As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[Warrior1979]

The Japanese were willing to give up what they had taken during the war. Did you read the documents?

Yes.

So when the aggressor decides to give up territory, that’s called a surrender?

The alternative to unconditional surrender is not “we won’t give up anything, just stop fighting us”. Your argument that the Japanese simply wouldn’t surrender falls completely flat in the face of the evidence that the Emperor and Prime Minister Togo were indeed trying to arrange a surrender. What they wanted was some kind of “face-saving”, not “victory or self-destruction”.

If “surrendering” meant making the enemy go away so that I not only keep my military intact and rebuild it, I’d “surrender” to. It’s common sense military stratagem.

 

[Sincerus]

So when the aggressor decides to give up territory, that’s called a surrender?

This is classic Doublethink. Firstly, “aggressors” don’t give up territory, they take territory. To call Japan an “aggressor” in 1945 is laughable. Their entire nation was in shambles.

Secondly, the Japanese were looking to surrender–conditionally (the traditional way war had been ended up until the 20th century), especially by April 1945. There is plenty of evidence already posted here demonstrating this. I will post more if necessary.

Unfortunately, the “Allies” had already decided on a policy of unconditional surrender. On February 12, 1943, Roosevelt announced in an address to White House press correspondents:

“The only terms on which we shall deal… are the terms proclaimed at Casablanca: “unconditional surrender.” In our uncompromising policy we mean no harm to the common people of the Axis nations. But we do mean to impose punishment and retribution in full upon their guilty, barbaric leaders.”

 

[Warrior1979]

Firstly, “aggressors” don’t give up territory, they take territory.

You are obviously completely unfamiliar with various forms of Asian military strategy, readily evident in Eastern military arts and philosophy.

 

[Ghosty]

Yes.

So when the aggressor decides to give up territory, that’s called a surrender?

Umm, yeah, it is. That’s the definition of surrender.

If “surrendering” meant making the enemy go away so that I not only keep my military intact and rebuild it, I’d “surrender” to. It’s common sense military stratagem.

You’re just assuming that this would be the case. Terms were never discussed, so we don’t know if they would have allowed for disarmament, full or partial. There’s a lot of ground covered by the term “surrender”, between unconditional surrender and a feint; it’s not an all or nothing affair.

When an enemy is honestly seeking surrender (as Japan was), it is morally imperative to discuss terms for ending the conflict before proceeding with escalation of violence and destruction. If appropriate terms can’t be reached then the conflict may proceed. The U.S. had the opportunity to discuss terms of surrender prior to an invasion or further bombing of Japanese cities, but it was the U.S. that refused any kind of diplomacy or discussion under the expectation of “unconditional surrender”, not Japan.

 

[Warrior1979]

Umm, yeah, it is. That’s the definition of surrender.

When I’m sparring, I’m more than happy to surrender all the territory in the world, provided it is to my advantage. Where did I learn that? From my training in martial arts, originating in an Asian country over a millenia and a half ago. There are even forms whose underlying meaning is dedicated to receding as an advantage.

You’re just assuming that this would be the case.

I actually assume nothing. It is simply a plausible possible, for reasons explained earlier.

Terms were never discussed, so we don’t know if they would have allowed for disarmament, full or partial.

Of course they didn’t offer disarmament…I wonder why?

FWIW, stalling is also a strategy.

When an enemy is honestly seeking surrender (as Japan was), it is morally imperative to discuss terms for ending the conflict before proceeding with escalation of violence and destruction. If appropriate terms can’t be reached then the conflict may proceed. The U.S. had the opportunity to discuss terms of surrender prior to an invasion or further bombing of Japanese cities, but it was the U.S. that refused any kind of diplomacy or discussion under the expectation of “unconditional surrender”, not Japan.

Maybe it didn’t happen because this was all part of God’s plan? Instructions giving by God in the OT were far more brutal than what happened in Japan.

 

[Sincerus]

You are obviously completely unfamiliar with various forms of Asian military strategy, readily evident in Eastern military arts and philosophy.

A major part of Japanese military strategy in the Second World War, which I’m sure is “readily evident in Eastern military arts and philosophy”, relied on the continued disunity of the enemy. Soviet Russia was neutral with Japan, and America and Britain were involved in “unconditional” war with Germany and Italy (all of this allowed Japan to gain much ground in the beginning of the war and hold out for the duration).

But after April-May 1945 when Germany was conquered and Japan had been firebombed beyond recognition, the Western Allies and the Red Army (now threatening to invade Manchuria) were in a position to mobilize all of their resources toward destroying Japan. Is it any wonder then that the Japanese started really seeking peace terms in April-May 1945? Hmm.

