Tuesday, March 19, AD 2024 4:33am

Father Wilson Miscamble Defends the Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

 

Getting the annual Saint Blogs August Bomb Follies off to an early start.  Father Wilson Miscamble, Professor of History at Notre Dame, and long a champion of the pro-life cause, defends the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the video above. The video is a summary of the conclusions reached by Father Miscamble in his recent book, The Most Controversial Decision.  Go here to read a review of the book by British military historian Andrew Roberts.  Go here to read a review of the book by Father Michael P. Orsi.  Go here to read a review by Michael Novak.

I echo the conclusions of Father Wilson Miscamble and appreciate his heroic efforts to clear up the bad history and inane American self-flagellation that has distorted a very straight-forward historical event.    I also appreciate his willingness to take the heat that his position has caused him.  Go here to read his response to a critique by Professor Christopher Tollefsen.  This portion of his response is something I have noted in regard to many critics of Truman, an unwillingness to address the consequences of not dropping the bombs:

It is when one turns to alternate courses of action that the abstract nature of Tollefsen’s criticisms becomes apparent. He criticizes Truman’s actions as immoral but offers no serious proposal regarding a viable alternative. Elizabeth Anscombe had naively suggested that Truman alter the terms of surrender, but such an approach only would have strengthened the hand of the Japanese militarists and confirmed their suicidal strategy. Tollefsen concedes that “it might well be true that greater suffering would have resulted from a refusal to use the atomic weapons in Japan,” but he backs away from any genuine discussion of what Truman should have done and of what that “greater suffering” might have involved. He provides no evidence that he has considered this matter at all. But should philosophers be able to avoid outlining what they would have done in the demanding circumstances that Truman confronted? I have always thought that moral reflection wrestles with the awful and painful realities. Tollefsen seems to want to stand above the fray, to pronounce Truman’s actions as deeply immoral and to leave it at that. It would have brought greater clarity to this discussion if he had confronted the alternatives seriously.

If Tollefsen were to engage the military issues involved in the war in the Pacific, I suspect he would be forced to raise further objections to the American military practices pursued well before the Enola Gay flew toward Hiroshima. Take as but one example the early 1945 Battle for Manila, in which approximately one hundred thousand Filipino civilians were killed. Some were killed by the Japanese, but many of this large number were killed by aggressive American air and artillery bombardments used, without particular regard for civilian casualties, as the American forces sought to dislodge an established enemy that refused to surrender. These harsh tactics could not meet Tollefsen’s criteria with regard to means. Given his unbending approach on moral absolutes, I assume he would condemn the action; but just what military means would he support in trying to defeat a foe that considered surrender the ultimate disgrace and who fought accordingly? Similarly, Tollefsen could hardly approve of the military force utilized in the taking of Okinawa and the high number of civilian casualties that resulted.

I suspect that Professor Tollefsen would be willing to say that it would be better to do absolutely nothing and to live with the consequences, if I may use that word, than to use morally questionable tactics. But the decision not to act undoubtedly would have incurred terrible consequences. Surely such inaction would carry some burden of responsibility for the prolongation of the killing of innocents throughout Asia, in the charnel house of the Japanese Empire. Is it really “moral” to stand aside, maintaining one’s supposed moral purity, while a vast slaughter is occurring at the rate of over two hundred thousand deaths a month? Isn’t there a terrible dilemma here, namely, which innocent lives to save? Would Tollefsen really have rested at peace with the long-term Japanese domination of Asia? Would that be a pro-life position?

Let me confess that I would prefer that my position had the clarity of Professor Tollefsen’s. It is a large concession to admit that Truman’s action was the “least evil.” Arguing that it was the least-harmful option open to him will hardly be persuasive to those who see everything in a sharp black-and-white focus. Yet this is how I see it. If someone can present to me a viable and more “moral way” to have defeated the Japanese and ended World War II, I will change my position. I suppose my position here has some resonance with my support for the policy of deterrence during the Cold War. I could recognize the moral flaws in the strategy but still I found it the best of the available options, and the alternatives were markedly worse. Interestingly, I think the author of Veritatis Splendor thought the same thing and he conveyed that view to the American bishops as they wrote their peace pastoral letter.

