As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[edwest2]

As an amateur World War II historian specializing in technology developed during and immediately after the war, especially what was captured from the Axis countries by the British, Americans, Russians, and the French, but mainly what was acquired by the Americans and Russians, it concerns me that as new information comes to light, it is not added to the historical record.

We did not trust the Russians and neither did the British. General Patton spoke of the unfair acquisition of Eastern Europe by the Russians at the end of the war. A member of a technical intelligence team from the British T-Force learned that the Russians had intentions toward Denmark. There were also concerns that as American and British forces pulled out of Western Europe, the Russians might go on to seize all or most of it.

dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1209041/Operation-unthinkable-How-Churchill-wanted-recruit-defeated-Nazi-troops-drive-Russia-Eastern-Europe.html

The Japanese did, in fact, have the capability to build an atomic bomb. Although orders were given at the end of the war to destroy all documents, a Japanese scientist went to the United States and kept some documents hidden until his death. His wife then sent them back to Japan.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2170881.stm

An American wrote about an actual successful test.

reformation.org/atlanta-constitution.html

I think it was wrong to drop two bombs much less one.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The only real alternative to dropping the atomic bombs was to simply stand back and starve them out.

No oil, no food, no nuthing.

They would all have been dead by March 1946.

But … suppose the Japanese DID have a nuclear weapons production facility in Wonson, Korea … and they had those three I-400 super submarines each of which carried three bombing planes. Well, what would we have done if in the middle of some night nine nuclear weapons detonated under our parked / anchored invasion fleet and all along the California coast and the Panama Canal and right next to our B-29 base at Tinian, at our submarine base at Pearl Harbor, etc.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

Quote: “The only real alternative was to stand back and starve them out.”
The Truman administration was fanatically anti-communist, so they refused to ever consider the obvious alternative to an American invasion of the Japanese home islands: a Soviet invasion and occupation. Stalin would have been more than happy to order his armies to accomplish this task, and a true unconditional surrender would have been achieved in just a few months, probably even before the scheduled date of Nov.1st for the US landings.
Instead Truman allowed two questionable actions: the introduction of nuclear warfare into the world and the abandonment of the unconditional surrender requirement for Imperial Japan.
One of the most knowlegable posters on this forum has argued that the Soviets did not possess the amphibious capability to effect such an invasion. Others disagree, but in any case, the US Navy could have provided the necessary assistance. After all, the Russsians were our allies at that time.
The atomic bomb should have been reserved for one purpose and one purpose only: to prevent and prohibit any other nation from developing these weapons. Harry Truman let the cat out of the bag in 1945, and the world is still not out of the woods in regards to global nuclear warfare.

 

[Faithdancer]

“Thou shalt not kill.”

 

[Faithdancer]

The only real alternative to dropping the atomic bombs was to simply stand back and starve them out.

No oil, no food, no nuthing.

They would all have been dead by March 1946.

But … suppose the Japanese DID have a nuclear weapons production facility in Wonson, Korea … and they had those three I-400 super submarines each of which carried three bombing planes. Well, what would we have done if in the middle of some night nine nuclear weapons detonated under our parked / anchored invasion fleet and all along the California coast and the Panama Canal and right next to our B-29 base at Tinian, at our submarine base at Pearl Harbor, etc.

That’s a lot of “ifs!”

 

[ringil]

I believe it was a VERY unfortunate but, sadly, neccessary decision. I do not believe that the Japanese would have surrendered through conventional warfare.

 

[RCIA4]

The bombing was unjustified… If we had accepted the Japanese peace offer in 1941 the war and pearl harbor would have never happened…

Pacifism is the only way… war is wrong…

War is evil even a just war… Peaceful nonviolent resistance is the way to go…

 

[ringil]

The bombing was unjustified… If we had accepted the Japanese peace offer in 1941 the war and pearl harbor would have never happened…

Pacifism is the only way… war is wrong…

War is evil even a just war… Peaceful nonviolent resistance is the way to go…

I have not heard of this peace offer in 1941. I’ll have to look into that. I don’t really know a great deal about the events surrounding the Pacific Theatre. I have just read books on “the front lines” as it were- not so much the macro level. And in what I have read the Japanese psyche at the time wouldn’t have allowed for wholesale surrender.