 

[Ghosty]

Warrior1979: Disarmament wasn’t discussed because the U.S. never allowed for the discussion, not because Japan was specifically avoiding it. We don’t know what the terms would have been because the U.S. failed to follow Just-War Doctrine.

All this talk of feinting strategies is neither here nor there. First of all there is no indication that their surrender attempts were feints, and besides the same argument applies to their surrender after the atomic bomb; on the contrary the Emperor seems to have been earnestly seeking an end to the conflict in its entirety, and the same military leaders who didn’t want to surrender before the atom bombs refused to surrender afterwards (and staged a coup), so the atom bombs didn’t significantly sway anyone’s mind. Second, we’re not discussing military strategy, but morality. There is a moral way to wage war, and an immoral way. Not even discussing terms with a surrendering enemy is immoral no matter how you justify it strategically.

You raise hypothetical situations involving false-surrenders, but you fail to address the actual moral issues at hand. Life is not a game of Go, and humans are not stones to be sacrificed for territory. Morality is not not determined by who gains sente.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

From a historical standpoint, I do think that the arguments expressed fail to realize that beginning in the late 1940’s, before they got “the bomb” themselves, the Soviet Union began a disinformation campaign in the West to make the US feel ashamed for using The A Bomb. After all, what good is "
The Bomb" if you can’t use it. Although we had strong presidents at the time (Truman, then Eisenhower) this campaign was very successful amongst the political left…especially the so-called progressives and particularly the academic community.
Remember that this was an era of popular “togetherness” and being anti-war was the only acceptable way for anti-establishment types to protest.
This “anti-bomb” dis information reached its peak during the Korean War when Gen. McArthur wanted to use it against China. This propaganda war led to Gen. McArthurs’ disobediance of the president and his dismissal.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has become known that the international peace movement was essentially a Soviet propaganda operation!
Lastly, the arguments, pro and con on this thread are futile because neither side will believe each other, especially the peaceniks who tend to re-write history to their own advantage.

 

[Warrior1979]

You raise hypothetical situations involving false-surrenders, but you fail to address the actual moral issues at hand. Life is not a game of Go, and humans are not stones to be sacrificed for territory. Morality is not not determined by who gains sente.

The issue of surrender is simply an intellectual discussion. Your POV in reality is no more valid than mine, though I personally believe from your posts you have a lack of understanding of Japanese culture and beliefs.

As far as morality goes, I understand your POV. What could’ve happened is also an intellectual discussion. It’s always easy to play Monday morning quarterback, especially when we didn’t experience it and it is decades later.

With regard to morality, you only address you the part of morality that you wish to address, hence the failure to address my reference to Deuteronomy (as did everyone else). There are Biblical references to indiscriminate slaying of everyone, even including the animals. I cannot reconcile how that can be moral, yet the action in the discussion at hand is absolutely immoral.

 

[Ghosty]

From a historical standpoint, I do think that the arguments expressed fail to realize that beginning in the late 1940’s, before they got “the bomb” themselves, the Soviet Union began a disinformation campaign in the West to make the US feel ashamed for using The A Bomb. After all, what good is "
The Bomb" if you can’t use it. Although we had strong presidents at the time (Truman, then Eisenhower) this campaign was very successful amongst the political left…especially the so-called progressives and particularly the academic community.
Remember that this was an era of popular “togetherness” and being anti-war was the only acceptable way for anti-establishment types to protest.
This “anti-bomb” dis information reached its peak during the Korean War when Gen. McArthur wanted to use it against China. This propaganda war led to Gen. McArthurs’ disobediance of the president and his dismissal.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has become known that the international peace movement was essentially a Soviet propaganda operation!
Lastly, the arguments, pro and con on this thread are futile because neither side will believe each other, especially the peaceniks who tend to re-write history to their own advantage.

You do know that both Eisenhower and MacArthur were opposed to the use of the atomic bombs on Japan, right? Both thought that it was the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender that prolonged the war, and that the use of the bombs was not militarily necessary. Hardly “lefty peaceniks”, those two.

Peace and God bless!

