Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
sayed_ali

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the christian view?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

What is the view of christianity and the christians of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW2? Was it correct in any way?

Also, what is the christian view on pre-emptive strikes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some military experts at the time figured it that an invasion of Japan would have taken up to 25 million lives. It was just a numbers game. Overthrow imperial Japan with a minual loss of life ( or aleast American life ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the view of christianity and the christians of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW2? Was it correct in any way?

Also, what is the christian view on pre-emptive strikes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Christianity does not teach "how to fight war" as two true Christians should not war upon each other. Likewise, no instruction is provided for war with nonbelievers.

The Christian view of a pre-emptive strike is that it is premeditated murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

W/the almost complete destruction of the US navy, the United States risked invasion up to the midwest United States. Mind you they initiated the fight we ended it.

However; the Christian view of war is that God the only sovereign and just God that could pass judgement righteously. So its encouraged that as Christians we leave it to the Lord. :angel:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Christian view is that you don't make war on civilians. From that point of view, dropping the bomb was morally wrong unless if save more civilian lives then it killed.

Given the Japanese practice of arming civilains with bamboo spears and then throwing them into interlocking zones of fire laid down by advancing American troops, the Americans made the right choice.

The people who were responsible for the war and purpetuated its horrors will face their judgement before our God. Who's uniform they happened to be wearing will not matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'The prince, knowing that his instrument is ready and that war is inevitable and who then fails to strike first is guilty of a crime against his own country.'

THE PRINCE

A Christian should not stand inactive in the face of evil. America has always had a first strike nuclear policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, efforts were well underway at the time to arrange surrender through intermediaries. People in the decision-making process inside the United States, including Truman, were well aware of this. They dropped the bombs because they could. A tough pill to swallow, but historical truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Japanese(Nihon) are of Israelite desent, so America does not like them....trust me...just wait...Mwuhahahaha----wait they fought along side Nazis...snap.............

Christians should not like the killing of others for any reasons, except for Jesus, Jesus can die.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just kidding...lol

hmm, the west=christian..hmm

:!!!: the stone that the builder refused will become the head corner stone....too bad the west has refused so many, either they want to make everyone else the foundation of the world....or they are not christian...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Kadhim, the intermediary was the Soviet Union, who kept the Japanese peace entry hidden until they could grab as much territory as they could by promptly invading. North Korea was the result.

The bomb ended WWII with less loss to life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong.

http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/1995/hiroshima.html

Spring/Summer 1945

By April 12, 1945, the day of President Franklin Roosevelt's untimely death, he, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, and Adm. Chester Nimitz had led the United States and Australia to assured victory in the Pacific Theater. Already, Japan's Emperor Hirohito was negotiating surrender with President Roosevelt, and other U.S.A. allies, working through Pope Pius XII's acting secretary for diplomatic affairs, Giovanni Montini (later Pope Paul VI). At the time Roosevelt died, the islands of Japan were already effectively blockaded; Japan's military situation was hopeless. Surrender on the Emperor's proposed terms was virtually assured within a few more months, as the logistical noose tightened sufficiently to end all Japan military leaders' resistance to the Emperor's will. At the time, the best U.S. guess was Autumn 1945, by no later than November.

There was no need for a military invasion of the islands of Japan. There was no military reason for dropping those nuclear weapons on two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of a Japan which had been utterly defeated; there was only a British geopolitical motive, which had almost nothing to do with Japan as such.

As Niccoló Machiavelli's commentaries on the ten books of Livy emphasized to many generations of professional military officers, there is no military justification for a deadly assault on an adversary who is already hopelessly defeated, and cornered; to invade Japan head-on, in such circumstances, would have been a folly fit for the court-martialling of any commander incompetent enough to order it.

There was one crucial motive for that bombing: Winston Churchill and Company wished those bombs used. Once Churchill's political adversary, President Franklin Roosevelt, was dead and buried, Churchill and his U.S. accomplices had their way with Harry S Truman.

It's not nice to think of, but those bombs were dropped simply because they could be. The purpose: to frighten the world into submission to those who were behind convincing Truman to approve the bombing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the whole rambling article which says that the 1500 century city state of Venice was the direct cause for the dropping of the bomb. The article needs no comment.