I will say that the Church does theoretically allow for the “Just War”. I suppose definition of said “Just War” would be kind of subjective but the Church does allow for both personal and state defense.

Now, do we (US) get into too many wars??? That’s another question.

 

[RCIA4]

My favorite Catholic pacifist is Ciaron O’Reilly… The man is my hero

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Since “Hiroshima” is a code word for nuclear weapons, here is an obituary for a fellow who explained why the Soviet Union embraced nuclear weapons:

Malcolm Mackintosh, who has died aged 89, was one of the Britain’s foremost Sovietologists during the Cold War, explaining and interpreting top secret intelligence for governments for more than 30 years.

He was formally taken on by the Foreign Office in 1960, working on its intelligence assessment staff. There he developed an encyclopedic knowledge of the disposition of Warsaw Pact forces, carrying the career details of many figures from the Soviet command in his head.

The value of this expertise was quickly recognised, and Mackintosh was permitted to share his knowledge with allies including America, where audiences for his briefings including Senators Henry “Scoop” Jackson and Ted Stevens. Later George Bush Snr (a CIA Director before he became President), invited Mackintosh to the Oval Office.

Back in Britain, Mackintosh was asked by Sir Anthony Duff, chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, to remain in an advisory role with the Cabinet Office beyond normal retirement age. In the mid-1980s he played a pivotal role in the critical debate which ended with Margaret Thatcher being persuaded that the West could “do business with” the new Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev .

Mackintosh emphasised that the weight of history in a nation that had lost 27 million people in the Second World War (and therefore considered a nuclear war to be survivable) meant that it was unrealistic to think that the Soviet system and the attitudes that had sustained it could change overnight, if ever

 

[Joe_Hill]

Am I right in saying that all Popes have condemned the bombings?

“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.” Pope Pius XII

Pope Paul VI called America’s use of the atomic bomb “butchery of untold magnitude.” Pope John Paul II called it “a self-destruction of mankind” and named Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Auschwitz as places marked by man’s sin that should now be places of pilgrimage

As a catholic, we should condemn the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki through the use of nuclear/atomic bombs.

 

[funinsnow]

Am I right in saying that all Popes have condemned the bombings?

“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.” Pope Pius XII

Pope Paul VI called America’s use of the atomic bomb “butchery of untold magnitude.” Pope John Paul II called it “a self-destruction of mankind” and named Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Auschwitz as places marked by man’s sin that should now be places of pilgrimage

As a catholic, we should condemn the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki through the use of nuclear/atomic bombs.

As a Non-Catholic, let me say that my view always has & will be that the atom bombs should’ve been dropped elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths such as a few thousand civilians killed & wounded rather than hundreds of thousands killed in Hiroshima & Nagasaki & yes those killed in Hiroshima & Nagasaki are innocent victims. Most survivors of Hiroshima & Nagasaki (Nagasaki had largest Catholic population in Japan) have said that they don’t personally blame President Harry S. Truman for dropping the atom bombs as he did what he believed would end the war & not out of any animosity towards the Japanese. Patrick J. Buchanan who is Catholic has written about this & he wrote that while against killing women & children as what happened in Hiroshima & Nagasaki, he also believes that the intent which was to end the war is good. During WW2, both sides believed that by bombing cities & killing civilians the other side would surrender. Whether it’s London, Coventry, Shanghai, Nanking, Dresden, Pforzeim, Tokyo, Kobe, etc. thousands of civilians were killed. Hiroshima & Nagasaki happened to be the deadliest. If Japan & Germany had the atom bombs, they would’ve used them & the Japanese military did biological war in China-Shiro Ishi flea bombs, etc. Also if it had gone to a ground war with Japan, there would’ve been more civilian deaths esp. as the Japanese were prepared to use women & children in combat. War is something which is just not understandable & what’s sad about wars is that often the people who end up being killed & wounded are those who don’t want part of the war such as those killed in Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

 

[vz71]

Am I right in saying that all Popes have condemned the bombings?