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Ghosty, I believe you are mistaken in your history. I would have to see documentation that Eisenhower and MacArthur knew about the bomb before it was used.
Everything I have ever read about the WWII use of the A Bomb indicates that neither Eisenhower nor McArthur even knew the A Bomb existed until it was used. Even Truman did not know the bomb existed until just before it was tested in the South West.
The original A-tests that took place a week or so earlier than its use in Japan and the tests were kept secret until after we used the bomb on Japan. Truman ordered it used on the advice of his Secretary of War and General Marshall, the head of the Army at that time (the best advice available at the time). They and the people involved in developing the bomb were the only ones who knew we had it until it was used.
Any idea that Japan would have surrendered anyway is pure revisionist history, largely promulgated by the Japanese government who, to this day, do not admit to their pre-war agressions and rampant cruelties which not only equalled, but even topped those of Nazi Germany.
All in all, it has been historically prooven that the use of the A Bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives and the sanity of a whole generation of our soldiers.
The reason for me mentioning sanity is that without the Bomb, our soldiers would have had to commit genocide to subdue the Japanese. Just ask any veteran who fought at Iwo Jima or Okinawa!!! Or ask any Fillipino who was alive during the Japanese occupation of their country!

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty, I believe you are mistaken in your history. I would have to see documentation that Eisenhower and MacArthur knew about the bomb before it was used.
Everything I have ever read about the WWII use of the A Bomb indicates that neither Eisenhower nor McArthur even knew the A Bomb existed until it was used. Even Truman did not know the bomb existed until just before it was tested in the South West.
The original A-tests that took place a week or so earlier than its use in Japan and the tests were kept secret until after we used the bomb on Japan. Truman ordered it used on the advice of his Secretary of War and General Marshall, the head of the Army at that time (the best advice available at the time). They and the people involved in developing the bomb were the only ones who knew we had it until it was used.
Any idea that Japan would have surrendered anyway is pure revisionist history, largely promulgated by the Japanese government who, to this day, do not admit to their pre-war agressions and rampant cruelties which not only equalled, but even topped those of Nazi Germany.
All in all, it has been historically prooven that the use of the A Bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives and the sanity of a whole generation of our soldiers.
The reason for me mentioning sanity is that without the Bomb, our soldiers would have had to commit genocide to subdue the Japanese. Just ask any veteran who fought at Iwo Jima or Okinawa!!! Or ask any Fillipino who was alive during the Japanese occupation of their country!

I never said they knew about the bombs before they were used (though Eisenhower was), I said they were opposed to their use. Here are the relevant quotes and citations, along with several other military leaders who disagreed with the use of the bombs, and with the notion that an invasion was necessary.

Invasion and/or atomic bombing wasn’t necessary to subdue the Japanese, what was necessary was an order from the Emperor to stand down, an order he was ready to give prior to the atomic bombings, and the U.S. government knew this from intercepts. You can read the actual declassified documents if you want, I’ve linked to them on this thread already.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Sincerus]

Ghosty, I believe you are mistaken in your history. I would have to see documentation that Eisenhower and MacArthur knew about the bomb before it was used.

Eisenhower was told by Henry Stimson, the Secretary of War, that the atomic bomb would be used against Japanese cities. Recalling this moment years later Eisenhower said:

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought,** no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives**. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.” … (from Eisenhower’s own memoir, Mandate for Change, 1953-1956)

Regarding General MacArthur, President Richard Nixon had this to say:

“MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets,** and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off**…” (from a July 29, 1985 Time magazine article, “A Nation Coming into Its Own”)

MacArthur was also quoted before his death as saying: “My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender.” (from the IHR article linked to above)

Similarly, Admiral Leahy, the five-star general who had simultaneously served as chief-of-staff to the army and navy, went public saying:

“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender… My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children…” (from William Leahy’s own book, I Was There: The Personal Story of the Chief of Staff to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman)

 

[smichhertz]

“MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets,and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off…” (from a July 29, 1985 Time magazine article, “A Nation Coming into Its Own”)

That pretty much sums up Catholic morals in regards to war. You only attack legitimate military targets.

I am very proud of our great nation as we have mostly lived up to this standard. Even in modern warfare, such as the Battle of Mogidishu, we lived up to this standard.

However, part of being a great nation means we recognize the times when we did not live up to that standard. The bombing of Hiroshima, is one of those times.

 

[Ghosty]

The issue of surrender is simply an intellectual discussion. Your POV in reality is no more valid than mine, though I personally believe from your posts you have a lack of understanding of Japanese culture and beliefs.

My family is Japanese, and I’ve lived with Japanese people all my life, and studied Japanese history in college. I haven’t brought it up because I didn’t want it to cloud the discussion. I’m basing my statements on Japanese surrender purely on the facts, such as the verifiable fact that they were trying to surrender while saving face. You can bring up your ideas of Japanese culture all you want, but the facts of history speak differently than your model; even MacArthur, who knew Japanese culture very well, and who had been fighting them island to island for years, did not agree with your assessment.

