As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[Ghosty]

Who was reaching out? The civilians in the Japanese government through back channels. Who really controlled the government and decision structure? The military and Emperor. The idea that reaching out to discuss a peaceful end of the war is simply revisionist history that places emphasis upon a less than significant side story.

Apparently you didn’t read the U.S. document I linked to. It was Togo and Hirohito who were reaching out, not “civilians through back channels”.

Only when the Emperor realized that the Japanese people, culture, and existence faced total destruction, did he wisely abandoned the military. Since most of the military were bound by honor, they even allow peace to happen.

No, actually the military staged a coup against the Emperor, even after the atomic bombings. They did not submit due to the atomic bombings.

As for the blockade and eventual surrender, I wouldn’t have held out for that. There are numerous examples from the era where the military would gladly have the civilians eat tree bark, while they dined on a better fare.

While the lose of innocent life is always a sin, I’m a great believer in the separation of church and state. I’m thankful that religion did not outweigh the need to end the war. The firebombing of major Japanese cities did nothing to move the Emperor. The impact of a single bomb destroying a city drove home the point. His realization of what lay ahead must have hit him like a ton of bricks. I’m firmly in the column that the two bombs were a necessary evil for the greater good.

Actually it was the fire-bombing of Tokyo in particular, according to first hand sources, that moved the Emperor to seek an end to the war, pursuing Russia to broker a peace deal.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Monte RCMS:

Indeed, as you write, there was NO outcry by the Catholic Church or anyone else.

This is false. Bishop Sheen and Pope Pius XII were just two notable contemporaries that condemned the atomic bombings.

Also, to address something you said earlier:

You can only argue the facts and references as we knew them and as existed in 1945.

How about the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1912, an American resource? From the article on War:

It embraces the infliction of all manner of damage to property and life of the other state and its contending subjects, up to the measure requisite to enforce submission, implying the acceptance of a final readjustment and proportionate penalty; it includes in general all acts that are necessary means to such damage, but is checked by the proviso that neither the damage inflicted nor the means taken involve actions that are intrinsically immoral. In the prosecution of the war the killing or injuring of non-combatants (women, children, the aged and feeble, or even those capable of bearing arms but as a matter of fact not in any way participating in the war) is consequently barred, except where their simultaneous destruction is an unavoidable accident attending the attack upon the contending force. The wanton destruction of the property of such non-combatants, where it does not or will not minister maintenance or help to the state or its army, is likewise devoid of the requisite condition of necessity.

The atomic bombings absolutely fail this standard because the massive killing of innocents and destruction of property was not accidental, nor unavoidable, but actually an intended consequence of the bombs. The intention was to show to the Japanese government the damage the U.S. could do to its civilians and civilian infrastructure, so the death and destruction was certainly not accidental or unavoidable.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Redratfish]

Monte RCMS:This is false. Bishop Sheen and Pope Pius XII were just two notable contemporaries that condemned the atomic bombings.

Also, to address something you said earlier: How about the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1912, an American resource? From the article on War:

The atomic bombings absolutely fail this standard because the massive killing of innocents and destruction of property was not accidental, nor unavoidable, but actually an intended consequence of the bombs. The intention was to show to the Japanese government the damage the U.S. could do to its civilians and civilian infrastructure, so the death and destruction was certainly not accidental or unavoidable.

Peace and God bless!

Your statement is not true because the civilians were not** non combatants**.

Except that the Japanese government was equipping civilians to fight to the death against American invaders with Operation Ketsu-Go. Are they considered civilians when they would fight to the last man, to defend the Emperor? We could either destroy 2 cities, or kill all of Japan. I don’t understand how you can say Japan would have surrender before the invasion when their operations prove differently.

It saved Japanese and American lives.

 

[Ghosty]

Your statement is not true because the civilians were not** non combatants**.

Except that the Japanese government was equipping civilians to fight to the death against American invaders with Operation Ketsu-Go. Are they considered civilians when they would fight to the last man, to defend the Emperor? We could either destroy 2 cities, or kill all of Japan. I don’t understand how you can say Japan would have surrender before the invasion when their operations prove differently.

It saved Japanese and American lives.

You must not have read the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It explicitly addressed your point when it said “the killing or injuring of non-combatants (women, children, the aged and feeble, or even those capable of bearing arms but as a matter of fact not in any way participating in the war) is consequently barred, except where their simultaneous destruction is an unavoidable accident attending the attack upon the contending force.”

As for surrendering before invasion, we know for a fact*** they (Emperor Hirohito and Foreign Minister Togo included) were trying to*** find terms of negotiated surrender***, and the U.S. government knew this.*** I linked to a relevant declassified document in my first post on this thread. It’s astonishing to me that these facts are repeatedly overlooked.