However, I will research the claim that the Vatican was used as peace feeler. My impression is that this is a false claim. The Vatican was held hostage by the Nazis and the Allies did not know how much the Vatican's silence was coercion, or cooperation. Any diplomatic move by the Vatican would have been held under deep suspicion by United States and the Allies. If Japan did decide to use the Vatican diplomatic offices, it would have been a poor choice.

As for the Allies not planning for an invasion, that is a lie. Whole corps and divisions were being transfered from the European theater to take part in the planned invasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that article was a little rambly. The other details of the discussion in the article were to provide background about why certain people would want to drop the atomic bomb without necessity.

If you just want to look into the basic facts about surrender offers on the part of the Japanese in the year before the dropping of the bomb, you could google "Vatican+Hiroshima" or "Hiroshima"+other key words. There are other documents out there. Apparently there was knowledge before Roosevelt died of willingness to surrender on the part of the Japanese Emperor under terms identical to those reached after Nagasaki. Things took a turn under Truman, who was pressured by certain people in his administration to take steps that would make the bombing appear inevitable. Anyway, you can look into that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have begun, but not finnished, my personal research and ran across this. It seems the Vatican envoy that the Japanese diplomats were working through was a Soviet agent. So of course this peace effort would have failed. It would also explains why he would have in later years said that America dropped the bomb for no reason.

I am not standing behind these statement. I need more then 30 minutes to weigh the evidence I am finding, shocking as it is. I just about fell out of my chair when I found this.

Next to be 'elected' to the Papal chair was Giovanni Battista Montini, a man who was said to have lived in the shadow of his predecessor. He had been born in Brescia in 1897, the son of a Catholic journalist and politician of strong liberal leanings. During his seminary days, he had been allowed to live and study at home for reasons of health, which resulted in a very limited theological training and almost no spiritual formation. It also allowed him to imbibe much of his father's liberal philosophy. During this period he also associated himself with such organizations as the Student Association of Alssandro Manzoni, as well as other liberal political groups. After ordination he was appointed to the Vatican diplomatic corps and slow rose in rank until he became Pro-Secratary of State, a position he held for many years. Needless to say such an appointment allowed him to both become acquainted with many members of the hierarchy and to foster the advancement of those who held similar views to his own.

Then in 1954 he was suddenly 'dismissed' to Milan under circumstances which have never been entirely clear. Myra Davidoglou documents the following facts: In July of 1944 Montini offered his services without the knowledge of Pius XII to the Soviet Union through the offices of his childhood friend Togliatti (then head of the Communist Party in Italy). The details of this sinister affair were exposed to the Pope by the Archbishop Primate of the Protestant Church in Sweden who was a state official and as such had access to governmental intelligence reports. This information came as a shock to Pius XII. An enquiry was made and among other things it was found that Montini's private secretly, the Jesuit Tondi, was a Russian agent and the man responsible for giving the Soviets the names of Catholic priests who were being sent into Russia. This explained why they were all being immediately caught and executed (54). The upshot of this was that Montini was exiled to Milan without the traditional red hat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found another website with quotes from some prominent figures.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

I thought you would find, from a military history perspective, the quotes of Gens. Douglas MacArthur and Ike Eisenhower most interesting.

DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"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, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

The second quote is interesting because by that point, he had had 8 years' practical firsthand experience as president, and also of course he was one of the highest ranking military commanders in the European theatre in WW2. So this was no wide-eyed idealist speaking.

GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

From what I've been reading, it seems like Secry of War under Truman Stimson was one of the central ones pushing for the bombing, influencing Truman to take a hardline stance in peace offers to the Japanese to manufacture conditions where the bombing would seem "inevitable." For example, he convinced Truman to offer only "unconditional surender" when it was clear a more sensible offer would be to let the emperor stay on for stability and to maintain the pride of the people. Stimson rejected this, but the post bombing surrender was on the basis of exactly these conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have begun, but not finnished, my personal research and ran across this.  It seems the Vatican envoy that the Japanese diplomats were working through was a Soviet agent.  So of course this peace effort would have failed.  It would also explains why he would have in later years said that America dropped the bomb for no reason.

