Atomic Bomb In WWII

[Wirraway]

Why should your translation be “truth” and others a “fake?” The translation you provide does not seem altogether contrary to the one I excerpted. Nonetheless, the translation I excerpted is from Archbishop Fulton Sheen, *Life is Worth Living, *originally published in 1953. That you think Archbishop Sheen was “faking” the information is absurd. Moreover, it seems such a claim is a bizarre overreaction, as other published authors on this subject have also concluded that Pius XII, in this very same address, was warning against the use of this new technology for making explosives.

For instance, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Thomas Powers,* Heisenberg’s War: The Secret History of the German Bomb (1993), *pg. 283:
Hmmmm…another “faker” I suppose.

Pius XII was citing the authority of Max Plank, who was a member of the Pontifical Academy of Science. It wasn’t U.S. military secrets he was describing, but the obvious possibility of this energy being explosive, which was well known and warned against by others.

For example, Charles Lindbergh warned:
Ah, but perhaps the good Archbishop Sheen was faking that quote too. That rascal.

BTW, I’m an officer in the USAF, and worked for many years an nuclear ICBM engineer. So, I hope you weren’t acccusing me of being “deceptive.” I’m just answering the original post.

the quote is fake. I’m not in a position to know what you know about sources you cite so I’m hardly able to speculate on your motives. I don’t know where Archbishop Sheen found his translation, but there is a huge difference in tone and subject matter between my quote from an original source and Sheen’s book.

the quote was altered – clearly altered – to refer obliquely to the destructiveness of an atomic bomb (“If, however, it is ever used destructively”) when it is clearly referring to the hazards of a runaway reaction. the alteration was done to concoct an anti-nuclear weapon argument, which is completely at variance to the rest of the report.

in what way is being an officer in the USAF or the opinion of charles lindbergh relevant in any imaginable way to the provenance of the altered quote? I could tell you I am a retired naval officer but I don’t need any misleading irrelevancy to make my point.

 

[GKC]

the quote is fake. I’m not in a position to know what you know about sources you cite so I’m hardly able to speculate on your motives. I don’t know where Archbishop Sheen found his translation, but there is a huge difference in tone and subject matter between my quote from an original source and Sheen’s book.

the quote was altered – clearly altered – to refer obliquely to the destructiveness of an atomic bomb (“If, however, it is ever used destructively”) when it is clearly referring to the hazards of a runaway reaction. the alteration was done to concoct an anti-nuclear weapon argument, which is completely at variance to the rest of the report.

in what way is being an officer in the USAF or the opinion of charles lindbergh relevant in any imaginable way to the provenance of the altered quote? I could tell you I am a retired naval officer but I don’t need any misleading irrelevancy to make my point.

The passage in Powers, p. 283, is obviously taken from a reference to a controllable, sustained chain reaction, and a fear that it might become an uncontrollable one. The full quote that Powers gives on P. 283, of what the Pope said:

“The thought of the construction of a uranium machine cannot be regarded as merely utopian. It is important, above all, however, to prevent this reaction from taking place as an explosion…Otherwise a dangerous catastrophy might occur”.

Thus, the reference is to a controlled reaction as oppposed to an uncontrolled one, not to a bomb.

Powers then cites a secret report to the British SIS, as he says, probably originating with British sources attached to the Vatican, which quotes Planck further as saying that Heisenberg had predicted that a power-producing machine (that is, not an explosive device), using uranium as fuel might be feasible in three or four years, that is, after the end of the war. See Powers, loc cit.

It seems to me that for Powers to refer to this as a reference to “the” bomb, as he does in the 2nd para, p. 283, is an error.

BTW, I’m a retired AF officer, myself. My thanks to all for service to the country.

GKC

 

[Wirraway]

The passage in Powers, p. 283, is obviously taken from a reference to a controllable, sustained chain reaction, and a fear that it might become an uncontrollable one. The full quote that Powers gives on P. 283, of what the Pope said:

“The thought of the construction of a uranium machine cannot be regarded as merely utopian. It is important, above all, however, to prevent this reaction from taking place as an explosion…Otherwise a dangerous catastrophy might occur”.

