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

[Rau]

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?

The objective is to select the most effective means to prosecute the just war which does not entail intrinsically evil acts. Regrettably, it’s possible that such a course sees more dead (in total, or on our side) than alternative unacceptable options.

 

[GKMotley]

I’ve discussed that with you before .In addition to that Newsweek quote, Eisenhower made similar statements in two places, in 1948 (CRUSADE IN EUROPE, p. 443) and 1963 (MANDATE FOR CHANGE, as cited above). The 1963 account (as was even more true of the 1963 Newsweek article) was more detailed and more colorful than the first. In the 1948, but not the 1963 account , Eisenhower added “My views were merely personal and immediate reactions, they were not based on any analysis of the subject”. If so, indeed.

Eisenhower had no particular insight into the Pacific theater, nor should he have. As far as is known, he had no access to Pacific Theater Magic or Ultra, either as traffic or summary. Nor should he have. In a 12 July 1945 letter he wrote that he had not the slightest idea what would happen in the Pacific, nor was there any reason he should. He was the ETO commander.

Whether Eisenhower was opposed to the use of the bomb, personally, is certainly probable. His accounts of how and when he expressed his opinions are dubious. Your reading for this would be Newman/WEAPONS OF VICTORY, esp.pp. 121-124, though the entire book would do you good. Maybe. For icing, HIROSHIMA IN HISTORY (ed. Maddux), pp. 7-23. And (perhaps you missed it when you went through DOWNFALL), there 's Frank’s notes on pp. 332-334

.But Eisenhower’s opinions were of no matter. The issue was what actions would result in the fewest casualties, and end the war, at the time, not what Eisenhower said he thought of it. The persons making the decision were those with both the responsibility and the information best suited to make the decision. Eisenhower had neither, as he said in in the cited letter.

As I said, you keep doing this, I’ll keep doing the same.

 

[GKMotley]

Tell me about “On a practical level, the Japanese government was seeking peace as early a year prior to the bombing”. Recalling that seeking peace was not the same as surrendering. A point that is pertinent…

 

[omgriley]

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.

I make no attempt to exculpate the Japanese for what they did during the war. However, if we’re going by sheer body count, what the Japanese did pales in comparison to what the United States did. The Japanese never eviscerated over 300,000 innocent women and children.

According to very highly respected men of high military rank, and available declassified intelligence material, we know the Japanese were seeking a peaceful way to end the war as early as December of 1944.

We all are horrified that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons on their own people just a few years ago. They killed some 20,000 of their own people. The only difference between the actions of Assad’s government and Truman’s is that Truman did it to other people in astronomically higher numbers. So you can whitewash it all you want. The truth is always the truth. There can never be a justification for using the atomic bombs.

 

[omgriley]

Tell me about “On a practical level, the Japanese government was seeking peace as early a year prior to the bombing”. Recalling that seeking peace was not the same as surrendering. A point that is pertinent…

Tell me about “surrendering” Because the pertinent point with regards that term is the United States’ insistence on deposing emperor Hirohito. According to Japanese culture, the emperor was equivalent to a god, and this is why the terms of the unconditional surrender were unacceptable to the Japanese. That doesn’t mean they weren’t willing to surrender at all. Obviously, the “Enlightened” American culture despises anything closely resembling monarchy, and that’s why they insisted on removing Hirohito.

 

[Curious11]

Yes and why is that better? Why is it not intrinsically evil to invade a country and kill all who resist, including civilian militia and civilians who will die as an inevitable consequence and knowing full well the USSR would invade and Japan would be divided with half of the country living in communist slavery. All that could be foreseen. Why is that not intrinsically evil?

 

[Curious11]

I make no attempt to exculpate the Japanese for what they did during the war. However, if we’re going by sheer body count, what the Japanese did pales in comparison to what the United States did. The Japanese never eviscerated over 300,000 innocent women and children.

The US did not vivisect and experiment on live Chinese.

