After Hiroshima - National Catholic Register Editorial

  • Thread starter Thread starter koda
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We at the Register were startled by the number of angry letters — a few of them canceling subscriptions — that we received in response to Catherine and Michael Pakaluks’ column calling America’s use of the atomic bomb 60 years ago “Our National Sin.”
Click to expand...
Its hard to comment on the article, since it is based on the public’s reaction to an earlier article (mentioned above).

But the current article mentions that American military policy now takes pains to minimize civilian casualties. This is an evolution to a WWII policy which considered attacks on civilians to be part of war.

I think it is healthy to reflect on choices that we as a nation once made, and how bad those choices look in modern light.
 
Guar Fan:
Its hard to comment on the article, since it is based on the public’s reaction to an earlier article (mentioned above).

But the current article mentions that American military policy now takes pains to minimize civilian casualties. This is an evolution to a WWII policy which considered attacks on civilians to be part of war.

I think it is healthy to reflect on choices that we as a nation once made, and how bad those choices look in modern light.
Click to expand...
I agree. I subscribe to the Register and saw the original story as well as the hate mail they received after it ran. The reason I posted it here is because I have seen a lot of forum users who disagree strongly the the opinion of the Church and the authors of the editorial and original story. Hopefully, it will make people think.
 
Guar Fan:
But the current article mentions that American military policy now takes pains to minimize civilian casualties. This is an evolution to a WWII policy which considered attacks on civilians to be part of war.
Click to expand...
Quite true. Many if not most of the Allied air bombing raids during WWII were directed at the wholesale destruction of towns and cities. For one thing, bombs and bombers were not accurate enough to target only military targets. Plus, enemy cities were considered to be military targets.
 
Guar Fan:
I think it is healthy to reflect on choices that we as a nation once made, and how bad those choices look in modern light.
Click to expand...
IMHO, they may look bad, but I have the feeling that most people would be happier risking the lives of foreign civilians, enemy or otherwise, than their own soldiers.
 
Somewhere C. S. Lewis commented on the popular craze of criticizing WWI in the 20’s and early 30’s.
  1. It is easy to criticize the earlier faults of our people because we are part of that people so need show no charity in our criticism.
  2. It is easy to criticize the earlier faults of our people because we were not there when the wrongs were done so need take no personal responsibility.
  3. It is popular to criticize the past because it keeps attention away from the faults of the present for which we do bear personal responsibility.
 
Joe Kelley:
Somewhere C. S. Lewis commented on the popular craze of criticizing WWI in the 20’s and early 30’s.
  1. It is easy to criticize the earlier faults of our people because we are part of that people so need show no charity in our criticism.
  2. It is easy to criticize the earlier faults of our people because we were not there when the wrongs were done so need take no personal responsibility.
  3. It is popular to criticize the past because it keeps attention away from the faults of the present for which we do bear personal responsibility.
Click to expand...
C. S. Lewis was well noted for his Christian wisdom. All three of his points are valid.
 
Do a search on this Forum for the word: “Hiroshima”.

There are a couple of quite extensive threads going into every possible aspect of the issue of the dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 
Joe Kelley:
  1. It is easy to criticize the earlier faults of our people because we are part of that people so need show no charity in our criticism.
  2. It is easy to criticize the earlier faults of our people because we were not there when the wrongs were done so need take no personal responsibility.
  3. It is popular to criticize the past because it keeps attention away from the faults of the present for which we do bear personal responsibility.
Click to expand...
I would like to track down this quotation, because I believe it to be wise.

We need to have compassion for those who had to make decisions without the benefit of hindsight. And we need to avoid the sin of passing judgement on others. Ultimately, what matters is the lesson that the past has for the present age.

I think the bombing of Hiroshima is a sobering event. Assigning blame is pointless. What matters is that we avoid such actions now and in the future.
 
When poining fingers one must be sure of their own finger nails.Japan was at war with the USA she was brutal and barbaric country.Her brutality was up close and personal . The churches behaviour in WWII is not without some glaring defects,but. be that as it may be,The bombings were militarily necessary,we were at war.Japan had started the war.
Japan Killed 10,000,000 chinese , never even bothered to declare war.
 
What the current critics are failing to realize is that, for the countries involved, WWII was a total war. There were really very few people in any of the warring countries who could legitimately be defined as “innocent civilians.” The US, Germany, Japan, Great Britain, and others had turned their entire industrial and agricultural output toward the war effort. Auto factories produced Jeeps, trucks and tanks. Appliance and toy makers made parts for those vehicles. “Rosie the Riveter” was just as much a part of that war effort as was the soldier in the field. Well before the atomic bomb was used, it had become obvious that to defeat one, you had to defeat the other and I, for one, have no moral problem with what was done. Those who do simply do not realize the gravity of the situation the world was in at that time.
 
Re my reference to C. S. Lewis
Guar Fan:
I would like to track down this quotation, because I believe it to be wise.

We need to have compassion for those who had to make decisions without the benefit of hindsight. And we need to avoid the sin of passing judgement on others. Ultimately, what matters is the lesson that the past has for the present age.

I think the bombing of Hiroshima is a sobering event. Assigning blame is pointless. What matters is that we avoid such actions now and in the future.
Click to expand...
It is not an actual quotation, but a summary, from a fuzzy memory. I think it came mostly from Dangers of National Repentence in God in the Dock, a collection of his essays.
 
