What is the official Church position regarding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Curious11]

What’s wrong with prayer and submission to our Creator’s will?

The will of the creator is not to allow evil men to exercise their power to annihilate an entire “race” (I consider Jews a religion, not a race) from the face of the Earth. And I say “allow” because pacific resistance to Hitler just would not work. All that is needed for evil to triumph is for enough good men to sit back and watch.

And Jesus was fulfilling scriptural prohecy and dying for our sins, but He will eventually exercise His anger against evil people who do not repent, so it’s not really passive resistance.

 

[Curious11]

If we also truly believed in YHWH as an all-powerful God, then we wouldn’t feel the need to take it upon ourselves to use violence as a means of stopping either Hitler or any other mad dictator.

So then if you see someone trying to rape a woman, would you encourage police to try to reason and convince him to leave her alone rather than using the minimum force necessary to detain him?

 

[pnewton]

If we also truly believed in YHWH as an all-powerful God

Yet we are told to take steps to alleviate suffering. We feed the hungry even though God could bring manna down from Heaven. We are also told that the right to defense of another might even be a grave duty. So why would we disobey God if we have that duty to act violently in the defense of another?

 

[AlNg]

nation that refuses to surrender

It is not clear that Japan refused to surrender. Some historians say that “Japan was trying to surrender, and had put out the most serious peace messages, three weeks before the atomic bombs were dropped; and that Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill, and the other Allied leaders were aware of this.”
http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Japan_surrender_attempts/MS.html

 

[Eric_Hyom]

We are also told that the right to defense of another might even be a grave duty. So why would we disobey God if we have that duty to act violently in the defense of another?

As a Street Pastor, I have stood in the middle of more bloody and violent fights; than I care to remember. We do no more than try and keep people apart, after most fights finish, they end up with handshakes and hugs.

It would be absolutely pointless for me to use any kind of violence, at the tender age of 68, I would come of worst on every occasion. We have women in our teams who are in their sixties and seventies, and they are amazing when it comes to finding a peaceful solution.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

The will of the creator is not to allow evil men to exercise their power to annihilate an entire “race” (I consider Jews a religion, not a race) from the face of the Earth. And I say “allow” because pacific resistance to Hitler just would not work. .

All leaders know the formula for an unjust war, Hermann Göring spelt it out for us.

“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

George Bush and Tony Blair used the same formula to rouse our countries on a crusade against terror.

 

[Curious11]

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger

Denouncing peace makers is bad. But would you have the nerve to make this speech to the Holocaust Jews? I understand MLK was an admirable man, but organizing a March on Berlin would not have stopped Hitler

 

[pnewton]

It would be absolutely pointless for me to use any kind of violence, at the tender age of 68, I would come of worst on every occasion

Not everyone has that duty, and you are describing a fight, not an assault. But I would expect if you saw a crime, you know it should be reported to one who can protect the victim, even with violence, if needed.

 

[GKMotley]

It is quite clear that Japan refused to surrender. The stuff that link covers is the primarily Togo/Sato message traffic, that I’ve mentioned before. That’s the one where Togo is seeking to feel out the Soviets to act as friendly intermediators, to negotiate a softer end to the war. I’m sure you will recall it. It’s the one where Sato, the realist, tries very hard to get Togo to understand that the idea is a fantasy, and that the only approach is to surrender. Now. It’s the one I mentioned before, one of his final message s before the bomb, if you don’t surrender, “…all Japan will be reduced to ashes and we will not be able (to avoid) following the road to ruin”. That was 4 days before Hiroshima. Sato was correct.

As I’ve noted before, your primary problem is a lack of historical grounding in the subject. It’s the sort of thing that causes you to post odd stuff you’ve gleaned from the internet, as opposed to taking down a book and getting some in-depth knowledge. What you have gleaned here, while something that is part of the discussion, and that I’ve explicated a number of times recently (and over the past 14 years, Heaven knows), is given by a certain individual. Whose background is more usually the European theater. And the Jews. Particularly the Holocaust. Have you googled David Irving?