No. Those Popes alive before the bombings have not offered an opinion.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Funinsnow,

One of the truly unappreciated luxuries of 20/20 hindsight is that after having won the war, we can discuss the ways we were less than human or humane in our methods. Contrast this with the losers - Japan in this case can take all the time they need to consider their atrocities (beginning in China and then throughout the South Pacific) they are guilty of - and now the loss of the cities of Hiroshima & Nagasaki - as directly attributable to their aggression.

Don’t misunderstand me: war really is hell. I am confident that there were civilians who would not have fought a to-the-death campaign against invading US troops as they did on the numerous islands where our soldiers fought Japanese troops. The loss of innocent civilian life is deplorable - but, I submit unavoidable. In my opinion the resolute nature of the Japanese military is manifest in them not surrendering after the destruction of Hiroshima - but, insisted they could hold out and continue to fight - and it was this attitude that caused Nagasaki to be also lost.

I really do not have an answer for this - all the options have serious down-sides. But criticizing the US for ending WWII with atomic weapons - while offering only the possible sacrifice of 1,000,000 more dead to fight a conventional war in Japan so as not to use atomic weapons is an odd calculus to apply.

God bless Harry Truman and all those who fought so that we are free today to discuss their actions.

God bless

As a Non-Catholic, let me say that my view always has & will be that the atom bombs should’ve been dropped elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths such as a few thousand civilians killed & wounded rather than hundreds of thousands killed in Hiroshima & Nagasaki & yes those killed in Hiroshima & Nagasaki are innocent victims. Most survivors of Hiroshima & Nagasaki (Nagasaki had largest Catholic population in Japan) have said that they don’t personally blame President Harry S. Truman for dropping the atom bombs as he did what he believed would end the war & not out of any animosity towards the Japanese. Patrick J. Buchanan who is Catholic has written about this & he wrote that while against killing women & children as what happened in Hiroshima & Nagasaki, he also believes that the intent which was to end the war is good. During WW2, both sides believed that by bombing cities & killing civilians the other side would surrender. Whether it’s London, Coventry, Shanghai, Nanking, Dresden, Pforzeim, Tokyo, Kobe, etc. thousands of civilians were killed. Hiroshima & Nagasaki happened to be the deadliest. If Japan & Germany had the atom bombs, they would’ve used them & the Japanese military did biological war in China-Shiro Ishi flea bombs, etc. Also if it had gone to a ground war with Japan, there would’ve been more civilian deaths esp. as the Japanese were prepared to use women & children in combat. War is something which is just not understandable & what’s sad about wars is that often the people who end up being killed & wounded are those who don’t want part of the war such as those killed in Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Vz71,

I do not think we have been treated to a more insightful post with fewer words …

Thank you for your contribution.

God bless

No. Those Popes alive before the bombings have not offered an opinion.

 

[funinsnow]

TQualey, thanks for your thoughts-I don’t disagree that the atom bombs ended the war, only that my topic was **where **in Japan the atom bombs should’ve been dropped & my view is that the atom bombs should’ve been dropped elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths. It doesn’t matter now as it’s history. But most people who differ with President Harry S. Truman decision agree that President Harry S. Truman’s intent’s good which is to end the war (as it did) & this isn’t disputed by Catholics such as Patrick J. Buchanan. Both Germany & Japan from the late 1800s were becoming powerful up to their defeat in WW2. If Japan had the atom bombs, they would’ve used them w/o hesitation & we may still be dealing with Japan today. As some1 who has been to China & who knows alot about WW2, you’re right about the atrocities the Japs military did during the war, whether it’s Rape of Nanking, Bataan Massacre, killing POW, etc. Most Japanese people are fine & again, while 1 can agree or differ with the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, where people can agree is that those killed in Hiroshima & Nagasaki are innocent war victims.

 

[Barb3]

I totally agree with “tqualey” about the dropping of the bomb – I can’t help wondering how many of the people who have made comments in this site were alive during the war – certainly war is HELL – a cousin of mine was a POW of the Germans and was captured in Italy. When he came home he wouldn’t talk about his experiences – also don’t know if any of you have read any books about the POW’S of the Japanjese – they were absolutely cruel to the prisoners. Thank Heavens the bomb was dropped and the war ended!!!

