G
GKMotley
Guest
No doubt. One could see (not a theologian, but a RC political scientist pries)t:Fr. Wilson Miscamble/THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL DECISION. Or his FROM ROOSEVELT TO TRUMAN.
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
GKMotley
Guest
No, we bombed two cities with all sorts of people in them, As we had been doing, notably from early 1945 through July. And continued to do, for the 5 days after Nagasaki, until the official surrender. Roughly 15,000 deaths in those 5 days.
P
PetraG
Guest
Flipping? Oh…kay…I think I’m done with this thread. This is flipping depressing.
G
GKMotley
Guest
I think you are correct.
P
PetraG
Guest
I think it is fair to say that Truman had intelligence that implied that the Japanese population had been prepared as a fighting force in their own right. That definitely complicates the question beyond a black-and-white distinction between combatants and non-combatants.No. He didn’t chose a target at all. He approved it.
The kamakazi defense was a formal plan, including the use of the civilian population, the Ketsu-go plan. It was expected to raise the butcher’s bill to the point we would have accepted less than an unconditional surrender.
A full Ketsu-go defense against an American invasion would perhaps not have taken 20 Japanese million lives (as one planner suggested might be the cost), but 10%, of that, not unlikely. The armed forces in Japan numbered around 2.5 million, with more in the occupied territories and islands. Thus the exhortation was for the willing sacrifice, in the defense of Yamato , of masses of civilians in addition to the military. The phrase gyokusai was often used in describing what would take place, “the breaking of the jewels/shattered jade”. That is, the sacrifice of the people, to ensure the survival of the Kokutai , the often referenced national polity.
Those numbers for the cost of the invasion of Home Islands are not part of the literature, by a factor on a whole bunch. See Giangreco’s book, or Frank’s, as referenced above.
Having said that, the reality may not have been what was envisioned in that “formal plan.” We know how it went when Hitler decided it was a good idea to send the boys and the old men into fight. (Children’s crusades have predictable results.)
Again, though, we can’t go back and sit at Truman’s shoulder. It is not our place to be his judges; he has only one Judge, whom we can trust to be truly just.
The questions we have to answer–and that we will have to answer for–are all the ones to be made by ourselves and to be made now, based on what we know today. It is better to answer that and not compound the matters for which we will be judged by spending time on the judgments not given to us to make.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
I agree with your conclusion.
What one might have faced if DOWNFALL had proceeded can be roughly estimated by what happened on Okinawa. Which, though not quite the same as one of the central Home Islands was officially (after the Japanese took it over) considered as one such. One of the books I often recommend (wonder how many get read, over the years) is Feifer’s (originally titled) THE BATTLE FOR OKINAWA AND THE ATOMIC BOMB. The reason why he links the two, in this gut-wrenching book, was that what Okinawa cost was a foretaste of what waited, if DOWNFALL had proceeded, first on Kyushu, then on Honshu and all the rest. Frank, whose DOWNFALL is the best book on the general topic I’ve read in my 25 years of focus on this topic, even reached the conclusion that the cost of the invasion, considering the number of military AND the civilian population mobilized as set forth in the Ketsu-go Plan, would have been unacceptable. Which is what the Japanese hoped. Frank concludes that the tactic would have been continued conventional bombing (those 1700 B-29s, remember), possibly to include chemical weapons against the food crops, and naval bombardment. And population remains a target.
Time is blood, in war. The estimates for the total average monthly Pacific Theater casualties for the last year of the war range between 100,000 and 300,000. A month. Not considering an invasion. Giangreco’s HELL TO PAY (recommended) leans to the high end. In war, on should be parsimonious, not profligate, with blood.
2 planes. 2 bombs. No more war. Good.
Been 15 months since I recall this sort of kerfluffle on this subject. Usually it comes up annually.
What one might have faced if DOWNFALL had proceeded can be roughly estimated by what happened on Okinawa. Which, though not quite the same as one of the central Home Islands was officially (after the Japanese took it over) considered as one such. One of the books I often recommend (wonder how many get read, over the years) is Feifer’s (originally titled) THE BATTLE FOR OKINAWA AND THE ATOMIC BOMB. The reason why he links the two, in this gut-wrenching book, was that what Okinawa cost was a foretaste of what waited, if DOWNFALL had proceeded, first on Kyushu, then on Honshu and all the rest. Frank, whose DOWNFALL is the best book on the general topic I’ve read in my 25 years of focus on this topic, even reached the conclusion that the cost of the invasion, considering the number of military AND the civilian population mobilized as set forth in the Ketsu-go Plan, would have been unacceptable. Which is what the Japanese hoped. Frank concludes that the tactic would have been continued conventional bombing (those 1700 B-29s, remember), possibly to include chemical weapons against the food crops, and naval bombardment. And population remains a target.
