Pope Frances uses picture of Nagasaki Victim for propaganda

[Jered]

It's called 'The Fruit of War.'.

It's like everyone forgets about the Rape of Nanking, Unit 731, or the atrocities that the Japanese visited on any other people unfortunately enough to be occupied by them.

If you consider the fanaticism of the Japanese in both their fight to death mentality and in some cases refusal to surrender years or decades after the war ended, the atrocities that the Japanese engaged in, the likely consequences of an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands, and the Japanese use of what we could describe as "weapons of mass destruction" on civilian targets, quite frankly, they deserved to be nuked.

Oh, and by the way, they started a war with a superior power.

Oh, and, we warned the Japanese of our targets, too.

[skb12172]

This Pope...

[Langenator]

His Holiness would do well to read a book by one of his one Jesuits: https://smile.amazon.com/Controversial- ... +miscamble

Also available from Prager U for those of short attention span: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmIBbcxseXM

BLUF:
- dropping the bombs saved tens, if not hundreds of thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Japanese lives, which would have been lost if an invasion of the Japanese home islands had been required.

- up to 250,000 civilians were dieing in Japanese-occupied Asia each month. So, just in the gap between dropping the bombs and the scheduled landings on Kyushu in October, 1945, you're talking about up to half a million lives saved. The scheduled landings on Honshu were sometime in the late spring of 1946, IIRC. You can do the math.

- not mentioned by Miscamble (to my recollection), but Stalin had planned to invade Hokaido. Stalin called off the landings only on 22 August, 1945, a day before they were to take place. So the bombs saved a big chunk of the Japanese population from having to live under Communist rule for a couple of generations.

His Holiness would also do well to read Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Yes, war is terrible. "War is all hell, and you cannot refine it." Thus the moral thing to do is to end it as swiftly as possible, and with the least suffering. That usually means inflicting enough pain on the other side that they say Uncle. When you're talking a war of national survival, that can mean it requires a whole lot of pain and suffering.

[Rod]

They started it, we finished it. Get over it you socialistic asshole.

[MarkD]

It's a good thing was is so terrible, otherwise we might enjoy it too much.

One problem many Christians,. especially clergy, have is they forget that we don't actually live in the Kingdom of Heaven yet, we live in a fallen world. Sometimes that requires doing something terrible in order to avoid something worse. 30k dead vs millions dead is a terrible choice to have to make but there's only one correct choice to make. So while the people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki may mostly have had little to do with Pearl Harbor, Nanking or Bataan, they were under a government that DID. Too bad, so sad. I'm likely alive today because my Dad took part in the post war occupation of Japan instead of the invasion.

[randy]

I put this in the same category as the bleatings from the Mayor of Dresden complaining about a statue to Bomber Harris. Conveniently forgetting places like Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry....

Or for that matter Auschwitz, Dachau, Treblinka...

Don't start a war if you can't take a joke.

[Termite]

This Pope...

At some point, the question needs to be asked: "Is THIS Pope actually Catholic?"

Seriously..........

[Rod]

Facebook feed on this story, guy says " Im pretty sure you need to open up some history books. FDR didnt give a shit about China (until it was politically necessary), Japan didn't bomb Pearl Harbor over the American oil embargo, and the US already had surrender terms by the Japanese a month before we nuked them twice. That was a show of force for the Cold War that had started forming in 43 from the inactions of Churchill and FDR.". Not that knowledgeable about China but it was an important base, it's true that Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor over oil (they attacked over embargoes on almost everything), and there weren't any inactions by FDR.Japan DID try to surrender but on THEIR terms. Now he's parading a bunch of books that "support" his thesis. Just the pictures, nothing about the content.

American Military History and the Evolution of Western Warfare by Robert Dougherty

The Era of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933-1945: A Brief History with Documents (The Bedford Series in History and Culture) by Richard D. Polenberg

Major Problems in American Military History: Documents and Essays (Major Problems in American History Series) by John Whiteclay Chambers II

[g-man]

RE:Facebook arguments. Don’t try and wrestle with a pig in his pen. It annoys the pig, and you just end up covered in shit. If dude doesn’t understand the difference between “We’ll quit if...” and “Fuck it, we’re out, you win...”, maybe HE should crack open some history books. Wouldn’t hurt anyone who thinks the continual negotiations for “Peace In The Middle East” have gotten anybody anywhere substantive in the last 60-odd years.

