Truman’s Cheek

[Now here is something to see.  My Catholic friend Ben Finiti (at benfiniti.com) has written a historical essay in rebuttal to a Catholic cleric’s historical interview. Don’t these guys have enough theology to talk about?  Hasn’t the Pope said something outrageous in an airplane press conference? Shouldn’t they be fighting over that?

Anyway, here are BF’s thoughts on a monsignor’s thoughts on Hiroshima and dear Harry.  Enjoy. (I wrote most of it myself, if truth be known.)]

 

Hindsight from the High Ground

by Ben Finiti

On August 6, the terrible anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, I was listening to the indispensable Catholic media outlet Relevant Radio, and I heard a curious interview with Msgr. Stuart Swetland on the subject of the day.

It made me think of Calvin Coolidge who is credited with many laconic (and probably apocryphal) anecdotes; my favorite is his supposed comment on returning from church one Sunday. Asked what the preacher spoke on, he answered: “Sin.” Further asked: “What did he say about it?”, Cal responded: “He was against it.”

It would be unjust and uncharitable to summarize the monsignor’s take on Hiroshima in so many words. He acknowledged the difficult situation and the tough decisions that faced those engaged in what was unquestionably a just war. But his conclusion was as straightforward as Coolidge’s: It was a sin, and Truman should not have done it.

The monsignor argued from Catholic doctrine, which appears to have recently reached the same conclusion. And he offered some historical “facts” in support. But the facts are questionable, and the arguments seem confused.

I am certainly not qualified to argue theology with any monsignor (though I will try, later.) But facts are facts, and assumptions are not.

There are many points to consider. Monsignor Swetland stated, with varying degrees of certitude, the following “facts”. The Japanese government was about to surrender anyway. The Russians were about to tell Truman about a Japanese peace proposal. Invasion of the Japanese homeland would not have been necessary. The invasion’s half-million US casualties anticipated by US military planners would not have occurred.

These things are nice to know. I bet Truman would have liked to know them with the certainty that his posthumous critics know them.

Now, some of these facts fall into the category of 20/20 hindsight (the Japanese/Russian peace proposal.) Others are in the realm of counterfactuals, the history that never happened (the invasion was unnecessary, since the Japanese already knew they were beaten.)

But my main objection to such thinking is that it side-steps the one all-important question, the only question that matters, from a moral standpoint. What should Truman have done?

The moral high ground is the position which allows those far from the decision to boldly affirm what should NOT have been done. But the moral high ground does not allow consideration of the real question facing the real decision-maker. The only way the moral-high-grounder can address the real question is with hindsight and counterfactuals.

Well, here are some counter-counterfactuals.

1. The Japanese government probably knew they were beaten by 1943; they fought on. From their early offensive high-water, they were steadily pushed back on every front. After Midway, they never again struck in the eastern Pacific. After Guadalcanal, they were in constant retreat throughout the Pacific. And yet, as the tides of war rolled against them, the death tolls rapidly accelerated. The bloodiest battles, on land and sea, occurred in the last 6 months of the war – long after the Japanese government knew what the outcome would be. The death toll on Okinawa, the closest island to the Japanese homeland, was 12,520 US soldiers, 110,000 Japanese soldiers, and over 100,000 Japanese civilians, many by suicide. Continue reading ‘Truman’s Cheek’

Advertisements

More from Ben

My friend Ben Finiti has a new post up on his excellent blog benfiniti.com.  It is about the reality of divorce in our society, and the inadequate (and now getting even worse) position of the Roman Catholic Church on the issue.

He quotes Thomas Aquinas (where does he find this stuff?), and finds that not all marriages (and therefore divorces) are equally weighty.  He says divorce of a childless couple can be anything from trivial (Nicolas Cage?) to tragic. But divorce with children is a species of child abuse.

Whistling in the wind, I suppose. But still good reading.

Update on Me

Sorry I haven’t been writing much lately.  I keep getting distracted.  The guy next door got wind chimes.  (Credit Stephen Wright for that joke.)

At any rate, my friend Ben Finiti has re-surfaced, and seems to be on a roll.  His latest, My Sin of Snobbery, just went up.  It’s about what he calls his “first-world problems at church.”

I can confirm that he is indeed a snob, though mostly in good ways.

Anyway, check him out over at benfiniti.com.

Ben is Back

I see that my philosophical friend Ben Finiti has re-surfaced.  He has become a Catholic convert.

And while we all know how tedious such converts can be, I have higher hopes for Ben.

Check him out here.

 

The late, lamented Commandante Castro

As you ponder the mystery of whether God chooses to act directly on human affairs, the case of Fidel Castro presents a challenging question: Why would God allow Castro to live 90 years, oppressing and brutalizing the Cuban people for 57 of those years?

The Cuban people may find a degree of liberation soon, or they may have to wait even longer.  But one thing is clear: there would be no relief while Castro lived and ruled.  There was only a steady escalation of tyranny in the old Soviet Union until Stalin died; the same with Mao Tse-tung and other totalitarian beasts and butchers.

JFK was very clear in his opinion of Fidel Castro. So were LBJ, Nixon, and Ford.  Carter was, of course, an exception: he never met a totalitarian dictator he didn’t embrace. But then Reagan and Bush and Clinton renewed and maintained the bipartisan agreement that Fidel was a first-class bastard. Continue reading ‘The late, lamented Commandante Castro’

Climate Change Dishonesty on Nuclear Power

Let’s start with some facts. (The source links are below.)

The US generates 38% of our electricity from coal-fired power plants, and another 30% from other fossil fuels (oil and natural gas). That accounts for 37% of our total CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions are the primary cause of man-made climate change.

We generate 19% of our electricity from nuclear power plants, which produce no CO2. Zero.

France generates 77% of its electricity from nuclear power plants, which produces no CO2. Zero.

If the US had built nuclear power plants at the rate France did in the 1970’s and 80’s, we could shut now down every single coal-fired power plant in the country, as well as a third of our gas/oil power plants.

We would be producing 30% less CO2 than we are now. Continue reading ‘Climate Change Dishonesty on Nuclear Power’

Herr Nietzsche and Mr. Finiti

My philosophical friend Ben Finiti has some interesting thoughts on the corruption of science by power. In “It Starts an Ends with Nietzsche“, he blames the famous German philosopher/nutcase for unleashing and legitimizing the pursuit of power over truth and morality.  Like Danton’s head, it is worth a look.


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Follow Mister Moleman and his Friends on WordPress.com

Top Posts & Pages

Advertisements