According to the US Strategic Bombing survey for the Pacific theater, nearly half of the built-up areas of sixty-six Japanese cities was destroyed. Adding the casualties from the atom-bomb attacks, a total of 330,000 people were killed and a further 460,000 injured. ‘The principal cause of civilian deaths,’ says the US Survey, ‘was burns.’”

Document A

Document Note: The following excerpt is from a statement made by President Harry S. Truman, who took office after FDR died in April 1945. The statement was delivered on August 6, 1945, and explains why President Truman has chosen to use the A-bomb.

Sixteen Hours Ago, an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base. That bomb had more power than 20,000 tons of T.N.T. It had more than two thousand times the blast power of the British “Grand Slam” which is the largest bomb ever yet used in the history of warfare.

The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold. And the end is not yet. With this bomb, we have now added a new and revolutionary increase in destruction to supplement the growing power of our armed forces. In their present form, these bombs are now in production and even more powerful forms are in development…

Beginning in 1940, before Pearl Harbor, scientific knowledge useful in war was pooled between the United States and Great Britain, and priceless assistance to our victories have come from that arrangement. Under that general policy, the research on the atomic bomb was begun. With American and British scientists working together, we entered the race of discovery against the Germans…

We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan’s power to make war.

It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware…

Bolded Definitions:

BeliefCause/carry out

Defenseless

Fire

Bolded Definitions:

TimesAdd to

Shared

Completely destroy

Final demand/termsConference in which Churchill, Stalin, and Truman outlined terms of surrender for Japan

Share

It has never been the habit of the scientists of this country or the policy of this Government to withhold from the world scientific knowledge. Normally, therefore, everything about the work with atomic energy would be made public.

But under present circumstances, it is not intended to divulge the technical process of production or all the military applications, pending further examination of possible methods of protecting us and the rest of the world from the danger of sudden destruction.

I shall recommend that the Congress of the United States consider promptly the establishment of an appropriate commission to control the production and use of atomic power within the United States. I shall give further consideration and make further recommendations to the Congress as to how atomic power can become a powerful influence toward the maintenance of world peace.

Document B

Document Note: The following excerpt is from an opinion piece entitled “Choose Another Way to End the War.” The author of this piece is known as “Bob Heimer,” which is most likely a pseudonym, or a fake name used to avoid identification. The piece was published in 1945.

We should not use the Atomic Bomb on Japan until we have tried all other options. Killing civilians is an immoral way to try to win the war.

It is also ineffective. Earlier in the year, we firebombed Tokyo and killed 80,000 people. But, this did not convince Japan to surrender. The Atomic Bomb will probably not kill more people, so we can expect the same result.

We must try other options. For example, we have not done all we can through diplomacy. The Soviet Union is the only major power not to declare war on Japan. The Japanese government may hope the Soviet Union will try to mediate some effort at peace. If we can get the Soviet Union to publicly join our side, it may cause the Japanese government to surrender.

We could also negotiate better. For example, we should not demand ‘unconditional surrender.’ The U.S. will eventually compromise with the Japanese anyway, so the demand that they surrender unconditionally is just rhetoric. Maybe if we agreed to some minor conditions about how the Japanese will be governed after the war, they would surrender. We should end our silly and unreasonable demand for unconditional surrender and negotiate. We could also consider other military options. We have just begun a blockade so we do not know how effective it could be. Japan has few natural resources. For all we know, the blockade could convince Japan to surrender in a month.

Bolded Definitions:

TimesAdd to

Shared

Completely destroy

Final demand/termsConference in which Churchill, Stalin, and Truman outlined terms of surrender for Japan

Share

Bolded Definitions:

Negotiations Negotiate

Persuasive speech

Southern-most island of Japan mainland

We should not rule out an invasion. Military experts believe we could capture the island of Kyushu with less than 30,000 American casualties. This might convince the Japanese government we are willing to invade the main island and may lead to its surrender.

If these options are all tried and they all fail, then we should drop the Atomic Bomb. But, we should only use it as a demonstration, on a deserted island, for example.

There is another consideration when making this decision. The Atomic Bomb will have an important role in the post-war world. Do we want to be the only country that ever used it against another people? What precedent will that set for others who learn the technology?

We have always felt that America is great because we are morally good. Dropping the Atomic Bomb on a civilian target, when we have not tried all other options to end the war, is not morally good.

Document C

Document Note: The following excerpt is from an opinion piece entitled “Drop the Bomb.” The author of this piece is known as “Enola May,” which is most likely a pseudonym, or a fake name used to avoid identification. The piece was published in 1945.

The U.S. has been at war for three and a half years. More than 250,000 American soldiers have died fighting Germany and Japan. Despite our recent victories, the Japanese government has not surrendered.

The Japanese have demonstrated a willingness to fight to the death. This is because they consider it shameful to surrender to an enemy. In the past several months, the Japanese have even organized squadrons of kamikaze pilots. They are people who load their plans with bombs and then crash them into American ships.

