The shame of Hiroshima

after Gerelyn's column today it is a great, edifying and restorative consolation to read this.

Thank you for this important commentary, Mr. Fox. The bombing of a city full of civilians is an act of barbarism, an atrocity that can never be justified morally. Instead of celebrating this act and how it shows our American might to the world, we should be doing penance for one of the most singular acts of inhumanity of the 20th century.

You write as if unaware of the World War II that began December 7, 1941. A modest review of history will show you the effectiveness to be expected of "shows of force" in the war in the Pacific and the outlook at the time of those whom you demean for their "hubris and arrogance". Unfortunately, wars are never fought from far away with hindsight.
A quick list of what went on and was in progress can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_and_land-based_operations_in_...

See NCR, Gerelyn Hollingsworth:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/day-alternative-hiroshima-reflection

Your ignorance of history is astounding. Read the history of WWII before you make a fool of yourself every year at this time.

Dear Sir. I must thank you! You are my last defense against the insanity that is taking hold of our world. I've already posted two comments in Ms (Mrs or whatever) Gerelyn Hollingswort, an expert on the kind of hagiography I most detest: as a youth, contributed a lot to make me walk out of the Church. The "dirty" pamphlets exalting the children who did prefer to let all their family being killed than to lose their "innocence", were so awful that I was never able to read a hagyograph comment anymore.

But today's comment of the same lady on the bombing of Hiroshima, was too much for me. I posted my indignation when her's column was titled "Thank God for the atom bomb", something I considered the worst blasphemy I've read anywhere, much less in such a iconic site as NCR's. I added: We are living, indeed, the most evil times. God have mercy on us.

Neither comment was posted. Meanwhile, the title was changed. But, please, don't allow anymore this kind of frustrated people to shake more the faith of a Church who is already crumbling. We must draw the line somewhere: As Christians, we are not servants of the American Empire or any other. We only reserve our adoration to Jesus Christ, the King of Peace.

I wish the Holy Spirit will always guide you, in such a terrible times.

I hope Mr. Fox read's Gerelyn Hollingsworth's contribution. War is immoral, sinful, and uncontainable. I would ask, if the Japanese had won the war, would they share regrets and shame over Pearl Harbor? Have they since? Would Germans rue the bombing of Britain?
I can take no side on the value or purpose of the atomic bomb. My experience is nil. My morality, raised Catholic and outside of a personal war experience, tells me war is sinful, degrading all human consciousness. Yet, war is what we've ever known as human beings. When the Nobel Peace Prize winning president calmly states, "We got him," at the shooting of Osama bin Laden, (and I am not sympathizing with Osama), how do we understand that moment? What do we tell our children? Was it moral or not? And did it end our war in Afghanistan? Did it end terrorism?
And when we consider the gospel message of Jesus and his life, and look at what has been wrought in his name, do we share in that guilt, that sin too? When the Japanese military attacked Pearl Harbor would it have been better for Americans to say, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do?" Or by knowing what they did, what is their "level" of culpability?
We claim a soldier cannot excuse his actions by saying, "I was only following orders." Can a people of a nation say, "We were only following our leaders?"
Yes, I will pray tomorrow August 6; I'll beg for forgiveness and mercy for the war-like attitudes and attributes within my own heart, for my lack of compassion for others, for my own arrogance and selfishness that would allow me to harm my fellow human. Maybe instead of attributing blame and shame on others, the grace of God can begin to root out the sin within me.

Sorry Tom, I usually agree w/ you but not this time.

You forget a VERY IMPORTANT fact in your analysis.
If you think a show of force off shore would have worked your sadly mistaken.
The very important fact is this, Hiroshima was bombed on Aug 6th. Three days later the Imperial army STILL REFUSED to surrender. Even after Nagasaki on Aug 9th they STILL REFUSED. It was, surprisingly, the emperor who stepped in several days later to prevent a third bombing.

You state:
"I ask why that “show of force” could not have been off the coast of Japan, in public sight, but away from civilian population? And why the inexplicable Nagasaki bombing three days later?"
If after bombing two cities the Imperial army still REFUSED to surrender and it took the threat of a third bombing to get the emperor to speak up then an off shore demonstration would have looked like a joke.

Now you know why.

p.s. my father landed in N. Africa on Christmas Eve 1942 during the battle of Casablanca, fought in N. Africa, landed at Omaha Beach D.Day, fought in the battle of the Bulge, fought in Belgium, liberated a concentration camp and fought in the battle of Berlin. He received a Silver Star for gallantry.

Next, he was preparing to board a ship to Japan when the bombs were dropped. He would possibly have been killed in Japan and I wouldn't have been born.
I had 5 uncles in the war, one died and was the first from our State to die in WWII. So you see MY FAMILY suffered and tens of millions of others because of the Japanese and Germans.
So you won't mind if I don't share in your revisionist historical assessment of the era and your tears over the bombings. The bombings were needed to stop the killing and the nightmare of war. I won't get any nastier than that with you Tom and I forgive your myopia.

It is estimated that from the first battle launched by the Japanese in Manchuria in 1929 to the surrender in 1945 over one million innocent civilians were killed, hundreds of thousands used as slave labor and thousands of innocent women and teens raped by Japanese. The shame belongs to the Japanese people and their obtuse loyalty to their culture and their pride that supported, funded and built the war machine that destroyed so many innocents all because of a dream for world domination. They were so very deluded by world conquest and domination, so much unspeakable horror, that it can only be explained as being satanic.

