As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[jeffrey_erwin]

Speaking of “myths,” the greatest myth that has been perpetuated about The Atomic bombings of Japan is that these were done to “save American lives.” In August of 1945 Japan was a defeated nation, and, inspite of having a 5 million man army, Japan posed no threat to any US territory. As planned at Yalta, the USSR declared war on Japan in August, 1945. That action was seen as a threat of Soviet expansion and domination in the far east, and that is the reason the Truman administration was so anxious for Japan to surrender at that time. From a military (rather than political) viewpoint, all the US had to do to “save US lives” was to stand off and let the Russians invade Japan. That course would have obiviated the necessity of deploying the A-bomb and also of granting immunity to one of WWII’s top war criminals, emperor HIrohito.

 

[GKC]

I recall the History Channel also told us that the Crusades were run by greedy knights only seeking to quench their lust for power and gold, and that the Conquistadors were among the first cultural genocide artists. Popular media is hardly the place to find complete and unbiased factuality. Everybody writes history with a tilt, or an axe to grind. Even here.

Isn’t it the case, the more removed one is from a situation, the better he is able to look at it objectively? Emotions cloud facts, as you said; but they don’t obscure them, as a rule (otherwise, no history could every be written). Wouldn’t the strong ties of family or friends clutter the historical skyline with more emotion? The subject tends to jump from historical inquiry to defense of family veracity, doesn’t it? Aren’t eyewitnesses also clouded with human emotions, more so than the people they may tell the story to? How many historians tear up telling the story of an eyewitness who breaks down every time he thinks of his story?

How huge a part of honest-to-goodness war production (i.e. tanks, guns, artillery, metalworking, repairs, shipbuilding, munitions, and supplies) can be done in the private homes of people who have few natural resources and even less skilled labor? Wouldn’t the distribution of all the parts and services also make the Japanese war machine that much more unwieldy? (Officer: I need part 2247B for this tank. Laborer: Oh, you need to go to 34 Wakezashi street to get the first half. We produce the other half across town. We didn’t have the equipment on this side.) It seems that they were doing us a favor.

Didn’t the emperor’s word still bring an end to the war, no matter who may have wanted to continue it? The word of the god is the word of law. If the US had wanted peace, why didn’t they just negotiate with the emperor and protect him from reprisal?

God love you,
sandomenico

It is not the history channel per se that is the point. It is the statements of scholars, as Frank or Walker, or, as a revisionist, Alperovitz, who appeared on it, and the fact that the general narrative is supported by such scholars’ work, that is the point. I’ve been studying the end game in WWII in the Pacific, as a hobby, for over 15 years. My library on the subject runs to 35+ books directly on the use of the bombs, another 50-60 on directly supporting subjects. My reading says that the program was well founded, in history, Alperovitz not withstanding.

Yearly, around August, I find these topic appearing in such venues as this, and yearly, I find myself appearing in the threads, discussing mainly errors in history, if these occur in an attempt to bolster the position of those RCs who follow their understanding of the magisterium (and correctly, for all I know). I never argue against an RC affirming whatever the RCC requires to be affirmed, with whatever degree of theological certainty is appropriate, on a given point. I do argue against defective, dubious or debatable history, when these “And anyway…” assertions appear.

I’ve done that for this year; I am tired of it for now. But if anyone would like a reading list of the best expositions as to the historical facts on the subject, including those scholars I find to be out of step with history, based on my reading, just ask.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Speaking of “myths,” the greatest myth that has been perpetuated about The Atomic bombings of Japan is that these were done to “save American lives.” In August of 1945 Japan was a defeated nation, and, inspite of having a 5 million man army, Japan posed no threat to any US territory. As planned at Yalta, the USSR declared war on Japan in August, 1945. That action was seen as a threat of Soviet expansion and domination in the far east, and that is the reason the Truman administration was so anxious for Japan to surrender at that time. From a military (rather than political) viewpoint, all the US had to do to “save US lives” was to stand off and let the Russians invade Japan. That course would have obiviated the necessity of deploying the A-bomb and also of granting immunity to one of WWII’s top war criminals, emperor HIrohito.

See my post above. I can suggest a reading list that may correct your misapprehensions, or may not. But I am likely done with detail posting on this subject, for about 12 months.

GKC

 

[pnewton]

As a returned, practicing Catholic, I am truely sorry to see the results of the poll. It shows me that there is a huge mass of people out there who do not know their history, or who have been taught politically slanted dis-information instead of factual history…

The poll only surprises me more because it is not more in line with everything the Catholic Church has said about Hiroshima. I know the difference between doctrine and application, so I do not mean to beg the question here. However, if one goes by what the Church or anyone from the Catholic Church hierarchy has said on the subject, if is universally condemning of the decision to drop the bomb. As an American, I can understand the split in opinion, but as a Catholic, I do not.