If Japan did not drop an atomic bomb, it is because it had no atomic bomb, I do not think we would have liked to find out what would have happened if either Japan or Nazi Germany ever got hold of nuclear weapons

 

[Curious11]

According to Japanese culture, the emperor was equivalent to a god, and this is why the terms of the unconditional surrender were unacceptable to the Japanese.

According to western culture, attacking Pearl Harbor by surprise on a Sunday without a previous declaration of war or agression from the USA is disgusting, cowardly, and not to be put up with ever. This is why any solution that did not end in the toppling of such a “god” was unacceptable.

 

[Curious11]

Obviously, the “Enlightened” American culture despises anything closely resembling monarchy, and that’s why they insisted on removing Hirohito.

Spain is a monarchy, no American planes ever bombed my country.

 

[GKMotley]

No. We had not decided precisely what eventually would happen to the Emperor, but deposing him was not high on the list. He was necessary for the enforcement of the surrender we did intend to force on Japan, IAW the Potsdam Declaration, and for the ability to keep order during the occupation and restructuring of the Japanese society. But certainly the role of the Throne, in the kokutai, was not to continue under the same Shintoism/imperial structure that it had been under the current Japanese constitution. Japan, like Germany, was to be occupied and reconstructed, to extirpate the militarism, as the controlling factor, under the Imperial structure.

The resistance to the surrender was centered in the 4 condition faction of the Saiko Senso Shido Kaigi, headed by the War Minister Anami. The peace faction, the one condition group, was headed by the Foreign Minister, Togo. But that one condition was a continuance of the essence of the kokutai, the Throne, as it was conceived under the current constitution. Which we would not accept, the surrender being required as stated, without further conditions, in the Declaration. After the tentative acceptance of the terms, following the rigged gozen kaigan of 9-10 August and the 2nd bomb, we “clarified” the question of the Emperor, in response to the stated Japanese assumption that it would not prejudice the Emperor’s sovereign role, by saying that that role would eventually be in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the Japanese people (which we proceeded to construct, as we rebuilt the national polity to a 20th century model, post war). The reply was satisfactory to the Emperor. Who stated his desire that the terms of the Declaration be accepted. And followed the formal surrender. You will note that the Emperor is still on the Throne.

 

[GKMotley]

Also, like a Fuehrer, a divine Emperor, on an imperial throne, was not in accord with a template of modern, peaceful democracy. Which we were going to establish.

 

[omgriley]

If Japan did not drop an atomic bomb, it is because it had no atomic bomb, I do not think we would have liked to find out what would have happened if either Japan or Nazi Germany ever got hold of nuclear weapons

It’s useless to argue in the alternative. “What ifs” mean nothing. Let’s talk about how things actually played out.

We actually know that Churchill wanted to use anthrax bombs on the Nazis and would have had it not been for his cabinet completely rejecting the idea. The Nazis had much worse than anthrax, and weren’t going to use them unless it was done to them first.

According to western culture, attacking Pearl Harbor by surprise on a Sunday without a previous declaration of war or agression from the USA is disgusting, cowardly, and not to be put up with ever. This is why any solution that did not end in the toppling of such a “god” was unacceptable.

As bad as Pearl Harbor was (again, I am not understating our losses or making excuses for the Japanese military), the attack was nonetheless a military target. The bombing of Pear Harbor does not excuse using nuclear weapons against an innocent and defenseless civilian population. Period.

 

[GKMotley]

Though, of course, they tried for one (Wilcox/JAPAN’S SECRET WAR).

As to vivisection, cannibalism, and general atrocities of the Japanese, I got 12-15 books dedicated to the subject. From Nanking, to Unit 731, to cannibalism, to the POW camps, to the fascinating combination vivisection/cannibalism of the crew of a B-29 shot down over Kyushu in May 1945, in a medical school.

The total Japanese-caused deaths in WWII, back to 1931, is, like the Holocaust, never going to be pinned down. But one may estimate: somewhere between 20 and 30 million. Mileage varies.