Why the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

From what I've read, there were three reasons. (1) To study the effects of a nuclear bomb on a densely populated area and how those effects varied with range from the detonation point. (2) To signal in no uncertain terms how the U.S. would posture itself in the cold war, which was already under way even before the end of the European war. (3) To end the war with Japan quickly and decisively.

Dwight Eisenhower said that the bombing was unnecessary for saving U.S. lives and that Japan was, in fact, already defeated and looking for a way to surrender.

Would that there was no evil in the world; nuclear weapons would then not be necessary. In 1945, the Japanese government had the population whipped up to the point that if the mainland islands were invaded, they would fight to the last man, woman and child--or commit mass suicide as was the case on other islands. Germany was racing to perfect the atom bomb an the Allies did not know how close they were to deployment. The alternative to the nukes was Operation Olympic Coronet which was an invasion of the Japanese homeland. The cost in US lives was estimated to be at least 550,000 men with untold millions of dead Japanese. My father was preparing for Olympic Coronet. Truman did the right thing. Hiroshima was a naval base and a threat. The second bomb on Nagasaki is thought to have been a warning to the Russians who were preparing to invade Japan from the North. Truman warned the Russians not to invade and the second bomb is thought to have been dropped to let them know that the US might have several more to drop on the invaders. So, as horrible as the nukes were, they undoubtedly saved many millions of lives--they ended the War in a few short days and Japan is much better for the experience. Lesson to be learned: do not attack the United States of America!

Dear Thomas C. Fox:
I am sorry that I have been forced to respond to your statement with much great pain in heart and spirit.
1. "show of force” could not have been off the coast of Japan"
2. "second atomic bomb explosion speaks clearly to U.S. hubris and arrogance"
The above two statements,as I read them, are extremely ignorant of the hsitorical facts aboout Japan's atrocities,cruelties and inhuman attitudes toward the millions & millions people in the territories they iligally invaded and occupied in Asia during the 2nd World War and (those two statements) are also incredibly naive in a misleading opinion.
After the Hirosihima bombing Japan still considered that it could win and persist in imposing its power over the world and did not try a retreat of their evil plan.
It was needed the next Nagasaki bombing to cnvince them that they oould not proceed with their evil paln any further.
Furthermore, recently the Japanese Eucation Department is editing the true facts about its involment in the 2nd World War in their schools' new history text book, instructing their young Japaneses that their Country brought great benefits to their neighbors in Asia.
I am old enough to see and expirience what Japan did to my China during their occupation in the 2nd World War.
May God bless Japan that it will never cause any damage to herself anymore and nevermore.

Friends, I am at risk of not understanding what you are saying. Yes, mass death is bad. Yes, all of us are not happy with the mass death from the nukes. Now, that said, the war was ended early. The nukes played some part in giving the emperor an excuse for calling for surrender. My father also was sent to invade Japan, and I am thankful that he didn't have to.

Now, for the revisionism; when I was in 4th grade in the '60s I found new data not in the books. I revised the generally dull interpretations of WWII. The US soldiers, ~75% of them, told me that the first nuke had symbolic importance for diplomacy. The second one had no discernable purpose whatsoever. The leadership was not politically competent. I offer support neither for leftists nor the right. In WWII we were the best ever at producing, absolutely world class at fighting, and in diplomacy distinctly poor. Yes, thank you, the one bomb should have been aimed somewhere else, and they disobeyed the presidential order on that. The second one should have been held, and actually, almost (the most expensive thing ever made)got chucked into the ocean instead of dropped on the christian center of Japan.

The fact that we had a sort of good outcome looks like luck, with a little bit of credit to the emperor. I suppose a hundred years ago we could see the hand of God in pulling a tolerable outcome from a wretchedly bad situation, with no real statesmen looking for better ways to get what we need.

We are called upon to be innocent as doves, yet crafty as serpents.

With Gerelyn's current pro-nukes column praising the incineration of the children of Hiroshima, my subscription renewal form remains in its sealed envelope, as I am very confused and hurt to see my half century reading of NCR so sullied that I do not know what the future year holds. I am grateful for Tom Fox here, and always for Father John Dear, at least until our venal anti-Catholic bishops finish him off, but with what Gerelyn continually writes with impunity, I am very confused, and hurt.

Tom, name names, please. It was Harry Truman's decision. Was he immoral?

If you read any of the voluminous documents on file at the Truman Library Web site, you'll find that in Truman's mind, he had the weapon that would put a quick end to the worst war in human history. In his mind, whether you agree or disagree, not to end the war as quickly as possible was the immoral decision.

Secondly, read the telegram in which Sen. Richard Russell urges Truman to lay waste to the entire nation of Japan, and read Truman's heartfelt response.

Finally, yes civilians died. But the alternative to the bomb wasn't some demonstration off the coast. It was either the full-scale invasion of Japan, or, as Gen. Curtis LeMay suggested, the continued incendiary bombing of all of Japan's cities until the nation was in flames. How many civilian lives (not just American military lives) would have been lost, over how long a period of time.

Yes, regret the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and vow that it must never happen again. But please, do not condemm those (especially Truman) who were faced with only horrible options and attempted to choose the least horrible among them.