 

[vz71]

The poll only surprises me more because it is not more in line with everything the Catholic Church has said about Hiroshima…
As an American, I can understand the split in opinion, but as a Catholic, I do not.

How so?
The teachings are not in question and few argue against them.
The question is the application of the teachings here.

I do not believe the church has stated in any infallible way that the bombings were morally wrong.
There is plenty of compelling evidence to make it a just decision.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

It did not. Japan had been ready, willing, and trying to surrender well before the bombing. This is a sad myth. It is stunning the difference between the objective reality of what America is and has done over it’s history, and what we tell ourselves about what America is and has been. Simply stunning.

If Japan had been ready, willing and trying to surrender, then they WOULD HAVE SURRENDERED!

They could have made their intentions clear … by standing down their forces. By recalling their submarines at sea. By grounding their air forces. By having us pick up prisoners of war that they had captured.

They did none of those things.

Some insist that the Japanese were “trying” to surrender. What the Japanese did was to whisper into the whirlwind … but they still wanted to keep their conquests.

So, if the were “trying” to surrender … no one heard them.

They had few natural resources … but instead of turning into a trading nation, they decided to take what they wanted by conquest. Up into Manchuria … which might also keep the Soviet Union off balance.

They did horrible things in China!

They defeated the British and the French and the Dutch in various places and then …

… they sent an ENORMOUS fleet into what became the Battle of Midway …

… Their plan was to attack Pearl Harbor … sink our aircraft carriers and then … a few months later to land and capture the Hawaiian Islands.

They screwed up big time. Maybe it was their timing. Or our timing.

But, meanwhile, as the war ground on, they developed new classes of submarines and airplanes and radar and sonar. And by all indications they had two atomic bomb projects. Nothing to stop them from detonating one of those under our fleet or off the coast of Los Angeles.

If they really wanted to surrender, all they had to do was to pull back and stand down.

Maybe fly an airplane alongside our B-29’s with white streamers.

Drop a few documents on Okinawa.

A few radio broadcasts.

Ship some of the prisoners they had captured back to us.

A visit to our offices in Switzerland.

Something.

All they did was whisper … and no body heard it.

 

[GKC]

With respect to the concept of surrendering, they didn’t even whisper. Togo’s instructions to Sato (and Togo was not in a position to surrender, in any sense, or, indeed, to do anything, absent the approval of the full 6 member Committee for the Conduct of the War) were to feel out the Soviets with an eye to using them as intermediaries to negotiate an acceptable peace and end of hostilities. As Sato knew, and told Togo, this was a fantasy. Japan had to surrender, in the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. Period. He was correct.

The Potsdam Declaration was released 26 July. The Japanese reply was that they would treat it with mokusatsu, kill with silence: ignore. As Max Hasting said (RETRIBUTION) throughout the war, the Japanese took no notice of the relationship of the state of the war at a given time, and their ability to control the end of the war. There was always the concept of the decisive battle, to change the tide.

On 10 Aug 1945, after the 2nd bomb, and after the rigged gozen kaigan that night, in which the “peace” faction of the Committee had arranged for the Emperor to speak, in the Voice of the Crane, directing the acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, the Japanese sent their acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration (which, in spite of the use of the term, was not unconditional: it was unconditional surrender to the terms of the Declaration), to the Swiss, asking them to inform the US of the Japanese acceptance of the terms, “with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler”. Had this been the response originally, rather than mokusatsu, the war would have ended then, before the bombs. But the issue of the Emperor’s status was not the only condition the peace faction, let alone the war faction, set; they had 3 and sometimes, 4 other conditions. Which were non-starters, as Sato said.

Prior to the bombs, no one, especially no one in a position to do so, was trying to surrender. Togo was trying to negotiate an unacceptable compromise, on his own, with the tacit approval of the Emperor. There was no such thing. Frank/DOWNFALL is good on this, as is Newman/TRUMAN AND HIROSHIMA CULT.

GKC

 

[pnewton]

How so?
The teachings are not in question and few argue against them.
The question is the application of the teachings here.

I do not believe the church has stated in any infallible way that the bombings were morally wrong.
There is plenty of compelling evidence to make it a just decision.

No, they have not. The Church never makes infallible declarations about application of moral law. As Catholics though, we are obligated to follow all the teachings of the Church, just not that which has been declared infallible. In other areas, we can disagree with application, but we should attempt to learn the mind of the Church in such matters. So, after your post, I will ask more directly, have you ever heard anyone in the Church hierarchy support or justify the bombing? Or is the mind of the Church pretty much one on this topic?