Thus, the reference is to a controlled reaction as oppposed to an uncontrolled one, not to a bomb.

Powers then cites a secret report to the British SIS, as he says, probably originating with British sources attached to the Vatican, which quotes Planck further as saying that Heisenberg had predicted that a power-producing machine (that is, not an explosive device), using uranium as fuel might be feasible in three or four years, that is, after the end of the war. See Powers, loc cit.

It seems to me that for Powers to refer to this as a reference to “the” bomb, as he does in the 2nd para, p. 283, is an error.

BTW, I’m a retired AF officer, myself. My thanks to all for service to the country.

GKC

my point all along. that part of the Report concerns a runaway reaction, the altered quote makes to appear to refer to destructive, i.e., military, use as a bomb.

the likelihood of a vatican scientific report in '43 discussing the implications of a bomb seems implausible on two grounds - how would the vatican know, and why would the vatican broadcast military secrets to the axis? hence, the most likely that the reference to morality of atomic weapons was grafted into the report at some time after the bombs had been used.

 

[GKC]

my point all along. that part of the Report concerns a runaway reaction, the altered quote makes to appear to refer to destructive, i.e., military, use as a bomb.

the likelihood of a vatican scientific report in '43 discussing the implications of a bomb seems implausible on two grounds - how would the vatican know, and why would the vatican broadcast military secrets to the axis? hence, the most likely that the reference to morality of atomic weapons was grafted into the report at some time after the bombs had been used.

Indeed; I’m backing you up.

As to where, if anywhere, the Pope might have learned details, one might conjecture Planck, of course. And Powers cites Siegfreid Flugge’s 1939 article for the theoretical power of atomic energy. Which is not to say that the Pope was speaking of a bomb, of course.

GKC

 

[itsjustdave1988]

the quote is fake. I’m not in a position to know what you know about sources you cite …

I have no reason to distrust Archbishop Sheen and a Pulitzer-prize winner author’s credibility. Nor do I have an agenda. I maintained nuclear weapons on alert for years, and continue to provide operations training support as an AF Space Command staff officer, in support of nuclear weapons. Your accusations of deception are absurd.

 

[GKC]

I have no reason to distrust Archbishop Sheen and a Pulitzer-prize winner author’s credibility.

I don’t either, ab initio. But I also see that there is not a reference to a bomb in the Pope’s quote, but to a reaction. and one that might take place as an explosion, which would be a catastrophe. Not a bomb.

Amd I am very fond of Sheen. I think I have that book of his, in fact, and will see if I’m right. But I can also tell you that I have found strange and inexplicable things in Sheen’ s writings, off the topic of this thread.

GKC

 

[bobzills]

It was to avoid a lot of people, of all types, from being consumed as cannon fodder, that the war was ended, with 2 bombs, in 5 days.

With two bombs in 5 days we burned to a crisp thousands of innocent enemy children in a horrible massacre. It was a magnificient victory for America.

 

[Wirraway]

I have no reason to distrust Archbishop Sheen and a Pulitzer-prize winner author’s credibility. Nor do I have an agenda. I maintained nuclear weapons on alert for years, and continue to provide operations training support as an AF Space Command staff officer, in support of nuclear weapons. Your accusations of deception are absurd.

I’m not accusing you. why are you denying anything?

the argument is deceptive. the original document is NOT the same as the one you quoted. inferential evidence is that it was altered to fit an anti-nuke argument. sheen might well have been a sloppy researcher as well.

 

[Wirraway]

With two bombs in 5 days we burned to a crisp thousands of innocent enemy children in a horrible massacre. It was a magnificient victory for America.

not all of them were crisped. the Aioi Bridge needed a new coat of paint as well, don’t forget that.

 

[Wirraway]

…innocent enemy …

yeah

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I don’t either, ab initio. …

…I have found strange and inexplicable things in Sheen’ s writings, off the topic of this thread.