In the last battle, we invaded and captured the island of Okinawa. 100,000 Japanese soldiers defended it. Very few of them surrendered. Capturing Okinawa resulted in 12,000 Americans being killed and 36,000 wounded.

There are still 2,000,000 Japanese soldiers defending the homeland. An invasion of Japan would result in at least 250,000 Americans being killed and wounded, because the Japanese will fight to the last man.

It is fortunate that we developed the technology for the Atomic Bomb. We can now convince Japan to surrender without having to invade. We must use it. And, we must use it on a legitimate military target, even if casualties will be killed.

There are no other reasonable options. We could try a blockade of Japan, but that would take years. Plus, since Japan has been blockaded for nearly a year and has not surrendered, there is no guarantee that they will ever surrender.

Bolded Definitions:

Negotiations Negotiate

Persuasive speech

Southern-most island of Japan mainland

Bolded Definitions:

Standard

Surround island with ships to cutoff supplies

We could drop the bomb on a deserted island or at least a target that has no civilians. But, then the Japanese will believe we are not willing to use it to destroy human life on a large scale. If that happens, we will have completely wasted the bomb’s ability to convince Japan to surrender. Plus, there are just two bombs, so we have to make each of them count.

We could offer them lenient surrender terms. But, that will send a terrible message to the world. Within a decade, we will be at war again, defending democracy from another dictator.

There is another consideration. The use of the Atomic Bomb will display to the world its awesome power. Since we are the only nation with the technology to make one, we can ensure peace in the post-war world. It is possible that this new weapon will make war obsolete. But the world will only believe what it sees.

To win this war and to prevent future wars, we must use the Bomb.

Document D

Document Note: The following excerpts are from historian John Hersey’s non-fiction work, Hiroshima, which was published in 1946. The book explored the lives of those who survived the atomic bombings.

In referring to those who went through the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, the Japanese tended to shy away from the term “survivors,” because in its focus on being alive, it might suggest some slight to the sacred dead. The class of people to which Nakamura-san belonged came, therefore, to be called by a more neutral name, “hibakusha,” –literally, “explosion-affected persons.” For more than a decade after the bombings, the hibakusha lived in an economic limbo, apparently because the Japanese government did not want to find itself saddled with anything like moral responsibility for heinous acts of the victorious United States. Although it soon became clear that many hibakusha suffered consequences of their exposure to the bombs which were quite different in nature and degree from those of survivors even of the ghastly fire bombings in Tokyo and elsewhere, the government made no special provision for their relief – until, ironically, after the storm that swept across Japan when the twenty-three crewmen of a fishing vessel, the Lucky Dragon No. 5, and its cargo of tuna were irradiated by the American test of a hydrogen bomb at Bikini in 1954. It took three years even then for a relief law for the hibakusha to be created.

Though Nakamura-san could not know it, she thus had a bleak period ahead of her. Employers developed a prejudice against the survivors as word got around that they were prone to all sorts of ailments, and that even those, like Nakamura-san, who were not cruelly maimed and had not developed any serious symptoms, were unreliable workers, since most of them seemed to suffer, as she did, from a mysterious malaise that came to be known as one kind of lasting A-bomb sickness:

Bolded Definitions:

Forgiving

A thing of the past

Name of survivor

Grey areaBurdenedMonstrous

Horrifying

Pacific islands where bomb was testedHopeless

Injured

Illness

a nagging weakness and weariness, dizziness now and then, digestive troubles, all aggravated by a feeling of oppression, a sense of doom, for it was said that unspeakable diseases might at any time plant nasty flowers in the bodies of their victims, and even in those of their descendants.

…

Much of Dr. Sasaki’s work as a surgeon at the Red Cross Hospital was in the removal of keloid scars—hideously ugly, thick, itchy, rubbery, copper-red crablike growths that often formed over bad burns that hibakusha had suffered, and particularly those victims who had been exposed to the great heat of the bomb within two kilometers of the hypocenter. In dealing with the keloids, Dr. Sasaki and his colleagues were groping in the dark, because they had no reliable literature to guide them. They found that after the bulbous scars had been removed, they often recurred. Some, if they were left unattended, became infected, and other causes underlying muscles to tense up. He and his colleagues eventually came to the conclusion that they should not have operated on many of the keloids. The scars tended in time to shrink spontaneously, and could then be more easily excised, or be left alone.

Document E

Document Note: The following excerpt is from historian Spencer Tucker’s non-fiction work, “Dropping the Bomb Saved Lives,” which was published in 2011.

Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers and was the only way to end the war quickly. In the summer of 1945, American planners hoped that a naval blockade and strategic bombing campaign of the Japanese home islands would bring the war to an end. The prospects for an actual invasion appeared dim, as Japanese leaders made major preparations to defend against such an attack. In light of the heavy casualties sustained by U.S. forces in the invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa earlier that year, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff were reluctant to carry out Operation DOWNFALL, the planned land invasion of Japan. The Japanese military had a million soldiers, 3,000 Kamikaze aircraft, and 5,000 suicide boats available to defend its home islands. Civilians were also being prepared to fight to the death. With the U.S. invasion scheduled for November 1, 1945, and well aware that the cost of such an enterprise was likely to be high, the Joint Chiefs of Staff pressed President Roosevelt at the February 1945 Yalta Conference to persuade the Soviet Union to enter the war against Japan at any cost.

Following the successful test detonation of an atomic bomb at Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945, sharp debate arose among advisers to U.S. President Harry S. Truman (who had succeeded Roosevelt as president upon the latter’s death in April) regarding whether to employ the new weapon against Japan. The terror threshold had already been passed in the firebombing of Japanese cities. Indeed, the most destructive single air raid in history was not the atomic bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but the firebombing of Tokyo on the night of March 9 – 10, 1945. This was total war. It was always assumed that the bomb would be used if it became available. American planners believed that employing the bomb would, in all likelihood, bring the war to a speedy end, saving many American lives. It would also mean that the United States would not have to share occupation of Japan with the Soviet Union, and hopefully it could deter Soviet leader Joseph Stalin from future aggression. The atomic bomb was thus essentially a psychological weapon, rather than a purely military tool, the use of which was designed to influence Japanese political leaders. Dropping it appeared to be the only way to realize the American goal of unconditional surrender.

Historian Ray Skates concluded that Operation OLYMPIC, the first phase of the invasion of Japan (the conquest of the island of Kyushu planned for November 1945), would alone have taken two months and resulted in 75,000 to 100,000 U.S. casualties. Such losses, while they would not have affected the outcome of the war, might indeed have brought about the political goals sought by the Japanese leaders for more favorable surrender terms.

Prolonging the war would have meant a significantly higher cost in Japanese lives than those actually killed in the atomic bombings. During the war, the Japanese lost 323,495 dead on the home front, the vast majority of them from air attack. With continued strategic bombing this total would have swelled, and many other Japanese would simply have died of starvation. By August 1945, Japan’s largest cities had been largely burned out. Waterborne transportation had been interdicted, and the Japanese nation was close to starvation. The reduced food supply was highly dependent on railroad distribution, and the railroads would have been the next major strategic bombing target. In effect, dropping the bomb resulted in a net saving of both Japanese and American lives.

Document F

Document Note: The following is Leo Szilard’s “A Petition to the President of the United States,” which was sent to president Truman on July 17, 1945. Szilard created the idea of a nuclear chain reaction in 1933, patented the idea of a nuclear reactor in 1939, and wrote a letter to President FDR warning of Germany’s intention to build an atomic bomb. The letter encouraged FDR to start the Manhattan Project.

Discoveries of which the people of the United States are not aware may affect the welfare of this nation in the near future. The liberation of atomic power which has been achieved, places atomic bombs in the hands of the Army. It places in your hands, as

Bolded Definitions:

Discourage

Southern-most island of Japan mainland

Grown

Stopped

Creation

Approve

Commander-in-Chief, the fateful decision whether or not to sanction the use of such bombs in the present phase of the war against Japan.

We, the undersigned scientists, have been working in the field of atomic power. Until recently, we have had to fear that the United States might be attacked by

atomic bombs during this war and that her only defense might lie in a counterattack by the same means. Today, with the defeat of Germany, this danger is averted and we feel impelled to say what follows:

The war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion and attacks by atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such attacks on Japan could not be justified, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed after the war on Japan were made public in detail and Japan were given an opportunity to surrender.

If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender, our nation might then, in certain circumstances, find itself forced to resort to the use of atomic bombs. Such a step, however, ought not to be made at any time without seriously considering the moral responsibilities which are involved.

The development of atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction, and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of their future development. Thus, a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.

If after this war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the cities of the United States as well as the cities of other nations will be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation. All the resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to prevent the advent of such a world situation. Its prevention is, at present, the responsibility of the United States — singled out by virtue of her lead in the field of atomic power.

The added material strength which this lead gives to the United States brings with it the obligation of restraint and if we were to violate this obligation our moral position would be weakened in the eyes of the world and in our own eyes. It would then be more difficult for us to live up to our responsibility of bringing the unloosened forces of destruction under control.

In view of the foregoing, we, the undersigned, respectfully petition: first, that you exercise your power as Commander-in-Chief, to rule that the United States shall not resort to the use of atomic bombs in this war unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan have been made public in detail and Japan knowing these terms has refused to surrender; second, that in such an event the question whether or not to use atomic

Bolded Definitions:AvoidedCompelled

Required

Standard

Complete destruction

Responsibility of limitation

bombs be decided by you in light of the considerations presented in this petition as well as all the other moral responsibilities which are involved.