But that might suggest the bombs were a retribution. They were, rather, the most expeditious means of forcing an end to all such deaths as the war occasioned, consistent with the goals for which we waged the war.

 

[GKMotley]

Though Churchill is my wife’s hobby, not mine, I do average 6-8 books books on him in my general WWII reading, a year. And I vaguely recall the general subject, without pinning it to a specific book. And I do like to pin stuff to books.

Hence I apologize in advance for making a net link (my constant readers will be amazed). Was the subject you allude to related to this seeming controversy?

http://www.julianlewis.net/essays-a...ver-was-churchill-the-anthrax-bomb-1982-02-01

All players in the war seemed to have followed the basic rule, re: biological weapons: Don’t do it first.

Except, of course, Japan.

 

[omgriley]

No. We had not decided precisely what eventually would happen to the Emperor, but deposing him was not high on the list.

Regardless, it was a common opinion among high ranking military officials (I’ve already named a few) and the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey that Japan would have surrendered in 1945 without the use of atomic bombs and without a Soviet war declaration, and without an American invasion. With this in mind, the original question: Can a Catholic ever believe the ends can justify the means with regards to America’s use of the atomic bomb on Japan. The answer remains an unquestionable NO.

 

[omgriley]

Also, like a Fuehrer, a divine Emperor, on an imperial throne, was not in accord with a template of modern, peaceful democracy. Which we were going to establish.

Which the United States had no right to establish.

 

[omgriley]

They were, rather, the most expeditious means of forcing an end to all such deaths as the war occasioned, consistent with the goals for which we waged the war.

That’s ridiculous. Expeditious as in quick? Sure. It quickly ended the war. How does that justify murdering over 300,000 innocent people?

 

[GKMotley]

No doubt, as to your first point… After roughly 24 years of years of studying the subject, in detail and in possession of roughly 135 books related to it, (bibliomanic is me, on many, many topics) I refrain from being astounded. The books recommended above all address such points and individual assertions. Including noting that the USSBS does not say that at all. What says that is the introduction to the USSBS, written by Paul Nitze, Newman/TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT is an additional recommendation. It has a remarkable analysis of the USSBS, and it’s methods (Chap. 2). The conclusions in the oft cited paragraph (Paul Nitze’s personal bias) about an early surrender are completely unsupported by the detailed interviews of the “surviving Japanese leaders involved”, with only Kido making even a passing reference to any form of early surrender, without either the invasion, or the bombs (in later testimony, he credits the Nagasaki bomb with being the key to being able to bring about surrender).

Newman’s book is crisp, succinct (only around 200 pages) and devastating. I commend it to you.

As to what a RC may believe, that would be (IMO) what the Church teaches on the subject, at the appropriate level of theological certainty. Not something I deal in, in the 14 years of relating history on line, on the topic.

 

[GKMotley]

Murder is your term. Kill is mine. And the answer is a proportionalist/consequentialist one: to avoid killing more, for lack of doing so. 300,000 is a high figure for the period usually used to gauge (uncertainly) the total directly killed in the bombings. Which was roughly what would have occurred, absent the bombings, in all areas of the Pacific theater, in roughly a month. Parsimony in death, not profligacy

 

[Curious11]

It’s useless to argue in the alternative. “What ifs” mean nothing. Let’s talk about how things actually played out.

If you’re gonna argue that Japan was morally superior because it did not drop a bomb that destroyed a city in 1 second, what ifs mean everything. It’s like arguing that Ted Bundy became a better person later in life because he did not kill anyone in jail, where any potential victim was out of reach

As bad as Pearl Harbor was (again, I am not understating our losses or making excuses for the Japanese military), the attack was nonetheless a military target. The bombing of Pear Harbor does not excuse using nuclear weapons against an innocent and defenseless civilian population. Period.

A military target in times of peace. They weren’t much different from civilians. And once again, what is your alternative to the A bomb and why is it more moral?

And arguing that Nazis, who slaughtered 6 million defenseless people were somehow in moral high ground because they refused to use “worse than anthrax” is ludicrous