GKC

I was responding more to Wirraway’s bizzare rant about deception. Me thinks he’s too emotionally involved, cuz it appears to me he got his shorts in a bunch about nothing, questioning the integrity of the source instead of simply stating, “I disagree.”

Since other scholarly sources did indeed describe that Pius XII “unmistakenly referred to a bomb,” I can’t see how Sheen can be considered blameworthy.

Why would a deception be even necessary? After the bombings of 1945, the Vatican lamented the action. According to Osservatore Romano (August 7, 1945): “This war provides a catastrophic conclusion. Incredibly this destructive weapon remains as a temptation for posterity, which, we know by bitter experience, learns so little from history.” Additionally, U.S. intel reports describing the immediate oppostion to the use of atomic warfare specifically cited the Vatican’s opposition to the use of weapons of mass distruction as an influencing factor (cf. Lawrence Witner, The Struggle Against the Bomb, p. 123). Pius XII reiterated this opposition in 1954 (cited above). John XXIII did likewise (cited above).

In response to the original post (#1 ), I think the evidence is clear.

As for my own opinion, I agree with Gen Eisenhower with regard to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

During his [Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson’s] recitation of the relevant facts [mid-July 1945], 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.”

[Memoirs of Dwight D. Eisenhower, *The White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-1956

(pp. 312-313)].

 

[Wirraway]

I was responding more to Wirraway’s bizzare rant about deception. Me thinks he’s too emotionally involved, cuz it appears to me he got his shorts in a bunch about nothing, questioning the integrity of the source instead of simply stating, “I disagree.”

Since other scholarly sources did indeed describe that Pius XII “unmistakenly referred to a bomb,” I can’t see how Sheen can be considered blameworthy.

Why would a deception be even necessary? After the bombings of 1945, the Vatican lamented the action. According to Osservatore Romano (August 7, 1945): “This war provides a catastrophic conclusion. Incredibly this destructive weapon remains as a temptation for posterity, which, we know by bitter experience, learns so little from history.” Additionally, U.S. intel reports describing the immediate oppostion to the use of atomic warfare specifically cited the Vatican’s opposition to the use of weapons of mass distruction as an influencing factor (cf. Lawrence Witner, The Struggle Against the Bomb, p. 123). Pius XII reiterated this opposition in 1954 (cited above). John XXIII did likewise (cited above).

In response to the original post (#1 ), I think the evidence is clear.

don’t hide behind ad homs and don’t project.

we’re not talking about statements after august 1945, that is misleading evidence.

we’re talking about a statement from 1943 that was altered to fit a post-1945 moral issue. the science statement 1943 referring to the dangers of runaway fission morphed - somehow – into a warning against a bomb that would not exist for years.

readers are invited to examine the Sheen except and my cited document.

 

[GKC]

With two bombs in 5 days we burned to a crisp thousands of innocent enemy children in a horrible massacre. It was a magnificient victory for America.

It was the end of the war. And the saving of many, many lives, young, old, male, female, civilian, military, innocent, not innocent, Japanese, and others.

Good.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I was responding more to Wirraway’s bizzare rant about deception. Me thinks he’s too emotionally involved, cuz it appears to me he got his shorts in a bunch about nothing, questioning the integrity of the source instead of simply stating, “I disagree.”

Since other scholarly sources did indeed describe that Pius XII “unmistakenly referred to a bomb,” I can’t see how Sheen can be considered blameworthy.

Why would a deception be even necessary? After the bombings of 1945, the Vatican lamented the action. According to Osservatore Romano (August 7, 1945): “This war provides a catastrophic conclusion. Incredibly this destructive weapon remains as a temptation for posterity, which, we know by bitter experience, learns so little from history.” Additionally, U.S. intel reports describing the immediate oppostion to the use of atomic warfare specifically cited the Vatican’s opposition to the use of weapons of mass distruction as an influencing factor (cf. Lawrence Witner, The Struggle Against the Bomb, p. 123). Pius XII reiterated this opposition in 1954 (cited above). John XXIII did likewise (cited above).