Since you found Frank/DOWNFALL unconvincing (still don’t know what you would like to correct on the final para on p.348), here’s another source for you to try. THE COLUMBIA GUIDE TO HIROSHIMA AND THE BOMB (ed. Kort). Try all of Part 2 (excellent balanced coverage) and then look at Part 4C: MAGIC Diplomatic Summaries. The Togo/Sato correspondence, mainly. Where, on p.289 you’ll find the quote I gave above. Or you can continue as before, and I will too.

No one in any position of authority (formal or actual), anywhere, was attempting to surrender before the first bomb. The relevant MAGIC traffic shows it clearly. Keep that in mind.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Eric_Hyom:

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger

Denouncing peace makers is bad. But would you have the nerve to make this speech to the Holocaust Jews? I understand MLK was an admirable man, but organizing a March on Berlin would not have stopped Hitler

Whilst you have put quote tags around the comments I made, these were not my words, they were the words of Hermann Goring.

People often quote, evil flourishes when good men do nothing. This is not true, good people do not retaliate with guns, they speak up and are imprisoned or killed. Dictators know how to deal harshly with their people.

I would argue that Germany came out of WW2 with higher morals, whilst countries like America and Britain continued to get involved in wars.

 

[Curious11]

Right. Why did Germany come out of WWII with “higher morals”?

Was it because Americans organized marches in New York appealing to Hitler’s humanity? Or was it because the western allies and the soviets used force to topple the Nazi government?

 

[GKMotley]

Followed by occupation, trials of war criminals (might have found a few more), de-nazification, and years of nurturing in the basics of twentieth century democracy. All following, of course, total, absolute, unconditional surrender.

 

[pnewton]

I would argue that Germany came out of WW2 with higher morals, whilst countries like America and Britain continued to get involved in wars.

While I think this is true, I think crediting to anything other than their complete defeat is disingenuous. If anything, it is a good argument for the utter defeat of an evil enemy.

 

[omgriley]

Put it to you this way:

If a country today detonated a nuclear weapon (let alone two) against a defenseless civilian population they would be tried for war crimes. And rightly so.

The use of the atomic bomb cannot be morally defended, even if it was the only way (a theory largely debunked by the facts now known to the general public thanks to recently declassified material).

On a practical level, the Japanese government was seeking peace as early a year prior to the bombing. The country was in shambles; their economy was dead; in March they had suffered the brutal firebombing of Tokyo which killed nearly 120,000 civilians; By late December of '44 it was becoming obvious that Germany was losing and that the Axis was falling apart (which Japan was taking heavy stock of). By all accounts the Japanese were in no position to continue the war. The use of the atomic bomb was barbarous and was seen by many (as we now thanks to declassification) as an attempt to show off US military power to the Russians.

" My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." --Admiral William Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs from 1942 to 1949.

“During his recitation of the relevant facts, 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’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…” --Dwight D. Eisenhower.

 

[Curious11]

Let’s forget about whether Japan was really trying to surrender before. Let’s assume they weren’t. Why is an invasion of the country a better road to travel on? Knowing all it would have implied, why is it better?

 

[AlNg]

It is quite clear that Japan refused to surrender.

It was not clear to DWIGHT EISENHOWER, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and later President of the United States of America. In fact, President Eisenhower said:
“During his recitation of the relevant facts, 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’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…”

• Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, President Eisenhower said:

“….the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”
So it definitely was not clear to the General and later President of the United States of America that Japan was refusing to surrender as you claim.

 

[omgriley]

@AlNg

I beat you to the quote. LOL.

 

[AlNg]

I beat you to the quote. LOL.

Thank you kindly for that. I am convinced that the dropping of the atomic bomb set a bad precedent. Other countries can now try to say that they will use it to prevent casualties and to end a war.

 

[omgriley]

You’re exactly right. There’s a good argument to be made that it set off the Cold War.

 

[pnewton]

On a practical level, the Japanese government was seeking peace as early a year prior to the bombing.

They sure have a funny idea about how to seek peace. Even the slightest overture of humanity toward their prisoners would have opened doors. You want convince me that they had any intentions to seek a peaceful solution. The Japanese cruelty and inhumanity is among the worst in the history of the world.