Time is blood, in war. The estimates for the total average monthly Pacific Theater casualties for the last year of the war range between 100,000 and 300,000. A month. Not considering an invasion. Giangreco’s HELL TO PAY (recommended) leans to the high end. In war, on should be parsimonious, not profligate, with blood.
2 planes. 2 bombs. No more war. Good.
Been 15 months since I recall this sort of kerfluffle on this subject. Usually it comes up annually.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
We didn’t insist on unconditional surrender, 27 years before. This time, we were not going to, as Pershing said in 1923, do it all over again in 25 years. Again. We were going to restructure the country (both of them) into a form of democratic, peaceable members of the world nations. As best we could. Which meant occupying and reshaping the national polity, far off what the Kokutai had been.
Next recommendation: Newman/TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT, chap. 3, esp. And Kort/THE COLUMBIA GUIDE TO HIROSHIMA AND THE BOMB, part II, Key Questions 7&8. A good balanced overview.
Next recommendation: Newman/TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT, chap. 3, esp. And Kort/THE COLUMBIA GUIDE TO HIROSHIMA AND THE BOMB, part II, Key Questions 7&8. A good balanced overview.
Last edited:
V
VonDerTann
Guest
Dinner went well! Some further thoughts:
The bomb’s use in 1945 is defensible on many levels, perhaps even a moral imperative.
WWII was the most horrific period in the history of the world. It’s as if the mouth of hell opened on the face of the earth.
In Europe in 1918, Germany was allowed to not be carved up; the war ended with an armistice, largely at the German border with France. US Supreme Commander John Pershing wanted to drive to Berlin so the Germans would never be a threat again; he wanted them to know they lost and to have no warmaking capacity whatsoever. When that didn’t happen he said, “we’re going to have to do this again in 25 years.” How right he was! That could never be allowed in Japan in WWII. The war needed to end in the total defeat of Japan. The US fully expected to invade Japan, and certainly believed it had to do so. Plans for the war well into 1946 were well advanced in summer 1945.
But Truman has a way to end the war in maybe 2 weeks, with essentially no further loss of US life. Obviously that is precisely what occurred.
If you’re Truman and you DON’T use the bomb under those circumstances, you will be consigning maybe a million US soldiers to die, and countless millions of Japanese unnecessarily. If Truman had not used it, some folks would today be calling him the greatest mass murderer in history, precisely for not using it.
The bomb’s use in 1945 is defensible on many levels, perhaps even a moral imperative.
WWII was the most horrific period in the history of the world. It’s as if the mouth of hell opened on the face of the earth.
In Europe in 1918, Germany was allowed to not be carved up; the war ended with an armistice, largely at the German border with France. US Supreme Commander John Pershing wanted to drive to Berlin so the Germans would never be a threat again; he wanted them to know they lost and to have no warmaking capacity whatsoever. When that didn’t happen he said, “we’re going to have to do this again in 25 years.” How right he was! That could never be allowed in Japan in WWII. The war needed to end in the total defeat of Japan. The US fully expected to invade Japan, and certainly believed it had to do so. Plans for the war well into 1946 were well advanced in summer 1945.
But Truman has a way to end the war in maybe 2 weeks, with essentially no further loss of US life. Obviously that is precisely what occurred.
If you’re Truman and you DON’T use the bomb under those circumstances, you will be consigning maybe a million US soldiers to die, and countless millions of Japanese unnecessarily. If Truman had not used it, some folks would today be calling him the greatest mass murderer in history, precisely for not using it.
V
VonDerTann
Guest
Another reason to use the bomb, and not in some sort of “test for the Japanese government to see” was as follows:
One of the key reasons to use the bomb in combat was that the world had to see just how terrible the bomb really was. Physicist Edward Teller, who worked on the bomb, basically wanted to use it in combat, on grounds that new superweapons of even greater power were believed to be under development in other nations (the US was working on them) and he wanted the world to see just exactly how terrible an atomic war would be; without its use in combat, he reasoned, others with less moral restraint that the US would absolutely use them, since the world would be ignorant to their true power. As Robert Morris, an arms control proponent and member of Federation of American Scientists, put it, using it in combat made an actual nuclear war unthinkable.