In response to the original post (#1 ), I think the evidence is clear.

As for my own opinion, I agree with Gen Eisenhower with regard to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

I know it’s impossible to expect anyone to chase back into this endless thread, but if one did, way back somewhere, you will find an account of why this is unlikely to be a literally true account from Eisenhower, of his meeting with Stimson, and why it mattered not at all, even if accurate.

Or one can read pp. 16-19 of chap. one of HIROSHIMA IN HISTORY: THE MYTHS OF REVISIONISM, ed. (and chap 1 written by) James Maddox, and learn the same thing.

Scholarly works that are sound in general can have little cracks and faults in details, and I think that is what happened in Powers’ case here. (you will have concluded that I own the book). The speech is most definitely about a controlled or an uncontrolled chain reaction, not a weapon.

Hiccups or oversights or even blind spots like that can occur in the best of works. Earlier, there was mention here of Hastings’ book RETRIBUTION. I’m over 150 pages into it, and it’s not at all bad. But one can find a crack or two. He quotes, accurately, a comment of Tibbets, but applies it in a context where it appears to be referring to something else. Not a crucial point, but if one reads a lot of primary material and comments, one finds these sorts of things. True of history in general. And why one needs to do wide-ranging reading. Hence, the size of my library, and why I almost never google.

And yes, I agree that there was RCC objection to the bombs, early on, after the fact.

GKC

 

[bobzills]

yeah

A bubblehead might misquote what I said which was “innocent enemy children” as “innocent enemy”, but anyone with the intelligence slightly highe than that of a moron, would not do so.

 

[Wirraway]

A bubblehead might misquote what I said which was “innocent enemy children” as “innocent enemy”, but anyone with the intelligence slightly highe than that of a moron, would not do so.

I think Honest Abe best said it, in his second inaugural address, concerning the Righteous Smitedown then being inflicted on the confederacy:

"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue … until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

were you talking about the millions of chinese children slaughtered by the imperial japanese forces? or the american children left fatherless during the war? no. because they don’t count, because bemoaning their fate isn’t anti-war chic.

a lesson for you people who wring your hands raw over the ubiquitous Chil’run: if you don’t want to face the risk of total destruction of everything and everyone, don’t start a total war.

 

[Wirraway]

I think Honest Abe best said it, in his second inaugural address, concerning the Righteous Smitedown then being inflicted on the confederacy:

"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue … until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword

 

[OldRedleg]

Having served over 23 years in the U.S. Army in jobs that included the planning and possible execution of nuclear weapons strikes, as well as the use of conventional weapons, I feel fairly well qualified to jump into this debate. I guarantee you it is something that I have spent a great deal of time thinking and praying about.

As a faithful Catholic I affirm that the decision to use nuclear weapons must always be one of last resort. I thank God that I was never actually placed in the position to use them.

However, under the Just War Doctrine a case can be made for their use. Their use against Japan during World War II is a good case study. While the casualties from the dropping of the two atomic bombs were horrific they were miniscule compared to the estimated casualties that would have occurred during an invasion of the Japanese home islands. The lesser evil was to use them.

As many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki may have died from the bombings by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings, for a total of around 220,000 deaths. As already pointed out in previous posts, in both cities the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.

Let us compare these losses to those projected for Operation Downfall, the overall Allied plan for the invasion of Japan.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s staff in mid-1945 by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities (including civilians). The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

These projections were based on the U.S.’s experience of the invasion of Okinawa. The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 U.S. casualties over about 82 days, of whom 18,900 were killed or missing. There were about 66,000 Japanese combatants killed and only 7,000 surrendered. At some battles, such as Iwo Jima, there had been no civilians involved, but Okinawa had a large indigenous civilian population that considered itself Japanese. Okinawan civilian losses in the campaign were in excess of 140,000; in addition, it is estimated that more than a third of the surviving civilian population was wounded. There were numerous cases of Japanese soldiers and civilians committing suicide rather than surrender to U.S. forces. The same was expected for an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

Some have argued that the casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan were inflated later by President Truman to justify the atomic bombing. However, consider that nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World War II — including the Korean and Vietnam Wars — have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.