This is why I say it should be no surprise that a Catholic poll is mostly in line with the Church on this.

 

[vz71]

No, they have not. The Church never makes infallible declarations about application of moral law.

I was under the impression that this was the case with abortion.

As Catholics though, we are obligated to follow all the teachings of the Church, just not that which has been declared infallible. In other areas, we can disagree with application, but we should attempt to learn the mind of the Church in such matters. So, after your post, I will ask more directly, have you ever heard anyone in the Church hierarchy support or justify the bombing? Or is the mind of the Church pretty much one on this topic?

Yes. Long ago I had a parish priest that spoke of the bombings as something that cannot be condemned. That these bombings occurred during wartime, against the enemy, that would not surrender, against a military objective. Of course, he did stop short of justification, but left it as an act during war that cannot be condemned given the circumstance.
This man was a priest, and scholar. As was the case with most pre-vatican II priests, he held doctorates in multiple disciplines and never allowed us to go through Mass without learning something new.
I miss him greatly.
God called him home a little over 15 years ago and he was replaced with a post Vatican II horror show…but that is a topic of another thread.
I miss him greatly.

This is why I say it should be no surprise that a Catholic poll is mostly in line with the Church on this.

You are right.
The poll is divided. And it appears church hierarchy is as well.

 

[whipp711]

.
Note that, after U.S. troops landed in Japan, this heavily militarized people, the die-hards who were never supposed to surrender, the people we expected would fight to last man, woman and child, rolled over and accepted our occupation peacefully.

No, they were ORDERED by the Emperor to accept the unacceptable. They either complied or committed sepuku.

 

[pnewton]

The poll is divided. And it appears church hierarchy is as well.

I have yet to see the division, but perhaps someone will post something.

 

[GKC]

No, they were ORDERED by the Emperor to accept the unacceptable. They either complied or committed sepuku.

Basically correct. Had the invasion gone forward, and Ketsu-go been opposed to it, what was planned and expected was a *gyokusai */smashing of the jewels, of the 100 million (during the war, the Japanese always referred to the country as if it had a population of 100 million, not 77 million as was the case. More poetic). This was both the final decisive battle, and the ultimate defence of, and sacrifice for, the national polity and honor; i.e., the Emperor. When the Son of Heaven said bear the unbearable, that became the sacrifice.

The coup attempt was mostly high theater, but the participants were serious.

GKC

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The key issue is: Was Hiroshima a legitimate military target?

Well, I am reading a book that describes the effect of mass bombing of German cities and the effect on German war production … specifically, Germany had two new “stealth” submarines in production, which could have turned the war around.

The book is " Turning the Tide: How a small band of allied sailors defeated the U-Boats and won the Battle of the Atlantic" by Ed Offley. 2011 Basic Books.

from pages 380 and 381: Epilogue

" … The Germans’ wonder weapons, the Type XXI and XXIII electroboats, never reached the U-Boat Force in any significant numbers/ The Allied bombing of Germany had so disrupted Hitler’s transportation infrastructure that it seriously delayed delivery of the components for the new U-Boats. Only two Type XXIs ever deployed on patrol, and neither sank an Allied ship. Eight of the smaller Type XXIII boats got to sea, and between them sank just four Allied merchant ships totaling 7,392 tons."

from page 376: Epilogue

“During one nighttime raid [on Hamburg], they [the British and Americans] used incendiary bombs that sparked a massive firestorm, torching eight square miles of the city and killing over 50,000 people, many of them skilled shipwrights in the city’s four U-boat shipyards.”

Although, the Strategic Bombing Survey produced after the war stated that the bombings did not have a meaningful effect on war production, clearly that conclusion could not be true based on the loss of U-boat production following the Allied air raids.

And the deaths of the shipyard workers seriously slowed U-boat production, particularly of the new “electroboats” … which were much more sophisticated than the earlier Type VII U-boats.

Offley’s book focuses on the events of March 1943 and the horrendous battles between the German U-boats and the Allied anti-submarine forces. The Allies won based on technology. However, the Germans developed new technology to counter the Allies. What happened then, was on June 10, 1943, a decision was made and starting on July 24, 1943, Hamburg was destroyed and with its destruction, went the destruction of Germany’s ability to manufacture its much more capable U-boats.

It is important to look at the overall intentions and the overall results of the bombing of cities.

These are not pleasant issues and these wars involved virtually the entire world with total casualties approaching 100 million.

Hiroshima was but one campaign out of perhaps hundreds in a war that started in the mid-1930’s and ended in 1945.

 

[sandomenico]

The key issue is: Was Hiroshima a legitimate military target?