I trust that my pro-life credentials will not be questioned because I refuse to denounce Truman as a “mass-murderer.” Unlike Tollefsen, I do not think that my position initiates the unraveling of the entire pro-life garment. I believe Truman pursued the least-harmful course of action available to him to end a ghastly war, a course that resulted in the least loss of life.

Harry Truman knew that if he ordered the dropping of the bombs, a very large number of Japanese civilians would be killed.  He also knew that if he did not drop the bombs it was virtually certain that a far larger number of civilians, Allied, in territory occupied by Japan, as well as Japanese, would be killed, as a result of the war grinding on until the war ceased due to an invasion of  Japan, continued massive conventional bombing of Japan, or a continuation of the blockade which would result in mass famine in Japan.  He also knew that an invasion of Japan would have led to  massive, almost unthinkable, US military casualties, to add to the 416,000 US deaths and 670,000 US wounded that World War II had already cost.   The morality of Truman’s dropping of the bombs has been a subject of debate since 1945.  Comparatively little attention has been paid to the practical and moral consequences of Truman failing to act.  Father Miscamble is to be congratulated for examining this facet of Truman’s Dilemma.

Update:  Go here to view a lecture by Father Miscamble on Truman and the bombings.

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
269 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Art Deco
Art Deco
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 5:55am

The trouble is that taking into account consequences makes you a ‘consequentialist’, which is a very bad thing.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 6:00am

Obama is quietly, unilaterally disarming so that the US may never do that again.

My uncle (RIP) believed he survived the war because of the bombings. He would take strong exception with anybody that said it was inappropriate.

Unilateral disarmament is like gun control: only the bad guys are armed. No, wait! For Obama, Americans are the bad guys. Neville Chamberlain incarnate.

Paul Primavera
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 6:06am

“Arguing that it was the least-harmful option open to him will hardly be persuasive to those who see everything in a sharp black-and-white focus.”

I see everything in sharp black-and-white focus, and it’s clear: dropping the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the moral thing to do, saving millions of innocent lives on both side that would have been otherwsise lost in a protracted struggle of conventional warfare to defeat an intractable, godless enemy.

Ironically, however, the very people who oppose nuclear weapons are the SAME people who today oppose anti-ballistic missile shield technology. Go figure! Peace at any price, including that of slavery.

One last thing: when discussing weapons of war, nuclear or otherwise, maybe reading “The Strategy of Technology” by Stefan T. Possony, Ph.D.; Jerry E. Pournelle, Ph.D. and Col. Francis X. Kane, Ph.D. (USAF Ret.) would be enlightneing.

http://baen.com/sot/

Paul Primavera
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 6:08am

And, T. Shaw, the USCCB supports that position of nuclear disarmament.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/war-and-peace/nuclear-weapons/

Peace at any price, including that of slavery!

Spambot3049
Spambot3049
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 6:37am

Paul,

Thanks for the link.

WK Aiken
WK Aiken
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 6:46am

“Peace at any price, including that of slavery!”

Nope. Peace of Christ at any price, including that of martyrdom before slavery.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 6:54am

I agree that Truman’s decision is best when evaluated by reference to consequences. But before consequences can be consulted it must first be determined that the act was not intrinsically evil. This is a problem insomuch as the bombs clearly targeted civilians. One cannot fairly or reasonably describe the civilian casualties as collateral damage — they were the target. Accordingly, I do not see how it is possible to square the bombings with Catholic moral teaching.

That said, Truman was hardly a monster. Indeed, I have no basis for believing I would have handled the situation differently. In extreme cases we all do bad things for good reasons, and those good reasons certainly mitigate our moral culpability. For instance, while murder is always wrong, I hardly think God judges harshly the soldier who kills his comrade who is wounded and dying in agony. One cannot do evil for good reasons. But if the reasons are good enough the actions certainly are forgivable. Life can be tragic and complicated. I am reminded of Scobie in Greene’s “The Heart of the Matter,” who secretly took his own life in order to reduce the pain of his loved ones. It was almost Christ-like, even if the word “almost” does a lot of heavy lifting.