That was further reason not to use the bomb on uninhabited regions (no witnesses; little visible damage) or Tokyo Bay (no lasting damage at all). Tokyo Bay was actually put forth as a credible target but rejected for those reasons.
To boil it down: Experts believed that by using them on a limited basis, they would never be used again.
Suffice it to say, that goal was achieved.
Plus here’s another: This was new technology. What if - for whatever reason - some test was offered and the bomb didn’t work? Worse, what if the technology fell into Japanese hands during such an unsuccessful test?
One of the key reasons to use the bomb in combat was that the world had to see just how terrible the bomb really was. Physicist Edward Teller, who worked on the bomb, basically wanted to use it in combat, on grounds that new superweapons of even greater power were believed to be under development in other nations (the US was working on them) and he wanted the world to see just exactly how terrible an atomic war would be; without its use in combat, he reasoned, others with less moral restraint that the US would absolutely use them, since the world would be ignorant to their true power. As Robert Morris, an arms control proponent and member of Federation of American Scientists, put it, using it in combat made an actual nuclear war unthinkable.
That was further reason not to use the bomb on uninhabited regions (no witnesses; little visible damage) or Tokyo Bay (no lasting damage at all). Tokyo Bay was actually put forth as a credible target but rejected for those reasons.
To boil it down: Experts believed that by using them on a limited basis, they would never be used again.
Suffice it to say, that goal was achieved.
Plus here’s another: This was new technology. What if - for whatever reason - some test was offered and the bomb didn’t work? Worse, what if the technology fell into Japanese hands during such an unsuccessful test?
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
I agree. In some cases, I’ve said some of this above. And have done so for years.
A point that often strikes me in the never-ending line of threads on the subject, over the years. If the subject is merely what is the RCC position on the use of nuclear weapons, no mention of Japan need be made. Or nothing beyond asserting that it falls under the provisions of GAUDIUM ET SPES (at least) and the subject is adequately dealt with. In which case, I would have been spared roughly 800 posts over the past 20+ years. I don’t deal in GAUDIUM ET SPES, or RC moral judgments in this area. But I do deal in history, and (in this area) have for over 25 years.
If Japan doesn’t show up, and especially if “And anyway” assertions don’t show up (“And any way, Japan was X and America was Y which means Z”), I don’t either. I got other stuff to do. Need to re-hab my personal files (paper) and get rid of the out-dated, organize the remainder. And get back to reading books.
A point that often strikes me in the never-ending line of threads on the subject, over the years. If the subject is merely what is the RCC position on the use of nuclear weapons, no mention of Japan need be made. Or nothing beyond asserting that it falls under the provisions of GAUDIUM ET SPES (at least) and the subject is adequately dealt with. In which case, I would have been spared roughly 800 posts over the past 20+ years. I don’t deal in GAUDIUM ET SPES, or RC moral judgments in this area. But I do deal in history, and (in this area) have for over 25 years.
If Japan doesn’t show up, and especially if “And anyway” assertions don’t show up (“And any way, Japan was X and America was Y which means Z”), I don’t either. I got other stuff to do. Need to re-hab my personal files (paper) and get rid of the out-dated, organize the remainder. And get back to reading books.
Last edited:
V
VonDerTann
Guest
100% agree. Maybe I have a deathwish, but I view it as a duty to educate the “America is wicked”-crowd, all of whom have invariably slept safely at night for their entire lives under the security afforded by the US nuclear triad, which has largely kept world peace since 1945.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
They hoped that would be the case. And so far, so good.
But Teller went on to be the father and champion of the Super.
Your last is covered in the literature. For instance Newman/op.cit.chap. 4, or Kort, op. cit., Part II Key Question 4. And certainly , a nonfunctional Little Boy might make Yoshio Nishina a fascinating present.
But Teller went on to be the father and champion of the Super.
Your last is covered in the literature. For instance Newman/op.cit.chap. 4, or Kort, op. cit., Part II Key Question 4. And certainly , a nonfunctional Little Boy might make Yoshio Nishina a fascinating present.