The Allies won based on technology. However, the Germans developed new technology to counter the Allies. What happened then, was on June 10, 1943, a decision was made and starting on July 24, 1943, Hamburg was destroyed and with its destruction, went the destruction of Germany’s ability to manufacture its much more capable U-boats.

It is important to look at the overall intentions and the overall results of the bombing of cities.

These are not pleasant issues and these wars involved virtually the entire world with total casualties approaching 100 million.

Hiroshima was but one campaign out of perhaps hundreds in a war that started in the mid-1930’s and ended in 1945.

If technology wins wars, then how did the Germans lose WW2? They had the best tanks, the first jets, ballistic missiles, radio guided bombs, an atomic program…all by 1943. The application of technology influences the outcome of war far more than the technology itself. Men win wars, not guns; although guns help a lot.

The end never justifies the means. Nor does the intention justify the result. Is every civilian or worker an enemy combatant? They are not, otherwise the distinction between soldier and civilian would be worthless. And blanket fire-bombing a city (or nuking one) involves numbers of civilian deaths that easily defy the justice of such an act.

God love you,
sandomenico

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Quoting Transformer, referencing The Catechism:
"From the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2314: “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.”

---

I agree with Transformer. If we are Catholics, we agree to the Catechism of the Church. How much clearer could it be than the above?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

If technology wins wars, then how did the Germans lose WW2? They had the best tanks, the first jets, ballistic missiles, radio guided bombs, an atomic program…all by 1943. The application of technology influences the outcome of war far more than the technology itself. Men win wars, not guns; although guns help a lot.

The end never justifies the means. Nor does the intention justify the result. Is every civilian or worker an enemy combatant? They are not, otherwise the distinction between soldier and civilian would be worthless. And blanket fire-bombing a city (or nuking one) involves numbers of civilian deaths that easily defy the justice of such an act.

God love you,
sandomenico

The full quote is “good ends do not justify evil means”.

People working in war production factories are legitimately considered as targets.

In both Germany and Japan, civilians working in aircraft factories, shipyards making submarines, munitions factories, oil refineries, railroads, and many other economic sectors were working in war production. It is not necessary for the materials to reach the front lines to attempt to destroy the enemy’s war-making capacity. And it’s not just the guns … it’s the financing and the energy sources and the raw materials and the telecommunications and every other aspect of what goes into the war making capacity.

The weapons deployed do not need to be chemical, biological or nuclear.

It can be something as simple as a computer virus … today.

Or evesdropping on someone’s communications.

Or a deception campaign.

In the Battle for the North Atlantic in March 1943, the Germans had superior technology. By May 1943, the British and Americans had superior technology. However, the Germans had several innovations in development and if the Germans had made one or two minor changes in tactics, they would have gained the upper hand again.

With a sustained submarine warfare campaign for just a few more months, the Germans would have literally starved the British into submission because the British were dependent on imported oil and food and war materials.

If the Axis had made one less mistake or if the Allies had made one more mistake, World War II would have gone the other way.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Quoting Transformer, referencing The Catechism:
"From the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2314: “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.”

---

I agree with Transformer. If we are Catholics, we agree to the Catechism of the Church. How much clearer could it be than the above?

Post factum and therefore completely irrelevant.

 

[Cristiano]

Post factum and therefore completely irrelevant.

Not exactly, the Catechism quote refers to a moral teaching that existed well before WW2. The CCC does not add any new teachings that were not there before WW2, the problem is that the teachings had to be explained again and in a more explicit form because people choose not to stick to them.

 

[estesbob]

The end never justifies the means. God love you,
sandomenico

Then the US should not have entered the war at all.

 

[sandomenico]

The full quote is “good ends do not justify evil means”.

People working in war production factories are legitimately considered as targets.

It is not necessary for the materials to reach the front lines to attempt to destroy the enemy’s war-making capacity. And it’s not just the guns … it’s the financing and the energy sources and the raw materials and the telecommunications and every other aspect of what goes into the war making capacity.

I have never heard the expression to mean anything else.

People working in war factories are not legitimately considered targets. They are legitimately considered collateral damage to the destruction of a factory or installation. Civilians are civilians, whether they work or not. Being a war worker does not create a new class of enemy combatant, but it does put the ordinary citizen in harm’s way. Frankly, they choose to work in what is a justifiable target. But, we must employ and meet all the conditions of the Principle of Double-Effect, in order to accept their deaths as moral.

No city houses enough factories to justify firebombing the entire square area (as the case with Hamburg, Dresden, Bremen, Tokyo, etc…), or nuking it into oblivion (as with Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The proportion of civilian casualties cannot justify such an act. There were far more legitimate means and military targets at our disposal, for a demonstration of power, than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

God love you,
sandomenico