 

[Warrior1979]

As for surrendering before invasion, we know for a fact*** they (Emperor Hirohito and Foreign Minister Togo included) were trying to*** find terms of negotiated surrender***, and the U.S. government knew this.*** I linked to a relevant declassified document in my first post on this thread. It’s astonishing to me that these facts are repeatedly overlooked.

Do you believe that destruction of cities, especially Tokyo, prior to bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, had absolutely nothing to do with the Japanese considering surrendering?

 

[exnihilo]

Actually … there WAS an outcry against the war!

You can look it up.

The outcry took place in the United States.

And the minute that Germany attacked the Soviet Union, the outcry stopped immediately … the outcry stopped so fast … that the anti-war protesters didn’t even have time to get new picket signs. So, they just wrote over their anti-war picket signs with crayon … and favored the U.S. attacking Germany.

You should look it up.

That would seem like a fairly accurate statement. It is hard to reconstruct history.

Charles Lindbergh was certainly one of the anti-war leaders. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor he supported the war. Ah, but there is the key. He and others were anti-war before the war. It is quite clear that the US was trying to get into a war long before it was attacked, thus the anti-war movement. The Lend-Lease program was an act of war and undeniably a support and encouragement for war.

 

[whipp711]

Oh we are saaaaved,
Just give peace a chance.

If we had gone that route, John Lennon’s song would have been in German or Japanese. Overstatement yes.

The church must take the moral stance that all war is wrong. It should be our guiding principle as Catholics. I’m just thankful we are not a theocracy.

From Chapter 23, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, by Louis Morton

The Suzuki Cabinet that came into power in April 19,45 had an unspoken mandate from the Emperor to end the war as quickly as possible. But it was faced immediately with an additional problem when the Soviet Government announced it would not renew the neutrality pact after April 1946. The German surrender in May produced another crisis in the Japanese Government and led, after considerable discussion, to a decision to seek Soviet mediation. But the first approach, made on June 3 to Jacob Malik, the Soviet Ambassador, produced no results. Malik was noncommittal and merely said the problem needed further study. [50]

At the end of June, the Japanese finally approached the Soviet Government directly through Ambassador Sato in Moscow, asking that it mediate with the Allies to bring the Far Eastern war to an end. In a series of messages between Tokyo and Moscow, which the Americans intercepted and decoded, the Japanese Foreign Office outlined the position of the government and instructed Ambassador Sato to make arrangements for a special envoy from the Emperor who would be empowered to make terms for Soviet mediation. Unconditional surrender, he was told, was completely unacceptable, and time was of the essence. But the Russians, on one pretext and another, delayed their answer until mid-July when Stalin and Molotov left for Potsdam. Thus, the Japanese Government had by then accepted defeat and was seeking desperately for a way out; **but it was not willing even at this late date to surrender unconditionally, and would accept no terms that did not include the preservation of the imperial system. **

Decision point was reached by the Emperor, after the bombings. They had to submit to unconditional surrender first. Oh, the decision by the allies to allow the emperor to remain was a kindly jesture. Hirohito should have been tried as a war criminal. But that’s a story for a different discussion.

 

[exnihilo]

Your statement is not true because the civilians were not** non combatants**.

Except that the Japanese government was equipping civilians to fight to the death against American invaders with Operation Ketsu-Go. Are they considered civilians when they would fight to the last man, to defend the Emperor? We could either destroy 2 cities, or kill all of Japan. I don’t understand how you can say Japan would have surrender before the invasion when their operations prove differently.

It saved Japanese and American lives.

And how is this different from America? In my state, and no doubt many others, I am considered part of the militia as are all male citizens. If the my state was under attack I am expected to defend it. No doubt if it was under attack the state would equip citizens with all the dangerous and deadly weapons we cant normally be trusted with to defend it.

 

[smichhertz]

The weapons we had in WWII were so inaccurate, that very few bombs could come within five miles of the aiming point. You can look up the statistics.

In fact it was difficult to even find the cities with the targets!

Precision weapons able to hit an individual building didn’t come about until the 1970’s. LONG after WWII.

You’re missing the point - it doesn’t matter how accurate or inaccurate a bomb is. The question is what’s the intended target. Remember, we’re trying to judge the morality of the act.

The ends do not justify the means. I cannot legitimately target and kill civilians and then call it okay because it brought about the end of the war.

 

[Roy5]

If the ends don’t justify the means, we all ought to become Quakers or Mennonites and reject the whole war system. War, by its very nature, is hell on earth. Its main purpose is to kill the enemy until they surrender.
On second thought, a truly attractive idea. Except the Quakers have too little liturgy (especially music) for me, and the Mennonites would make me give up my TV set and computer. Forget it. But I do admire both groups (among others).