Finally, I agree that the amateur historians who claim that Truman knew that the Japanese would have surrendered without an invasion are shameless turds.

Paul W Primavera
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 7:23am

“Peace of Christ at any price, including that of martyrdom before slavery.”

Agreed. But does that mean you get to decide that hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese soldiers as well as millions of Japanese get to be martyred in a protracted conventional war that was obviated by the dropping of two nuclear weapons?

Does that mean you get to decide that millions of innocent people should be martyred if and when Iran obtains nuclear weapons capability and Obama has disarmed the United States?

We live in a real world where idealism kills.

PS, I literally slept beside thermonuclear weapons on a make-shift bunk in the torpedo room within a submarine a long time ago. We were all trained to launch weapons in case the submarine was fatally hit and we were the last ones alive aboard. Given the order, I would have launched without hesitation. And were I in the postion again (now not possible), I still would do so. If I am being martyred for my country, my family, my freedom, then I will take as many of the enemy with me as possible.

c matt
c matt
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 8:33am

But does that mean you get to decide that hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese soldiers as well as millions of Japanese get to be martyred in a protracted conventional war that was obviated by the dropping of two nuclear weapons?

Dropping the bombs was the exact same decision – only you choose different martyrs, and a different number of them. On this question, Art Deco and I agree (at least as to objectively immoral nature of the act; Truman’s subjective moral guilt is a different question).

Hiroshoma and Nagasaki are the right’s version of abortion.

Paul W Primavera
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 8:41am

Well, we strongly disagree, C Matt. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved uncounted millions of lives which today the liberal left would prefer to see aborted. Therefore, to characterize this as the right’s abortion is simply wrong. Besides, it was a Democrat – Truman – who ordered the bombing.

Mary De Voe
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 9:23am

before I say, I have not read the full text: Here my opinion:
America was at war with Japan. The articles of war are to be engaged to understand “THE BOMB.” What is happening to us now is that Obama is trying to impose martial law upon American civil law, sadly for his own agenda. If it comes to war in America, it will come without the safety of the articles of war and martial law will be used against us.
I am with the bishops in being against war, but a war of self-defense is always inevitable. The USCCB must deny Pearl Harbor to be against just war. The USCCB must deny St. Thomas Aquinas’ just war theory to be against all war without regard to the facts. Has man so realigned himself with the Prince of Peace that it is in America’s best interest to disarm?

Mary De Voe
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 9:25am

Donald R. McClarey says:
Tuesday, July 24, 2012 A.D. at 8:42am
“Hiroshoma and Nagasaki are the right’s version of abortion.”

Assuming that the unborn were engaging in a war to conquer Asia that had killed tens of millions of people cmatt, that is perfectly logical.

Thank you Donald McClarey. I wish I had your turn of phrase.

Dale Price
Dale Price
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 10:09am

I’m glad I wasn’t Harry Truman in the summer of 1945.

Foxfier
Admin
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 10:14am

Hiroshoma and Nagasaki are the right’s version of abortion.

Closer to killing someone that’s trying to kill my family, even though he’s only trying to do it because someone will kill his kids if he doesn’t. Or any of a thousand other Hollywood plotlines.

This is pretty dang relevant these days, what with the habit of terrorists to set up their most sensitive centers with human shields. Or to strap bombs on kids, especially those with Down’s syndrome and the like, then send them to checkpoints.

It’s always wrong to try to kill someone; but sometimes you have to kill them to stop them.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 10:20am

On this question, Art Deco and I agree (at least as to objectively immoral nature of the act; Truman’s subjective moral guilt is a different question).

I was being ironic, and making a jab at Daniel Nichols and Mark Shea. I am not an adept of any kind of philosophical discourse, so have nothing to say about involved questions. I merely note that the decision was a wretched one to have to make.

Dale Price
Dale Price
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 10:26am

If I recall correctly (and I really need to get my hands on Frank’s “Downfall”), the non-invasion, non-bomb option was a blockade of the Home Islands, preventing Japan from importing anything. The American submarine force had all but swept the Japanese merchant fleet from the seas by August 1945 (doing what Donitz only dreamed of), but the clamps would have been applied very tightly with a blockade. You would have had famine and then disease sweeping the population in a matter of weeks.

