About those annual Aug. 6th Hiroshima posts
By Peter Wolfgang ( bio - articles - email ) | Aug 08, 2025
August 6th was National Lecture Your Fellow Catholics on Facebook Day. If your newsfeed looks anything like mine, you’re thinking to yourself, “Isn’t every day?” But I mean something specific. August 6th was the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.
Every year, without fail, my newsfeed on Aug. 6th is gummed up with Facebook friends reminding their fellow Catholics that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral. The justifications for it smack of consequentialism, proportionalism, etc. Errors that are condemned as such in Catholic moral theology.
I have no disagreement whatsoever with these many—so many—posts in my feed. Dropping the big one on Japan was indeed immoral. You can never deliberately target noncombatants, no matter how many or how few. And in the case of World War II, the ledger fell very much on the side of the many. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are only the most obvious examples. The carpet bombing of Dresden is another. And there are still others. The Allies rolled into the 1930s condemning the Japanese atrocities in Manchuria. But as the 1940s wore on, the good guys were doing things that were not so good. Some of the same things they had once condemned. For all the talk of Just War, that is where war always seems to end up. Given the history, it’s small wonder why the Church has leaned ever more pacifist in the modern era.
So I get all that. What I don’t get is, who exactly are the Catholics that all these posts are lecturing? I have over 3,000 friends on my Facebook. To date, there is exactly one Catholic on it who defends dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. In the circles I move in—I suspect, in the circles that most of Catholic Culture’s readers move in—defending the dropping of the bomb in World War II is just not a thing. So again, who are all these posts aimed at?
Here’s what I think. The posts are aimed at the poor schlub having a beer in an American Legion or Knights of Columbus hall somewhere right now. Our hypothetical target is a man who was formed by the ambient culture of mid 20th century America, which was Christian in a sense, but not exactly Catholic. He’s a 70-something Boomer whose father fought in World War II. Maybe he fought in Vietnam. He’s from an era when America and Catholicism seemed to go hand-in-hand and, but for a few obvious outliers like Roe v. Wade, he’s been given little reason to think otherwise.
Here’s what I’d like to say to the perpetrators of the annual August 6th Catholic Facebook beatdowns. Give that poor guy a rest. Let him drink his beer in peace. Yes, he’s wrong about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No, he doesn’t have your theological sophistication. He was formed by mid or late 20th century Catholic Americana, he never heard any differently, and he doesn’t want to hear it now. He served his country, raised his family, paid his dues, and he is probably not going to be with us much longer.
Bear in mind, too, we didn’t have the Catechism of the Catholic Church until the 1990s. It was not even until 1993 that Pope St. John Paul II, in Veritatis Splendor, made it crystal clear that proportionalism, consequentialism, etc, were errors that had crept into Catholic moral theology in the post-Vatican II era. Our hypothetical target did not come of age in an era of Catholic moral clarity. Even those of who were fortunate enough to grow up under JPII and Ratzinger/Benedict were then plunged back into 1970s-style theological fuzziness in our middle age. At the risk of never being hired by a certain seminary in Detroit, may I just say: Hello, Footnotes 329 and 351 of Amoris Laetitia. I’m looking at you!
And that’s all I’ve got to say about it. Fortunately, our calendars don’t hit another National Lecture Your Fellow Catholics on Facebook Day for almost a year. See you on St. Maria Goretti’s Day!
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: kmmcki -
Aug. 17, 2025 12:53 PM ET USA
I'm that guy. 71 yrs old grew up in a military family, Fr served 27 yrs US Navy 1944-1971. He fought in the Pacific theatre. I was 18 when he retired. (Though I drink 0.0% beer). I do defend Nagasaki. Immoral, yes as is any killing. The alternative? 1 mil to 1.5 mil in an invasion of Japan. Moral? I believe the annual condemnations are exercises in virtue signaling. Cheaply achieved. Yet, they live in the freedom that Nagasaki brought forth. How do they reconcile that with their moral bombast?
-
Posted by: loumiamo4057 -
Aug. 11, 2025 3:02 PM ET USA
I made no comments about Japan deserving to be nuked, for any reason. No nation could ever deserve that. And government officials trying to salve a troubled conscience after the war was over does not constitute evidence. An individual may always choose to accept evil rather than to perpetrate it himself, but it is beyond the pale to ask an entire nation to do it.
-
Posted by: Thomas V. Mirus -
Aug. 11, 2025 1:46 PM ET USA
I agree with Edward Feser's assessment of why having the correct perspective on this history is so important: "The glib assumption of many then and since has been that if a country unjustly attacks us, then there’s no moral limit to what we might demand of it or the slaughter we might inflict in order to ensure compliance."