Come to think of it, unconditional surrender is a pretty good starting place for building a checklist for one’s exit strategy.

[randy]

quoting some internet twit... FDR didnt give a shit about China (until it was politically necessary),

So the atrocities and war crimes committed by a country don't count so long as the leader of the US doesn't care, or give the appearance of caring. Nice to know.

Japan didn't bomb Pearl Harbor over the American oil embargo

You could make a case that they did, given there was an oil (and others as Rod points out) embargoes, and part of the reason for taking out the US Pacific Fleet was to prevent it from interfering in their operations to seize the oil fields in the Dutch East Indies.

and the US already had surrender terms by the Japanese a month before we nuked them twice.

I think Rod and G-Man covered this

That was a show of force for the Cold War that had started forming in 43 from the inactions of Churchill and FDR.".

What "inactions" were those? Refusing to invade France too early with too few troops and not enough logistics just to please Uncle Joe? Try cracking open a book about a little place in France called "Dieppe".

ETA: I'm sure that troops from the Italian campaign that tied down a multitude of the German's best units to keep them from heading east are glad to hear they were "inactive". Hate to see what Anzio, Salerno, Monte Casino etc would have been like during an active operation. That might have been rough!

And glad that the 8th AF and Bomber Command were inactive during this period tying up thousands of FLAK 88 guns and Fighter aircraft that were not available to shoot holes in T-34s or shoot down Stormoviks. That would have been dangerous work otherwise.

Not to mention the pleasure cruises of the Merchant Marine to Murmansk.

[Langenator]

Trent Telenko, over at the Chicago Boyz blog, has done some great research on the topic.

Probably the two most relevant posts are these two:

Happy VJ-Day, Plus 72 Years

History Weekend: Revisiting “Atomic Diplomacy,” the “Million Casualty Lie,” and Casualty Planning for the Invasion of Japan

BLUF:
- There is no evidence in the historical record to support the "Atomic Diplomacy" narrative

- The "Million Casualty Myth" was, in fact a lie (or at least an obfuscation), but in the opposite direction from what the Leftist claim. The actual estimated casualties, based initially on casualties suffered in the Saipan operation, later revised and refined after Iwo Jima and Okinawa, were approximately 2.3 million dead, wounded, and missing for OLYMPIC, CORONET, and post-CORONET operations. (Note that this means the War Dept OPD had those figures as early as mid- to late summer 1944; those figures were a key part of the decision to abort Adm. King's preferred invasion of Formosa in favor of MacArthur's landings in the Philippines.)

Marshall kept the actual casualty estimates from Truman (using 'best case' estimates, based on MacArthur's much lower casualty ratios in New Guiniea and the Philippines, instead) out of fear that Truman wouldn't approve the invasion if he saw the actual estimates.

[scipioafricanus]

Trent Telenko, over at the Chicago Boyz blog, has done some great research on the topic.

Probably the two most relevant posts are these two:

Happy VJ-Day, Plus 72 Years

History Weekend: Revisiting “Atomic Diplomacy,” the “Million Casualty Lie,” and Casualty Planning for the Invasion of Japan

BLUF:
- There is no evidence in the historical record to support the "Atomic Diplomacy" narrative

- The "Million Casualty Myth" was, in fact a lie (or at least an obfuscation), but in the opposite direction from what the Leftist claim. The actual estimated casualties, based initially on casualties suffered in the Saipan operation, later revised and refined after Iwo Jima and Okinawa, were approximately [url]2.3 million dead, wounded, and missing[/url] for OLYMPIC, CORONET, and post-CORONET operations. (Note that this means the War Dept OPD had those figures as early as mid- to late summer 1944; those figures were a key part of the decision to abort Adm. King's preferred invasion of Formosa in favor of MacArthur's landings in the Philippines.)

Marshall kept the actual casualty estimates from Truman (using 'best case' estimates, based on MacArthur's much lower casualty ratios in New Guiniea and the Philippines, instead) out of fear that Truman wouldn't approve the invasion if he saw the actual estimates.

I know the plans also didn't have the invading divisions past the 3rd day or so since they figured they would be annihilated. If the bomb wasn't used and the public found out about it... Truman would have been impeached.

[First Shirt]

I seem to recall reading that the Purple Heart medals made up in anticipation of the invasion of the Japanese home islands were still being handed out in the early days of Desert Storm. Not sure how true that is, but it is believable.