I can’t imagine the unspeakable horror of that, either.

Mike Petrik’s analysis more or less speaks for me. Few options, all bad.

c matt
c matt
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 10:39am

Essentially, the case for Hiroshima and Nagasaki boils down to one part consequentialism plus one part proportionalism.

It is the same thinking employed by many proponents of abortion.

We all have our blind spots.

Pinky
Pinky
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 10:40am

If the bombing was immoral, it was immoral. There’s no way to argue that it was immoral but justified. The consequences of not bombing were outside of the moral choice of Truman. Truman wasn’t responsible for the moral choices of others including those of the enemy. He was responsible only for his moral choices.

If there were military targets within the cities, as there were, it could be argued that those were the targets and any additional damage was due to double effect. This argument gets iffy. Would Hiroshima’s and Nagasaki’s targets be of sufficient interest to merit their bombing? They weren’t targeted by conventional Allied attacks. Nevertheless, one can say that the military targets in the cities were bombed, and the power of the new technology was demonstrated, and any deaths among the civilian population were an unintended consequence. I think that’s sufficient to justify the decision (or to not stand in judgement over Truman on the matter).

I’d say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki then are the right’s death penalty: a good person can defend it in limited cases, but no one should celebrate the event.

WK Aiken
WK Aiken
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 10:53am

@Paul – sorry, but that was taken exactly the wrong way around. I took “Peace at any prioce, including that of slavery” to mean that you prferred to live as a slave as long as it was in peace. These are contradictory, so I was confused; a slave knows no peace.

What I meant that I will either live and worship freely, or if need be, die. I will never allow myself to be enslaved and made to turn on my faith. This has nothing to do with defending against an attacker. The assumption is that I am already defeated and those are my choices. I will defend if I am able, of that there is no doubt.

I can’t help but agree that if the choice is between millions of dead over years and hundreds of thousands of dead in a blinding instant – and no other option – the choice is clear. What was done may not have been “right” but it was what was necessary.

Also, think for a minute what would have happened in Germany if the Allies had suddenly backed down against Japan. It had been only a few months since V-E, the Werewolf problem was still rampant and Odessa was shipping truckloads of SS and Gestapo officers to points hither and yon about the globe – who could have been brought back just as easily. Any sudden sign of weakness and the European theater might have smouldered for years.

Then, there was the Stalin question. The USSR had finally declared war on Japan when it was evident that it wouldn’t invite Siberian invasion, and it was another way for Uncle Joe to stage a land grab. Truman had to show Stalin where the line in the sand was. A prolonged Allied invasion would most certainly have involved Russian cooperation, so there could easily have been a “North Japan” and “South Japan.” A warm-water port for a Soviet Pacific fleet was simply unacceptable, so that option was out.

So, apologies, Paul if I was unclear. I have no doubt that what was done then was correct. As well, any current enemy who insistst on staging a plausible threat must also be undone, in the way that most quickly ceases any potential for further conflict.

And thank you, Mr. McClarey, for your pithy analysis of the unborn’s evil plot to create the Greater Pre-Natal Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Anzlyne
Anzlyne
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 11:02am

Failing to act is action. Both choices had consequences according to Father Miscamble.
Though consequences do not determine the morality of an act– consequences do matter. .. by the fruits (consequences) you shall know them. That requires hindsight or prophetic vision.
For the Commander in Chief it was hard to see clearly and he decided he must “pull the trigger” and leave the consequences to the Lord.

Dale Price
Dale Price
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 11:24am

I don’t see how analysis of the decision by supporters can evade the charge of consequentialism. Clearly, that’s what Truman weighed and gave the most credence to–the higher death toll from other options.

However, I also don’t see how the critics’ analysis can evade the historical record–namely, that the regime was digging in for a fight to the death, and the “conventional” means of the time would have led to a staggeringly higher death toll, military and civilian.

I can’t tie it up into a neat satisfactory answer, much as I’d like to.