 

[smichhertz]

If the ends don’t justify the means, we all ought to become Quakers or Mennonites and reject the whole war system. War, by its very nature, is hell on earth. Its main purpose is to kill the enemy until they surrender.

On second thought, a truly attractive idea. Except the Quakers have too little liturgy (especially music) for me, and the Mennonites would make me give up my TV set and computer. Forget it. But I do admire both groups (among others).

Not really, one can justly wage war and not be justifying the means with ends. For instance, suppose America had lost WWII? I highly doubt anyone would be saying we weren’t justified to go to war against the Axis powers simply because we lost.

I fail to see how waging war always violates the “ends don’t justify the means”. It certainly CAN, but not always.

 

[Ghosty]

Do you believe that destruction of cities, especially Tokyo, prior to bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, had absolutely nothing to do with the Japanese considering surrendering?

Read my post #121.

whipp711: First of all, nobody on this thread has said that war can’t or shouldn’t happen. I, for one, am certainly not a “peacenik”.

You don’t seem to be carefully reading even your own sources. The decision was made by the Emperor prior to the atomic bombings, according to the source you yourself cite.

If you’re simply intending to emphasize that the Emperor didn’t accept unconditional surrender, then yes this is true, but demands for unconditional surrender are not necessarily moral, either. Given the fact that the U.S. met the Japanese demand for retaining the Emperor even after the unconditional surrender, that demand was obviously an acceptable position to the U.S. The war could have ended before the atomic bombings had the U.S. simply acquiesced to that one point, as it ended up doing anyway, making the U.S. government even more reprehensible in this action.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dmar198]

Oh we are saaaaved,
Just give peace a chance.

If we had gone that route, John Lennon’s song would have been in German or Japanese. Overstatement yes.

The church must take the moral stance that all war is wrong. It should be our guiding principle as Catholics. I’m just thankful we are not a theocracy.

From Chapter 23, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, by Louis Morton

Decision point was reached by the Emperor, after the bombings. They had to submit to unconditional surrender first. Oh, the decision by the allies to allow the emperor to remain was a kindly jesture. Hirohito should have been tried as a war criminal. But that’s a story for a different discussion.

You are forgetting that you can never do evil, not even to bring about a greater good. A “necessary evil” can never be committed, no matter how many lives are at stake. Doing the good is more important than saving your skin, or even someone else’s, if you have to sin in order to save him.

 

[whipp711]

If you’re simply intending to emphasize that the Emperor didn’t accept unconditional surrender, then yes this is true, but

Thank you.

but demands for unconditional surrender are not necessarily moral, either.

Conditions of surrender a violation of morals??? Oh please.

You are forgetting that you can never do evil, not even to bring about a greater good. A “necessary evil” can never be committed, no matter how many lives are at stake. Doing the good is more important than saving your skin, or even someone else’s, if you have to sin in order to save him.

Oh please again. Don’t fight back if you’re being led into the colliseum for the special feature that day…Lions VS Christians. That’s a load of drivel related to confronting evil.

Arguing over the internet is like the special olympics. No one loses. I’ll let the moral higher ground debate among yourselves. I’ll take my war mongering self to other discussions.

 

[dmar198]

Oh please… Don’t fight back if you’re being led into the colliseum for the special feature that day…Lions VS Christians. … I’ll let the moral higher ground debate among yourselves.

“Moral high ground”? Fighting off the aggressors is the “moral high ground”? So I guess those martyrs who ACTUALLY let themselves be killed in the Colliseum took the “moral low ground” according to you, who never have faced anything like that but think you’re morally superior anyway? The true moral high ground is to be like St. Ignatius of Antioch. While he was being carted off to the Colliseum for slaughter, he wrote to the Christians in the Roman Senate telling them NOT to save him, because it is better to die the holy death of martyrdom. “I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Allow me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.” Obviously, he was the moral inferior to YOU, who know that the TRUE Christian thing to do is SHUN the Cross and FIGHT OFF your unjust aggressors. Like Jesus did, right? Fight off the unjust aggressors… nope.

That’s a load of drivel related to confronting evil.

That’s because you’re not looking at it through the eyes of faith. The only way to conquer evil is through bearing up under it with patience, like Jesus, and offering it up to God to use it for the benefit of all. Truly, your solution fails: committing the sin of murder is no solution to evil. Committing the sin of mass-murder in Hiroshima is far less than that.

 

[dmar198]

Oh please… Don’t fight back if you’re being led into the colliseum for the special feature that day…Lions VS Christians. … I’ll let the moral higher ground debate among yourselves.