[Jered]

I seem to recall reading that the Purple Heart medals made up in anticipation of the invasion of the Japanese home islands were still being handed out in the early days of Desert Storm. Not sure how true that is, but it is believable.

They probably still have some in stock.

From the sounds of things, they were still using them in 2010.

[Kommander]

To play a bit of devil's advocate... for the pope.... is there anything to his message here other than war is bad? The timing is poor and the message is obvious but it does not seem to be inherently bad.

As for hypothetical invasions of mainland Japan I have seen some very strong arguments that they never would have happened due to the expected casualties. Instead the US would have simply starved/bombed/shelled the Japanese into either surrender or the complete destruction of their society followed by death via starvation for most of those left.

[skb12172]

From a strategic standpoint, that would have been smarter than invasion.

[Vonz90]

From a strategic standpoint, that would have been smarter than invasion.

A. They were going to invade; They were almost ready to start it.

B. Since the Soviets had become involved, waiting would just had more influence to them.

[Jered]

To play a bit of devil's advocate... for the pope.... is there anything to his message here other than war is bad? The timing is poor and the message is obvious but it does not seem to be inherently bad.

My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.

-Neville Chamberlain

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.”

-John Stuart Mill

[Langenator]

To play a bit of devil's advocate... for the pope.... is there anything to his message here other than war is bad? The timing is poor and the message is obvious but it does not seem to be inherently bad.

If that was his message, there are a host of other images, for wars that were much more morally ambiguous...dead Russians at Port Arthur, the Rape of Nanking, both sides in the Iran-Iraq War, mass graves of Bosnia, the ruins of Grozny. Or even dead Argentinian soldiers in the Falklands.

As for hypothetical invasions of mainland Japan I have seen some very strong arguments that they never would have happened due to the expected casualties. Instead the US would have simply starved/bombed/shelled the Japanese into either surrender or the complete destruction of their society followed by death via starvation for most of those left.

That's actually what the pre-war ORANGE plans called for - economic strangulation by close blockade. But those plans assumed that the Japanese would behave in a more "rational" manner. (For Western definitions of 'rational'.) That they'd give up when it was obvious that they had lost. After two years of fighting across the Pacific, against resistance that became more fanatical with each step closer to Japan, that assumption was deemed invalid.

As far as invasion vs blockade, I think politically it would have been a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. By late 1945, the American public wanted the war to be over. I don't think there would have been much patience for the costs (and seeming inaction) of a long, drawn out blockade. OTOH, once the casualty figures for the Kyushu landings came in, the public would have been appalled. (And, as Telenko points out in one of the links above, Marshall had deliberately hidden the true casualty projections from Truman, because knew Truman wouldn't approve such a costly operation.)

There would, as has also been noted, have been the politically complicating factor of the Soviets. Stalin and Stavka had planned to land on Hokaido on 23 Aug 1945, almost two months before OLYMPIC. Stalin called off the landings on 22 Aug 1945 after the surrender message was broadcast. The Soviet landings probably would have been fairly successful, too, because the Japanese were preparing (quite well, too, because they'd had 3 years to watch us, and they knew the kinds of places we liked to land, under what tidal/weather conditions - they had pinpointed the exact landing beaches MacArthur planned to use, and the week of the landings) for the U.S. landing on Kyushu. So the Japanese wouldn't have had much to oppose the Soviets.

[scipioafricanus]

As for the blockade idea, what would have happened to the Allied POWs in Japan?

[First Shirt]

As for the blockade idea, what would have happened to the Allied POWs in Japan?

They'd have starved to death first.

[Windy Wilson]

This Pope...

At some point, the question needs to be asked: "Is THIS Pope actually Catholic?"

Seriously..........

Are we sure he's actually a Jesuit? He seems more like the Maryknoll missionary I knew in University.

[Jered]

As for the blockade idea, what would have happened to the Allied POWs in Japan?

They'd have probably been dinner.

[Weetabix]

Are we sure he's actually a Jesuit? He seems more like the Maryknoll missionary I knew in University.

You know how academics become divorced from reality in their theorizing? Jesuits do that, too.

[Jered]

You know how academics become divorced from reality in their theorizing? Jesuits do that, too.

Academics become divorced from their professional standards in their theorizing.