Michael Jadison
Michael Jadison
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 11:25am

I am a bit shocked to read, on a Catholic website, that it was a good, just, and courageous thing to drop a nuclear weapon on the Catholic city of Nagasaki, killing and wrecking the lives of so many of our brothers and sisters in Christ, including priests and religious (according to Father George Zabelka, chaplain to the 509th Composite Group on Tinian Island, three convents full of sisters were destroyed by the bombing), not to mention Catholic schoolchildren (see the documentary “White Light/Black Rain: The Destruction of Hiroshima/Nagasaki”), etc.

This is incomprehensible to me.

Foxfier
Admin
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 11:35am

It is the same thinking employed by many proponents of abortion.

Fallacy: argument from bad analogy, possibly also association fallacy.

Also, something can’t be partly consequentialism– consequentialism requires that ONLY the results be examined.

Proportionalism, on the other hand, is put on so many different things that it’s kinda crazy to try to defend against such a charge.
Clearly, looking at the harm done from not doing something isn’t immoral, or it would be illicit toremove the fallopian tube a child has implanted in, using vaccines that were grown in fetal tissue would never be allowable, and deadly force for self-defense would never be acceptable.
Also clearly, the classic “torture a kid to death to save thousands” is also not acceptable.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 11:37am

I think that Hiroshima thingy is one of them moral gymnastics routines that catholic liberals twist themselves into every so often so as to distract (from their acts and rantings which hugely support abortion, artifical contraception, class envy, gluttony, sloth, wrath, etc.) you and accuse you of being bad people.

Tom McKenna
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 11:41am

Well, it’s not the right’s capital punishment, which does not involve the direct commission of an immoral act, namely the killing of innocent civilians.

Father’s presentation effectively shows that Truman had a list of bad choices, but it does not attempt to answer the question of how the atomic bombs square with the Catholic teaching that one can never permissibly do a directly immoral act (here, deliberate targeting of civilians) in order to achieve a presumed greater good (the end of the war).

Choosing blockade would have been a moral option, because it would not have involved American responsibility for ensuing deaths, which would have been squarely on the shoulders of the Japanese leadership for failing to surrender when there was no hope of victory. But at least in that scenario, we would not have directly and intentionally taken innocent lives, as we did at Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

I don’t believe Fulton Sheen was a bleeding heart liberal dem when he observed: “When, I wonder, did we in America ever get into this idea that freedom means having no boundaries and no limits? I think it began on the 6th of August 1945 at 8:15 am when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. … Somehow or other, from that day on in our American life, we say we want no limits and no boundaries.”

WWII was notorious for being the first time that the Christian West had, as a matter of policy, adopted the practice of deliberate targeting of civilian centers as a war-aim (except perhaps for Grant, Sherman, and Hunter in the Shenandoah valley, but that’s another argument for another day).

Blackadder
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 11:44am

I confess that I find Father Miscamble’s argument confusing. It sounds like he is saying that the bombings were wrong, but that they also were the right thing to do. That’s just incoherent.

Paul W Primavera
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 11:50am

@ WK Aiken. No problem. We agree. Having been on a nuclear propelled, nuclear armed submarine, I would have been terrified to see a launch. But at the time we were in the Cold War and I would have obeyed orders not blindly, but willingly and knowingly and with fear and trembling.

Again, the people most opposed to the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the past are the SAME people who in the present oppose an anti-ballistic missile shield.

Dale Price
Dale Price
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 12:02pm

WWII was notorious for being the first time that the Christian West had, as a matter of policy, adopted the practice of deliberate targeting of civilian centers as a war-aim (except perhaps for Grant, Sherman, and Hunter in the Shenandoah valley, but that’s another argument for another day).

The Iroquois would like to have an animated discussion with you about the Sullivan Expedition of 1779, which was dispatched by the Father of Our Country.

Paul D.
Paul D.
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 12:07pm

“This is incomprehensible to me”

That people should want to avert even greater war casualties and spare those involved great pain and suffering should not be that incomprehensible.