 

[Farmville]

The usual justification for using the atomic bomb against two Japanese cities is that it saved at least a million American lives. However, using the exact same reasoning, then this would also be justified–if the Japanese had developed the atomic bomb first and used it on two American cities–say Washington and New York City–and saved at least a million Japanese lives, they would have been morally justified doing this. Still today, in 2011, they would be justified in saying that it was morally right to use the atomic bomb against U.S. cities then.

True, and from a Governmental standpoint, it would have been justifiable had Japan done that because a Government’s primary responsibility is to protects the people of its country. -the blatant injustice of Japans militarism aside for this argument-

Same goes for a military one. As an example, say a sergeant has a squad of 10 men a has to attack a house in a city. They can either go in and engage in a shootout with the enemy to try to save the civilians (of the enemy nation) in that house, (for the sake of the paradigm) knowing that his squad will suffer fatalities, or they can blow up the house with explosives without suffering any loses. What would you do? (A)Take the lives of those you are charged with protecting and leading, or (B)sacrifice them to protect people of an enemy country? I think it would be morally best to go with option A.

The Atomic bomb was the same problem, just with more people, thus I believe it was equally justifiable from a military and governmental perspective. Thus, it was worth it to save the lives of American troops (and Commonwealth and Russian troops for that matter), who all would have died unnecessarily since the bomb was able to save them.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mdgspencer,

I guess that shows that anyone can justify anything. It appears from your post that Japan should have really had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor - rather, dropping atomic bombs on NY and DC would have been a better approach. This revisionist history you offer truly fails the sense of reason we would like to have - even if we are at war.

Time for a reality check: Japan launched an unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor. While I am confident you can find a moral justification for this, too - this attack really was viewed by many as an act of aggression. So, please tell you how you expect to claim the ‘moral high ground’ for Japan when they are already in the pit of immorality by 1942 with their aggression in China and the rest of Asia.

This is not to say that the US could not commit a morally depraved act, too - you know, something like was done in Nanking (historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/nanking.htm) or Bataan (u-s-history.com/pages/h1737.html ) Make no mistake about it - Japan had only one ambition and that was simply world domination. How does one stop that? Well, in my opinion, President Truman stopped that - and he used the tools that were at his disposal. Yes, the death of innocents is a major problem - and, one that I do not have a real satisfying answer for. My response is that it was better that THEIR innocents die than our innocents.

Starting a war is a real problem - but, ending it shouldn’t be.

God bless

The usual justification for using the atomic bomb against two Japanese cities is that it saved at least a million American lives. However, using the exact same reasoning, then this would also be justified–if the Japanese had developed the atomic bomb first and used it on two American cities–say Washington and New York City–and saved at least a million Japanese lives, they would have been morally justified doing this. Still today, in 2011, they would be justified in saying that it was morally right to use the atomic bomb against U.S. cities then.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Farmville,

I agree. But, you know - every case is different, and that is why experienced leadership is so important (or else, there would not be a house standing in the town). I am reminded of the soldier who actually searched a bunker rather than lobbing in a hand grenade first. The soldier found Saddam foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105706,00.html

The article proves the value of intelligence.

By the way, is there an English translation for the Religion you listed?

God bless

True, and from a Governmental standpoint, it would have been justifiable had Japan done that because a Government’s primary responsibility is to protects the people of its country. -the blatant injustice of Japans militarism aside for this argument-

Same goes for a military one. As an example, say a sergeant has a squad of 10 men a has to attack a house in a city. They can either go in and engage in a shootout with the enemy to try to save the civilians (of the enemy nation) in that house, (for the sake of the paradigm) knowing that his squad will suffer fatalities, or they can blow up the house with explosives without suffering any loses. What would you do? (A)Take the lives of those you are charged with protecting and leading, or (B)sacrifice them to protect people of an enemy country? I think it would be morally best to go with option A.

The Atomic bomb was the same problem, just with more people, thus I believe it was equally justifiable from a military and governmental perspective. Thus, it was worth it to save the lives of American troops (and Commonwealth and Russian troops for that matter), who all would have died unnecessarily since the bomb was able to save them.