I am not standing behind these statement.  I need more then 30 minutes to weigh the evidence I am finding, shocking as it is.  I just about fell out of my chair when I found this.

Next to be 'elected' to the Papal chair was Giovanni Battista Montini, a man who was said to have lived in the shadow of his predecessor. He had been born in Brescia in 1897, the son of a Catholic journalist and politician of strong liberal leanings. During his seminary days, he had been allowed to live and study at home for reasons of health, which resulted in a very limited theological training and almost no spiritual formation. It also allowed him to imbibe much of his father's liberal philosophy. During this period he also associated himself with such organizations as the Student Association of Alssandro Manzoni, as well as other liberal political groups. After ordination he was appointed to the Vatican diplomatic corps and slow rose in rank until he became Pro-Secratary of State, a position he held for many years. Needless to say such an appointment allowed him to both become acquainted with many members of the hierarchy and to foster the advancement of those who held similar views to his own.

Then in 1954 he was suddenly 'dismissed' to Milan under circumstances which have never been entirely clear. Myra Davidoglou documents the following facts: In July of 1944 Montini offered his services without the knowledge of Pius XII to the Soviet Union through the offices of his childhood friend Togliatti (then head of the Communist Party in Italy). The details of this sinister affair were exposed to the Pope by the Archbishop Primate of the Protestant Church in Sweden who was a state official and as such had access to governmental intelligence reports. This information came as a shock to Pius XII. An enquiry was made and among other things it was found that Montini's private secretly, the Jesuit Tondi, was a Russian agent and the man responsible for giving the Soviets the names of Catholic priests who were being sent into Russia. This explained why they were all being immediately caught and executed (54). The upshot of this was that Montini was exiled to Milan without the traditional red hat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I checked this name out; this man became Pope later, from 1963 to 1978, as Pope Paul VI. According to this other site, he did serve as secy of state under Popes Pius XI and Pius XII. As well, this site confirms that he was sent to Milan in 1954, but according to this site, it was as Archbishop. By the way, I was listening to another speech today by the writer of the original article, and this fellow Montini was mentioned as one of the middlemen for this Japenese surrender offer.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclo...n/m0023403.html

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After taking Iwo Jima, the US put many of those soldiers on ships that took 30 days to reach Okinawa. The GI's then took Okinawa, built up their forces there, and awaited orders to invade Japan. The estimated death toll for such an invasion was many times the death toll that actually resulted from the atomic bombs. Saving lives and ending the war quickly were the two main issues. The American public (after Pearl Harbor, years of war, and Japanese atrocities) was not in the mood for long protracted negotions about terms or Japanese "honor": the prevailing sentiment was for immediate and unconditional surrendor - period, end of story.

However, by that time in 1945, Soviet armies were already occupying the countries of Eastern Europe that had been liberated by Soviet forces and it was clear that Stalin had no intention of withdrawing his troops back to the USSR in the same way that US forces were being withdrawn from Western Europe. The "Iron Curtain" was becoming a reality. This provided a second political reason (the first being American public opinion - can you imagine the domestic political aftermath of the US sacrificing a million American soldiers in an invasion and not using the atomic bomb?) for dropping the bomb: as an example to Stalin of what could happen should he try to move his forces into Western Europe.

Eisenhower may well have been correct. Maybe it wasn't necessary to "hit them with that awful thing." But aside from the military reasons, there were other considerations- and I cite saving lives relative to the toll of an invasion, and the political statement that was in evidence by the demonstration of such a new power.

One can only wonder that it took TWO such demonstrations to get a surrender ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eisenhower may well have been correct. Maybe it wasn't necessary to "hit them with that awful thing." But aside from the military reasons, there were other considerations- and I cite saving lives relative to the toll of an invasion, and the political statement that was in evidence by the demonstration of such a new power.

One can only wonder that it took TWO such demonstrations to get a surrender ....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, your last question makes an important point, but not the one you had intended. The real point your question uncovers is that the whole idea of the Japanese being shocked and awed through destructive bombing was not well founded in the first place. America had earlier bombed Japan heavily, causing much death, through conventional explosives. And no surrender. They knew that in advance. So it's questionable how people could think bombing civilian centres was a productive way to bring about surrender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...