The implied moral calculus ,on the other hand, weighing some innocent lives over others is the greater moral dilemma.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 12:52pm

The analogy to abortion, while imperfect (as are all analogies), is nonetheless instructive. Recall the case of Sister Margaret McBride, whose excommunication was revealed less than two short years ago. Her offense? Permitting a hospital abortion in order to save the life of the mother. The undisputed facts are that without an abortion the mother would die long before the baby’s viability. So the choice was abort the baby and allow the mother to live, or watch both die. Sister McBride chose, wrongly, to permit the abortion. It is hard to do the right thing when terrible consequences are avoidable only by doing the wrong thing. Sister McBride is no more a monster than Truman. Both made decisions, however wrong, that many of us who visit this forum might well make under the circumstances. We are weak, and our faith imperfect. It is good that God is loving and merciful. I’m counting on that — it is my salvation strategy.

Greg Mockeridge
Greg Mockeridge
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 1:48pm

I wonder if, in his book, Fr. Wilson disucsses the mass consciption of Japanese civilians, practically the entire adult population and the training small children to strp explosives to themselves and roll under American tanks, hence the term “Sherman’s Carpets”.

What Japan did was turn its entire country into a large military base and hence a legitimate military target. So no, it was not the intentional direct killing of innocents that people Jimmy Akin assert (even he knows that to not be the case).

The shoddy treatment of this subject and severall others is why I think the Catholic blogosphere is, large part, embarrassment to the Church.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 1:54pm

Don, you are wrong, and very surprisingly so on Hiroshima.
First, regarding Sister McBride, the lines of treatment you mention were speculations by Monday-morning quarterbacks based on facts not in evidence. But even if true, the fact remains that Sister McBride made her decision — a decision to save a life other than her own — based on the medical facts presented to her; just as Truman made his based on the military and political facts presented to him (as opposed to the after the fact speculations regarding Japan’s putative plans to surrender).
Second, you know very well (or certainly should know) that the targeting of civilians was precisely within the object of Truman’s intentions. They were not merely collateral damage in an effort to bomb a military facility. He did so for the same reason that Churchill carpet-bombed Dresden — to terrorize civilians and their political leadership into losing the political will to fight. I wish it were not the case, but the history is simply too clear. In any event, Truman’s calculus was correct. And no doubt it saved lives — probably many millions.

Pauli
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 2:31pm

This is very good, thanks Donald. The fact that these cities were legitimate military and industrial targets is never even mentioned by the anti-Truman propagandists.

Foxfier
Admin
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 2:40pm

McBride was already covered here, and the fatal-to-mother condition turns out to be not quite as clean cut as claimed. Not sure if the woman ever came forward and released her medical records, either, so we have no information other than that she had Pulmonary Hypertension.

The fact that these cities were legitimate military and industrial targets is never even mentioned by the anti-Truman propagandists.

*dryly* Oh, those were just collateral damage when they hit the Catholic nuns, orphanages and old folks homes.

Pinky
Pinky
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 2:46pm

Mike – I was the one making the argument that Truman’s decision could be defended as a kind of double effect. It’s flimsy, I know. It’s has a Chief Justice Roberts element to it – accepting an action for a reason that the actors themselves didn’t invoke. It’s enough of a defense for me to feel uncomfortable judging the action itself, though.

Pinky
Pinky
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 2:48pm

Pauli – As far as I know, neither city had been targeted previously. Why would that be the case if they were such valuable military targets?

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 2:51pm

Pauli,
While you may be correct regarding anti-Truman propogandists, the fact that these cities were industrial cities important to Japan’s war effort is widely known and fully appreciated by the many Catholic moral experts who have concluded that the bombings were not morally justified. No one is saying that the munitions factories and other military sites could not be targeted, fully accounting for the reality of inevitable collateral deaths of innocents. What is asserted is that the targeting of an entire city, including its civilian population, cannot be morally justified. This is not to say that I stand in judgment of Truman. To the contrary, for Truman to have made any other decision would have required non only rare moral insight, but even rarer moral courage. I don’t pretend to be in such rare company, so I don’t remotely judge Truman. As c matt speculates above, while the objectively evil nature of the act may be clear to us(or should be, especially in retrospect), Truman’s subjective moral culpability is very doubtful.

Hirohito
Tuesday, July 24, AD 2012 3:19pm

“There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan’s unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan’s disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. ” – The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, July 1, 1946

Furthermore:

“In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 — that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

* Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
* Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
* Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
* Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
* Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
* Surrender of designated war criminals.”

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top