As far as morality goes, I understand your POV. What could’ve happened is also an intellectual discussion. It’s always easy to play Monday morning quarterback, especially when we didn’t experience it and it is decades later.

The morality discussion is not “Monday morning quaterbacking”, it’s a simple evaluation of facts that don’t change. We’re not assessing culpability, and we’re not saying what methods would have ultimately been more effective in getting Japan to stop fighting; we’re simply evaluating which methods were moral.

With regard to morality, you only address you the part of morality that you wish to address, hence the failure to address my reference to Deuteronomy (as did everyone else). There are Biblical references to indiscriminate slaying of everyone, even including the animals. I cannot reconcile how that can be moral, yet the action in the discussion at hand is absolutely immoral.

References to the Old Testament are irrelevant for many different reasons. Unless you can show that God spoke through Prophets that the U.S. must nuke Japan, you have no grounds for bringing up events in the Old Testament.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

That pretty much sums up Catholic morals in regards to war. You only attack legitimate military targets.

I am very proud of our great nation as we have mostly lived up to this standard. Even in modern warfare, such as the Battle of Mogidishu, we lived up to this standard.

However, part of being a great nation means we recognize the times when we did not live up to that standard. The bombing of Hiroshima, is one of those times.

From what I’ve seen in this thread, most of the anti-bomb group are patriotic Americans who believe that WWII was a Just War from the Allies side (I feel it was one of the most clearly Just Wars in history, in fact). We just want the U.S. to live up to its own moral standards and tradition, because it is those things that make us so proud of our nation to begin with.

As G.K. Chesterton said: “My country, right or wrong,” is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, “My mother, drunk or sober.”

We want our country right, and our mothers sober, precisely because we are patriots who love our mothers.

Peace and God bless!

 

[smichhertz]

From what I’ve seen in this thread, most of the anti-bomb group are patriotic Americans who believe that WWII was a Just War from the Allies side (I feel it was one of the most clearly Just Wars in history, in fact). We just want the U.S. to live up to its own moral standards and tradition, because it is those things that make us so proud of our nation to begin with.

Completely agree!

 

[Monte_RCMS]

You do know that both Eisenhower and MacArthur were opposed to the use of the atomic bombs on Japan, right? Both thought that it was the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender that prolonged the war, and that the use of the bombs was not militarily necessary. Hardly “lefty peaceniks”, those two.

Peace and God bless!

Neither Eisenhower nor MacArthur had a clue as to what the atomic bomb was.

Admiral Leahy said it wouldn’t even work.

Based on the Japanese opposition at Iwo Jima and especially at Okinawa, where they used heavily the Kamikazi assets … causing thousands of U.S. deaths and sinking many U.S. ships.

The Japanese strategy was to bait us into landing and letting us make inroads … and then butchering us.

And that’s what they did.

They did not surrender.

They caught us between the land forces on the islands and the air forces that hammered our ships. Our land forces were trapped on the island and our naval forces could not pull away to safety as long as our land forces needed protection.

We got massacred.

And based on our losses in the island campaign and the fight to the death attitude of the Japanese, there was no way we could avoid a battle for Japan that would not turn it into a bloodbath.

World War II put all other wars into the ranks of triviality except for the Mongol invasion of Europe.

Arguably 100,000,000 people died in World War II.

We wanted to end it without adding another million of our soldiers to the casualty list.

It was bloody and we wanted it ended.

You can argue all day about the inhumanity of it and how the CCC of 2000 might not allow it.

The fact is that we were in it … we were against it … we disarmed heavily before the war … and we were caught unprepared on December 7, 1941 … and paid heavily for it. Our troops and our allies were slaughtered in one-sided battles throughout 1941 and 1942 … and it wasn’t even until 1943 that we could even get a glimmer of a turn around. The war was so costly that Britain and France were bankrupted by it. The U.S. had to bail out our allies after the war to prevent mass starvation … among the winners … as well as among the losers.

We weren’t going to walk away with victory in sight after all that blood of our troops and the blood of so many innocent people who were out friends had been spilled.

Someone here suggested we just walk away without ending it. Got news for you … not going to happen.

And we learned AFTER the war about the I-400 GIANT Japanese submarines that they had built … they were huge and had a hangar that could carry three large airplanes designed to carry bombs to attack the Panama Canal locks and perhaps the West Coast of the United States … that they were working on nuclear weapons in northern Korea … and that a dirty bomb was a real possibility.