“Moral high ground”? Blowing up Japan is the “moral high ground”? So I guess those martyrs who ACTUALLY let themselves be killed in the Colliseum took the “moral low ground” according to you, who never have faced anything like that but think you’re morally superior anyway? The true moral high ground is to be like St. Ignatius of Antioch. While he was being carted off to the Colliseum for slaughter, he wrote to the Christians in the Roman Senate telling them NOT to save him, because it is better to die the holy death of martyrdom. “I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Allow me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.” Obviously, he was the moral inferior to YOU, who know that the TRUE Christian thing to do is SHUN the Cross and BLOW UP ANOTHER COUNTRY “for the sake of the children.” Like Jesus did, right? Strike down His unjust aggressors… nope.

That’s a load of drivel related to confronting evil.

That’s because you’re not looking at it through the eyes of faith. The only way to conquer evil is through bearing up under it with patience, like Jesus, and offering it up to God to use it for the benefit of all. Truly, your solution fails: committing the sin of murder is no solution to evil. Committing the sin of mass-murder in Hiroshima is far less than that.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Kinda makes ya wonder: what would those whose monday morning quarterbacking opposes using the atomic bomb … what they would have done to end the war.

Probably the only acceptable way out … can’t land our troops and have them butchered … can’t blockade and starve the Japanese … so, I guess the only way out would be for the United States to surrender.

 

[Redratfish]

You must not have read the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It explicitly addressed your point when it said “the killing or injuring of non-combatants (women, children, the aged and feeble, or even those capable of bearing arms but as a matter of fact not in any way participating in the war) is consequently barred, except where their simultaneous destruction is an unavoidable accident attending the attack upon the contending force.”

As for surrendering before invasion, we know for a fact*** they (Emperor Hirohito and Foreign Minister Togo included) were trying to*** find terms of negotiated surrender***, and the U.S. government knew this.*** I linked to a relevant declassified document in my first post on this thread. It’s astonishing to me that these facts are repeatedly overlooked.

They were more than capable of attacking back. They AS A MATTER OF FACT were trained to fight. So therefore are participating in the war. Its like saying we could not invade Berlin because the Nazi’s were using Volkssturm, as apposed to regular troops. Why can you not admit that the Japanese civis turned into soldiers? Did your father or grandfather land in Japan after the war and see the preparations that were made BY CIVILIANS, to kill the American invaders for the glory of Japan, take pictures and tell you about it? If not, then you have no room to talk. The Civilians WERE soldiers. You know what? Sure, lets say there was no military reason to attack Hiroshima except civilians. Guess what, you just took out a large population of people that would kill your soldiers. You tell me? Is that a military target? I think so.

You can argue about whether it was moral or not. Fact of the matter is, I would not be here if we invaded as opposed to using them. My grandfather was set to go in on the second wave of the invasion of Japan. Expected casualty rate? 100 percent.

You obviously didn’t look at the details of the japanese operation. There is a point where a civilians turns into a soldier. Given a weapon, given training, and intent to kill are the three main criteria. All three of those were met.

 

[Warrior1979]

“Moral high ground”? Blowing up Japan is the “moral high ground”? So I guess those martyrs who ACTUALLY let themselves be killed in the Colliseum took the “moral low ground” according to you, who never have faced anything like that but think you’re morally superior anyway? The true moral high ground is to be like St. Ignatius of Antioch. While he was being carted off to the Colliseum for slaughter, he wrote to the Christians in the Roman Senate telling them NOT to save him, because it is better to die the holy death of martyrdom. “I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Allow me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.” Obviously, he was the moral inferior to YOU, who know that the TRUE Christian thing to do is SHUN the Cross and BLOW UP ANOTHER COUNTRY “for the sake of the children.” Like Jesus did, right? Strike down His unjust aggressors… nope. That’s because you’re not looking at it through the eyes of faith. The only way to conquer evil is through bearing up under it with patience, like Jesus, and offering it up to God to use it for the benefit of all. Truly, your solution fails: committing the sin of murder is no solution to evil. Committing the sin of mass-murder in Hiroshima is far less than that.

I’m curious as to what your argument is as it concerns others. It one thing to for one to die for their cause; it’s another to stand by and allow others to die because of your beliefs.

Ask the Chinese what they think of the Japanese aggression during WWII. Unlike the U.S., the Chinese are still extremely angry at them for what they did. In fact, our Chinese guide was the most pleasant person that one could possibly imagine…until someone made the mistake of mentioning the Japanese.

 

[Warrior1979]

Read my post #121.

And that is where I get lost. You’re claiming that the conventional bombing, causing massive civilian casualties, was the cause of surrender. So I assume you’re against the actions taken that would cause them to surrender in the first place.