G
GKMotley
Guest
I share your views. As does my child, who is in this basic line of work.
Is it that time of year again?Here’s another article with the same assertion.
V
VonDerTann
Guest
God keep him or her safe. And thank them for serving!
G
GKMotley
Guest
I do. Regularly. Kid out ranks me now. I gotta render the salute.
G
GKMotley
Guest
No one expects the …return of the topic.
P
PetraG
Guest
Well, maybe if all this time had gone by and no one had ever used an atomic bomb, yes. The reality of an atomic bomb is a bit beyond the imagining of many, even with those two examples, or at least it seems so in the flippant way some talk about using them.If Truman had not used it, some folks would today be calling him the greatest mass murderer in history, precisely for not using it.
One has to wonder if detonating one within 25 km (15 miles) of the Imperial Palace instead of 680 km from Tokyo wouldn’t have ensured that a second would not be needed.Tokyo Bay was actually put forth as a credible target but rejected for those reasons.
This was Hiroshima, from six miles away, ten minutes after the blast:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
P
PetraG
Guest
What if the Emperor had been able to hear first-hand testimony such as this:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp25.asp
Hiroshima – August 6th, 1945
by Father John A. Siemes, professor of modern philosphy at Tokyo’s Catholic University
Up to August 6th, occasional bombs, which did no great damage, had fallen on Hiroshima. Many cities roundabout, one after the other, were destroyed, but Hiroshima itself remained protected. There were almost daily observation planes over the city but none of them dropped a bomb. The citizens wondered why they alone had remained undisturbed for so long a time. There were fantastic rumors that the enemy had something special in mind for this city, but no one dreamed that the end would come in such a fashion as on the morning of August 6th.
August 6th began in a bright, clear, summer morning. About seven o’clock, there was an air raid alarm which we had heard almost every day and a few planes appeared over the city. No one paid any attention and at about eight o’clock, the all-clear was sounded. I am sitting in my room at the Novitiate of the Society of Jesus in Nagatsuke; during the past half year, the philosophical and theological section of our Mission had been evacuated to this place from Tokyo. The Novitiate is situated approximately two kilometers from Hiroshima, half-way up the sides of a broad valley which stretches from the town at sea level into this mountainous hinterland, and through which courses a river. From my window, I have a wonderful view down the valley to the edge of the city.
Suddenly–the time is approximately 8:14–the whole valley is filled by a garish light which resembles the magnesium light used in photography, and I am conscious of a wave of heat. I jump to the window to find out the cause of this remarkable phenomenon, but I see nothing more than that brilliant yellow light. As I make for the door, it doesn’t occur to me that the light might have something to do with enemy planes. On the way from the window, I hear a moderately loud explosion which seems to come from a distance and, at the same time, the windows are broken in with a loud crash. There has been an interval of perhaps ten seconds since the flash of light. I am sprayed by fragments of glass. The entire window frame has been forced into the room. I realize now that a bomb has burst and I am under the impression that it exploded directly over our house or in the immediate vicinity.
I am bleeding from cuts about the hands and head. I attempt to get out of the door. It has been forced outwards by the air pressure and has become jammed. I force an opening in the door by means of repeated blows with my hands and feet and come to a broad hallway from which open the various rooms. Everything is in a state of confusion. All windows are broken and all the doors are forced inwards…
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp25.asp
Hiroshima – August 6th, 1945
by Father John A. Siemes, professor of modern philosphy at Tokyo’s Catholic University
Up to August 6th, occasional bombs, which did no great damage, had fallen on Hiroshima. Many cities roundabout, one after the other, were destroyed, but Hiroshima itself remained protected. There were almost daily observation planes over the city but none of them dropped a bomb. The citizens wondered why they alone had remained undisturbed for so long a time. There were fantastic rumors that the enemy had something special in mind for this city, but no one dreamed that the end would come in such a fashion as on the morning of August 6th.
August 6th began in a bright, clear, summer morning. About seven o’clock, there was an air raid alarm which we had heard almost every day and a few planes appeared over the city. No one paid any attention and at about eight o’clock, the all-clear was sounded. I am sitting in my room at the Novitiate of the Society of Jesus in Nagatsuke; during the past half year, the philosophical and theological section of our Mission had been evacuated to this place from Tokyo. The Novitiate is situated approximately two kilometers from Hiroshima, half-way up the sides of a broad valley which stretches from the town at sea level into this mountainous hinterland, and through which courses a river. From my window, I have a wonderful view down the valley to the edge of the city.