There are some who try to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets. As several folks have already pointed our they were.

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata’s 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops.

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

Finally, one of the posters stated that we only had two bombs. In fact the United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August 1945, with three more in September and a further three in October. There were enough bombs in the production pipe line that serious considerations were being made on where to drop them in terms of on targets to support an invasion, or targets that would assist in breaking the will of the Japanese government to continue the war.

President Truman’s decision saved millions of lives. While I abhor the killing of innocent civilians this was a case where the ultimate good was served in saving lives in the long run.

 

[GKC]

Having served over 23 years in the U.S. Army in jobs that included the planning and possible execution of nuclear weapons strikes, as well as the use of conventional weapons, I feel fairly well qualified to jump into this debate. I guarantee you it is something that I have spent a great deal of time thinking and praying about.

As a faithful Catholic I affirm that the decision to use nuclear weapons must always be one of last resort. I thank God that I was never actually placed in the position to use them.

However, under the Just War Doctrine a case can be made for their use. Their use against Japan during World War II is a good case study. While the casualties from the dropping of the two atomic bombs were horrific they were miniscule compared to the estimated casualties that would have occurred during an invasion of the Japanese home islands. The lesser evil was to use them.

As many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki may have died from the bombings by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings, for a total of around 220,000 deaths. As already pointed out in previous posts, in both cities the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.

Let us compare these losses to those projected for Operation Downfall, the overall Allied plan for the invasion of Japan.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s staff in mid-1945 by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities (including civilians). The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

These projections were based on the U.S.’s experience of the invasion of Okinawa. The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 U.S. casualties over about 82 days, of whom 18,900 were killed or missing. There were about 66,000 Japanese combatants killed and only 7,000 surrendered. At some battles, such as Iwo Jima, there had been no civilians involved, but Okinawa had a large indigenous civilian population that considered itself Japanese. Okinawan civilian losses in the campaign were in excess of 140,000; in addition, it is estimated that more than a third of the surviving civilian population was wounded. There were numerous cases of Japanese soldiers and civilians committing suicide rather than surrender to U.S. forces. The same was expected for an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

Some have argued that the casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan were inflated later by President Truman to justify the atomic bombing. However, consider that nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World War II — including the Korean and Vietnam Wars — have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.

There are some who try to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets. As several folks have already pointed our they were.

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata’s 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops.

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

Finally, one of the posters stated that we only had two bombs. In fact the United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August 1945, with three more in September and a further three in October. There were enough bombs in the production pipe line that serious considerations were being made on where to drop them in terms of on targets to support an invasion, or targets that would assist in breaking the will of the Japanese government to continue the war.

President Truman’s decision saved millions of lives. While I abhor the killing of innocent civilians this was a case where the ultimate good was served in saving lives in the long run.

Yep. And thanks. I’ve been making precisely these points, and others, in detail, since the thread started.Your mention of the 500,000 Purple Hearts suggests you have read Giangreco’s and Moore’s chapter in Maddox’s HIROSHIMA IN HISTORY. And your awareness of Shockley’s estimate suggests that’s not the only thing you’ve read.

Thanks.

GKC

 

[Wirraway]

I’d also add to this well thought out string of posts that monday morning quarterbacking is not appropriate here. the historical revisionists do not try to stand in the boots of the military planners in the world of August 1945.

would the US have foregone the use of the A bomb if the planners had perfect insight into the effectiveness of the conventional (firebombing) campaign which might well have ended the war prior to DOWNFALL?. maybe, but then this discussion would have been all about the ethics of the practice of mixing high explosives and firebombs to level and burn out cities.

I suspect we’d be hearing about the same argument.