Guar Fan:
This is an evolution to a WWII policy which considered attacks on civilians to be part of war.
Click to expand...
The evolution was in guidance systems, not moving from civilian targets to military targets. In WWII the targets were military, but because of the absence of guidance systems, civilians took collateral damage.
 
Ani Ibi:
The evolution was in guidance systems, not moving from civilian targets to military targets. In WWII the targets were military, but because of the absence of guidance systems, civilians took collateral damage.
Click to expand...
Correct. A British review fairly early in the war showed that the average bomb missed by about 5 miles. “Bomber” Harris switched from bombing point targets (like factories) to bombing the residential areas where the workers lived.

In the first Thousand Plane Raid of the war, on Cologne, there were strict orders not to hit the Cathedral. Some squadron commanders accomplished that by ordering their bombers to destroy the Cathedral – on the theory that wherever the bombs landed, it wouldn’t be on the target!
 
Joe Kelley:
Re my reference to C. S. Lewis
It is not an actual quotation, but a summary, from a fuzzy memory. I think it came mostly from Dangers of National Repentence in God in the Dock, a collection of his essays.
Click to expand...
Thank you! 🙂
 
In response to the argument that the large-scale killing of civilians was immoral and a war crime, supporters of the bombings have argued that the Japanese government waged total war, ordering many civilians (including women and children) to work in factories and military offices and to fight against any invading force. Father John A. Siemes, professor of modern philosophy at Tokyo’s Catholic University, and an eyewitness to the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima wrote:

“We have discussed among ourselves the ethics of the use of the bomb. Some consider it in the same category as poison gas and were against its use on a civil population. Others were of the view that in total war, as carried on in Japan, there was no difference between civilians and soldiers, and that the bomb itself was an effective force tending to end the bloodshed, warning Japan to surrender and thus to avoid total destruction. It seems logical to me that he who supports total war in principle cannot complain of war against civilians.”
 
40.png
geezerbob:
What the current critics are failing to realize is that, for the countries involved, WWII was a total war. There were really very few people in any of the warring countries who could legitimately be defined as “innocent civilians.” The US, Germany, Japan, Great Britain, and others had turned their entire industrial and agricultural output toward the war effort. Auto factories produced Jeeps, trucks and tanks. Appliance and toy makers made parts for those vehicles. “Rosie the Riveter” was just as much a part of that war effort as was the soldier in the field. Well before the atomic bomb was used, it had become obvious that to defeat one, you had to defeat the other and I, for one, have no moral problem with what was done. Those who do simply do not realize the gravity of the situation the world was in at that time.
Click to expand...
absolutely right!! WWII was no sure thing. there was no way out of harm’s way. Victory at Sea illustrates this,
Alistair Mcclean wrote a descriptive book about convoys to russia. almost no ship made it. Japanese took no prisoners, absolutley never surrendered. surrender was an act of ultimate cowardice for them. when the marines won a battle, the had to go around and make sure every japanese was dead, other wise that japanese would kill an american soldier as an ultimate act of defiance, with his dying breath. there were no pow camps for japanese, because there were no pows…different cultures.

to digress a bit, the different culture problem certainly exists in iraq. we don’t understand them and they don’t understand us…
 
40.png
jjwilkman:
Alistair Mcclean wrote a descriptive book about convoys to russia. almost no ship made it.
Click to expand...
That was one specific convoy, PQ-17, which the British Navy abandoned on rumors the Tirpitz was coming out. There were survivors, but pitifully few.
40.png
jjwilkman:
Japanese took no prisoners, absolutley never surrendered. surrender was an act of ultimate cowardice for them. when the marines won a battle, the had to go around and make sure every japanese was dead, other wise that japanese would kill an american soldier as an ultimate act of defiance, with his dying breath. there were no pow camps for japanese, because there were no pows…different cultures.

to digress a bit, the different culture problem certainly exists in iraq. we don’t understand them and they don’t understand us…
Click to expand...
Actually they did take prisoners – and treated them brutally. And while most Japanese preferred death to surrender, we did take prisoners now and then
 
40.png
jjwilkman:
there were no pow camps for japanese, because there were no pows…different cultures.
Click to expand...
This is not correct. During World War II, some 400,000 POWs were held in camps in the U.S. About 365,000 were Germans, the remainder Italian and Japanese prisoners. I understand that there were only a few thousand Japanese prisoners because of their penchant for refusing to surrender. Most captured Japanese were wounded men who could not exercise their fight to the death mentality.
 
Arba Sicula:
This is not correct. During World War II, some 400,000 POWs were held in camps in the U.S. About 365,000 were Germans, the remainder Italian and Japanese prisoners. I understand that there were only a few thousand Japanese prisoners because of their penchant for refusing to surrender. Most captured Japanese were wounded men who could not exercise their fight to the death mentality.
Click to expand...
Your’e correct – as I have also pointed out.

However, the overwhelming majority of Japanese did fight to the death, or commit suicide rather than be captured. That was a factor our leaders were morally obligated to take into account – and one which logically indicated very high loss of life would result from an invasion of Japan.

In addition, as I have mentioned in earlier posts on this subject, there was very nearly a massive die-off in Japan during the winter of '45-46. American occupation forces were in a virtual panic to get enough food and fuel into the country to prevent massive loss of life due to starvation and cold.

A prolongation of the war by only a few weeks would have made it impossible to prevent such a die-off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top