The Japanese were not giving up.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

The truth about the A-bomb attacks on Japan should not be summarily dismissed as “revisionist history.” Let’s consider the facts: 1. Prior to those two bombings, the US had destroyed 62 Jap cities by conventional fire-bombing raids. Many of these causing more deaths (over 100,000 in Tokyo) than the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima. 2. The Jap leadership was not expecting a declaration of war from the USSR. Instead, they hoped that the USSR, as a neutral party, would broker a conditional peace for them with the US. 3. A major stumbling point to the Jap surrender was the condition of the preservation of the emperor. The US finally ageed to this condition. 5. The US knew in advance the date that the USSR would make its devastating declaration of war on Japan. It had been agreed upon at Yalta.
So, ask yourselves this question: Why didn’t Truman just wait until a week or two after the massive USSR offensive had started to order the A-bombs on Japan? The answer: because he knew that Japan would surrender sooner and that it would appear that Japan was surrendering because of a USSR offensive and a US concession. Not good politics. So Truman ordered the A-bomb attack just days prior to the Russian declaration of war to make it appear that Japan was surrendering because of a US strike. Those two bombings were, in reality, nothing more than cold war propaganda. That’s a tough truth to swallow for US citizens who have believed this lie for so many years. The real crime of the atomic bomb attacks: they didn’t contribute to ending the Pacific war at all, it was just politics. We, as US citizens, see the same phenominom repeatedly: Johnson’s lies to pass the infamous Tonkin Gulf Resolution staring the Vietnam war. Bush’s obsession with invading Iraq after the 9-11 attacks (which Iraq had nothing to do with.) “Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.”

 

[JimG]

The truth about the A-bomb attacks on Japan should not be summarily dismissed as “revisionist history.” Let’s consider the facts: 1. Prior to those two bombings, the US had destroyed 62 Jap cities by conventional fire-bombing raids. Many of these causing more deaths (over 100,000 in Tokyo) than the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima. 2. The Jap leadership was not expecting a declaration of war from the USSR. Instead, they hoped that the USSR, as a neutral party, would broker a conditional peace for them with the US. 3. A major stumbling point to the Jap surrender was the condition of the preservation of the emperor. The US finally ageed to this condition. 5. The US knew in advance the date that the USSR would make its devastating declaration of war on Japan. It had been agreed upon at Yalta.
So, ask yourselves this question: Why didn’t Truman just wait until a week or two after the massive USSR offensive had started to order the A-bombs on Japan? The answer: because he knew that Japan would surrender sooner and that it would appear that Japan was surrendering because of a USSR offensive and a US concession. Not good politics. So Truman ordered the A-bomb attack just days prior to the Russian declaration of war to make it appear that Japan was surrendering because of a US strike. Those two bombings were, in reality, nothing more than cold war propaganda. That’s a tough truth to swallow for US citizens who have believed this lie for so many years. The real crime of the atomic bomb attacks: they didn’t contribute to ending the Pacific war at all, it was just politics. We, as US citizens, see the same phenominom repeatedly: Johnson’s lies to pass the infamous Tonkin Gulf Resolution staring the Vietnam war. Bush’s obsession with invading Iraq after the 9-11 attacks (which Iraq had nothing to do with.) “Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.”

Yes, the U.S.had attacked many Japanese cities with far more death and destruction resulting than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were no smart bombs in those days. The attacks were against cities. Yet the only attacks we hear routinely condemned and commemorated are the atomic bombings, not the massive conventional bombings of Japanese cities which cause far more death and destruction.

Whatever the politics at the time, it was a good thing for Japan that the USSR did not invade. Soviet style gulags with additional millions dead would have been the likely result–far different from the U.S. occupation.

Eisenhower’s misgivings about the use of the atomic bombs were apparently made known long after the end of the war. Yet, it does not seem that he had any innate aversion to the use of atomic weapons. It was Eisenhower who, as president, instituted the policy called “massive retaliation,” in the early days of the Cold War. Neither the U.S. nor NATO had the military resources to repulse a determined attack on Western European nations by the USSR. Ike’s response was a policy of deterrence whereby any attack by the USSR upon any NATO nation would be considered an attack on the U.S., and would result in the use of SAC bombers to attack USSR cities with nuclear weapons. And it had to be cities, since nuclear weapons in those days could not be targeted with precision, as they can today. And in fact a policy of credible deterrence did keep the peace throughout the Cold War, which the U.S. eventually won.

(Just a note on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution: it didn’t start the Vietnam War; it was started under JFK. A later Congress simply pulled the rug from under the Vietnamese and Cambodians resulting in a bloodbath, along with religious persecution, which continues to the present day.I recommend Michael Lind’s book–“Vietnam, the Necessary War.”)