-
Posted by: Thomas V. Mirus -
Aug. 11, 2025 1:32 PM ET USA
Keep in mind that even if the Japanese hadn't been willing to surrender, nuking them would still have been immoral. The Church teaches that we may never do evil that good may result from it. *No amount of bad consequences can justify murder of innocents. We should prefer to suffer evil than to perpetrate evil.* However, many high-level officials attested to Japanese readiness to surrender (with conditions), and voiced their view that the bomb was unnecessary to end the war, but rather was essentially an experiment with our new toys. These include Gen. Eisenhower; Under Secretary of the Navy, Ralph Bird; General Ira Eaker, Deputy Commander of U.S. Army Air Forces; Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet; Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman; Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command; Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr. See the following link for their quotes: https://x.com/scotthortonshow/status/1952795871915196800
-
Posted by: Peter Wolfgang -
Aug. 11, 2025 9:32 AM ET USA
I think: a) There are more Catholics who are ok with dropping the bomb on Japan than I thought; and b) it's still true that defending it is not a thing. That is, most Catholics don't go out of their way to do it. They do it mostly when provoked by the annual Aug. 6th beatdowns. Which is why the beatdowns are silly. As "DrJazz" says, these folks bear no direct responsibility for an action taken 80 years ago. Annual July 25th criticisms of Catholics using contraception would make more sense.
-
Posted by: loumiamo4057 -
Aug. 11, 2025 5:47 AM ET USA
There is absolutely positively no evidence whatsoever that Japan was willing to surrender--none. And the proof of that is Nagasaki--the Japanese did not surrender even after Hiroshima. These are the conclusions of Japanese historian Sadao Asada. We have to live in the real world, not the world as we wish it could be. The atomic bombs were simply justifiable homicide on a massive scale. It is a sad reality, but it is reality.
-
Posted by: Thomas V. Mirus -
Aug. 10, 2025 10:29 PM ET USA
The reason it cannot be legitimate to "choose fewer deaths" in this situation is that it is never permissible to do something intrinsically evil, even wihh the intention of avoiding a greater evil. But actually, there was a legitimate way to choose fewer deaths: the US could have accepted Japan's offers of surrender which they made before the bombs were dropped. Instead, the US demanded *unconditional* surrender, which was unjust and unreasonable. But the greatest irony is that after the US nuked Japan, we accepted the condition they had asked for after all (that they could keep their Emperor). So using the nukes was truly needless because we didn't even exact the unconditional surrender we had unjustly demanded in the first place.
-
Posted by: Crusader -
Aug. 10, 2025 11:17 AM ET USA
Your 3,000 Facebook friends who agree with you reminds me of the quote attributed to Pauline Kale in 1972 that Nixon could not have won because everyone she knew voted for his opponent. It all depends on who you hang out with. A couple of the comments here indicate that it is a good time for Mr. Lawler's online Just war program.
-
Posted by: DrJazz -
Aug. 09, 2025 6:39 PM ET USA
This is spot on. Also, in Just War Theory, decisions are to be made by the legitimate authorities of sovereign states. Those authorities are the people who will be held accountable on the Judgment Day for waging unjust wars. The "poor schlub having a beer in an American Legion or Knights of Columbus hall" had no say in the decision to drop bombs on Japan. The Facebook posters are lecturing the wrong people in order to be seen as virtuous. They should concentrate on the specks in their own eyes.
-
Posted by: loumiamo4057 -
Aug. 09, 2025 7:27 AM ET USA
Tim S. post is accurate, and Japanese Hist. S.Asada noted 28m. in their militia, almost 40% of pop, with women training to stop tanks with bamboo spears. Bamboo v. tanks! Scenario A, 1/2 to 3/4 million dead quickly. Scenario B, 2 to 20 million dead over 12 to 24 months. On Dec.25th, people in Phoenix could bet the house that in 6 months it'll be 100° or worse. It's a certainty only waiting to happen. How can it be wrong to choose fewer deaths when it is KNOWN the death toll will be monstrous?
-
Posted by: Tim S. -
Aug. 08, 2025 10:26 PM ET USA
A planned full-scale US invasion of Japan instead of dropping the bombs would likely have resulted in millions of casualties for both sides, with estimates ranging from 1.7 to 4 million Allied casualties (including 500,000 to 1 million fatalities) and 5 to 10 million Japanese casualties. These estimates are based on the fierce resistance encountered in previous island battles like Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and the expectation that the Japanese would fight to the death to defend their homeland.