Suddenly–the time is approximately 8:14–the whole valley is filled by a garish light which resembles the magnesium light used in photography, and I am conscious of a wave of heat. I jump to the window to find out the cause of this remarkable phenomenon, but I see nothing more than that brilliant yellow light. As I make for the door, it doesn’t occur to me that the light might have something to do with enemy planes. On the way from the window, I hear a moderately loud explosion which seems to come from a distance and, at the same time, the windows are broken in with a loud crash. There has been an interval of perhaps ten seconds since the flash of light. I am sprayed by fragments of glass. The entire window frame has been forced into the room. I realize now that a bomb has burst and I am under the impression that it exploded directly over our house or in the immediate vicinity.
I am bleeding from cuts about the hands and head. I attempt to get out of the door. It has been forced outwards by the air pressure and has become jammed. I force an opening in the door by means of repeated blows with my hands and feet and come to a broad hallway from which open the various rooms. Everything is in a state of confusion. All windows are broken and all the doors are forced inwards…
P
PetraG
Guest
…cont…next excerpt:
…Soon comes news that the entire city has been destroyed by the explosion and that it is on fire. What became of Father Superior and the three other Fathers who were at the center of the city at the Central Mission and Parish House? We had up to this time not given them a thought because we did not believe that the effects of the bomb encompassed the entire city. …
[PetraG Note: This bomb was so extraordinary, with destruction so far beyond anything humankind had ever managed while waging war–indeed beyond the destruction that even nature had inflicted within the direct experience of most–maybe you had to be there to believe it? Had those who worked on the Manhattan Project perhaps not realized that the Japanese authorities might not believe the reports of a bomb such as this when they had not seen it themselves? Is it possible that not even President Truman really comprehended what he was unleashing when he did it? We can never know that.
The Jesuit priest who gave the testimony concluded with this: ]
We have discussed among ourselves the ethics of the use of the bomb. Some consider it in the same category as poison gas and were against its use on a civil population. Others were of the view that in total war, as carried on in Japan, there was no difference between civilians and soldiers, and that the bomb itself was an effective force tending to end the bloodshed, warning Japan to surrender and thus to avoid total destruction. It seems logical to me that he who supports total war in principle cannot complain of war against civilians. The crux of the matter is whether total war in its present form is justifiable, even when it serves a just purpose. Does it not have material and spiritual evil as its consequences which far exceed whatever good that might result? When will our moralists give us a clear answer to this question?
Such were the considerations of Jesuits living in Hiroshima at the time of the blast. This isn’t a black and white question, even if you were literally there in Hiroshima.
…Soon comes news that the entire city has been destroyed by the explosion and that it is on fire. What became of Father Superior and the three other Fathers who were at the center of the city at the Central Mission and Parish House? We had up to this time not given them a thought because we did not believe that the effects of the bomb encompassed the entire city. …
[PetraG Note: This bomb was so extraordinary, with destruction so far beyond anything humankind had ever managed while waging war–indeed beyond the destruction that even nature had inflicted within the direct experience of most–maybe you had to be there to believe it? Had those who worked on the Manhattan Project perhaps not realized that the Japanese authorities might not believe the reports of a bomb such as this when they had not seen it themselves? Is it possible that not even President Truman really comprehended what he was unleashing when he did it? We can never know that.
The Jesuit priest who gave the testimony concluded with this: ]
We have discussed among ourselves the ethics of the use of the bomb. Some consider it in the same category as poison gas and were against its use on a civil population. Others were of the view that in total war, as carried on in Japan, there was no difference between civilians and soldiers, and that the bomb itself was an effective force tending to end the bloodshed, warning Japan to surrender and thus to avoid total destruction. It seems logical to me that he who supports total war in principle cannot complain of war against civilians. The crux of the matter is whether total war in its present form is justifiable, even when it serves a just purpose. Does it not have material and spiritual evil as its consequences which far exceed whatever good that might result? When will our moralists give us a clear answer to this question?
Such were the considerations of Jesuits living in Hiroshima at the time of the blast. This isn’t a black and white question, even if you were literally there in Hiroshima.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.