16 August 1941

16 August 1941

16 August 1941

August

1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031

Eastern Front

German Army Group North captures Novgorod

Diplomacy

Stalin agrees to met Churchill in Moscow

Soviet Union and Britian complain to Iran over Nazi infiltration of the country



Where We Stand

From The Militant, Vol. V No. 33, 16 August 1941, p.ن.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).

Why Stalin Murdered Trotsky

One point concerning the connection between Stalin’s murder of Trotsky and the war situation has not been sufficiently stressed. It was easy to see that Stalin hoped to minimize the publicity the murder would receive by the attention which the press was devoting to the war. It was in all probability no accident that the murder occurred in the midst of the Battle of Britain when the whole world was reading news about Hitler’s desperate attempt to achieve air superiority over England. But I think the more important factor which made Stalin determined to get rid of Trotsky was his fear that the great leader of the Red Army would be alive at the time when the Soviet Union would be involved in the war.

Everything that Stalin did indicated his anxiety to avoid involvement in the war. But he understood well enough that Hitler could not be trusted. And he understood also that a war would set into motion forces that would shake his regime and that, with Trotsky alive, the hopes of millions of Soviet workers would be concentrated on Lenin’s closest collaborator. Millions of workers are alive in the Soviet Union who remember from their own experiences the role played by Trotsky in the October Revolution and the Civil War. All the filth, all the monstrous lies that Stalin had his henchmen write about the organizer of the Red Army could not and did not deceive the countless number of workers who lived in the stirring and heroic days when Lenin and Trotsky led the Soviet Union. It is doubtful that Stalin’s propaganda machine succeeded in deceiving even the generation which was old enough to understand what was going on at the time when Trotsky was exiled.

Stalin knew that during a war the thoughts of these millions of Soviet workers and peasants would turn to their leader of old. If by chance the Red Army were defeated, Stalin feared a tremendous mass movement demanding the return of the man who did so much to assure the victory of the Revolution. And if the Red Army were victorious, Stalin feared that the workers and peasants, flushed with victory, would no longer tolerate the arbitrary and oppressive rule of the bureaucracy. In either case, the figure and the personality of Trotsky would naturally become the center of a great mass movement.

A major conflict and a living Trotsky during such a conflict were the two great fears haunting Stalin. By cunning and perseverance he could and did succeed in having one of his GPU men thrust a pick-axe into the brain of Trotsky. He got rid of Trotsky but he could not get rid of war. At this time, when the Soviet Union is at war, it can be readily seen how anxious and determined Stalin was to do away with Trotsky and thus avoid the great danger of a mass movement centering around the demand for the return of Trotsky to help defend the Soviet Union.
 

Trotsky’s Death a Blow to the USSR

It did not matter to Stalin that by murdering Trotsky he struck a damaging blow at the Soviet Union. The Stalinist bureaucracy is interested in saving the Soviet Union only in such a way as to preserve the bureaucracy’s own existence.

It would be idle to deny that Stalin strengthened his own position through the murder of Trotsky. The working masses of the Soviet Union have lost a great leader around whom they could rally. But it would be just as foolish to conclude that, with the murder of Trotsky, Stalin has removed the danger of being overthrown by the Soviet masses. At best he can gain time by destroying the leaders of the revolutionary opposition.

Stalin cannot destroy the program of Trotsky, because that program springs out of the conditions that prevail within the Soviet Union and throughout the whole world. How well acquainted even the politically conscious Soviet workers are with the specific aspects of the Trotsky program is difficult to say. They have not been permitted to read a word of Trotsky’s writings. But it is possible and probable that through word of mouth some ot Trotsky’s ideas have found their way into the minds and hearts of the best and most conscious of the Soviet workers.

The important fact is that the Soviet workers are even now following the program of Trotsky – at least one part of it. Their magnificent resistance to the army of German imperialism is a clear indication that they have undertaken to defend the Soviet Union to the last drop of their blood. Nothing that Stalin did in the last eighteen years, no crime that he committed, has been great enough to make the Soviet workers defeatist. Even if they did not read the works of Trotsky, the advanced Soviet workers know that he was for the unconditional defense of the Soviet Union when he was exiled, and knowing Trotsky they must have concluded that he never changed his position. They know what the basis of Trotsky’s position is – the existence of nationalized property, the foundation of Socialism erected by the October Revolution.
 

The Soviet Workers Understand

The Soviet workers are far more astute politically than those sophisticates who try to prove that there is no difference between fascist Germany and the Soviet Union and that the Soviet Union is waging an imperialist war. On the basis of the terrible hardships that the Soviet working masses had to endure in the last decade the tyranny and oppression they were subjected to by the arrogant Stalinist bureaucracy, there are “Marxists” who see no difference between the Soviet Union and fascist Germany. But they can have no explanation for the fierce resistance of the Soviet masses against the Nazi invasion. That resistance can be explained only on the basic assumption that the Soviet workers, without having read our program, still follow it because it represents the living reality understood by the workers.

And just as the Russian workers are following the aspect of the Trotskyist program in standing for the unconditional defense of the Soviet Union, so will conditions impel them eventually to follow all the other major aspects of the Trotskyist program. They will rid themselves of the Stalinist bureaucracy they will re-establish complete Soviet democracy they will tie their fate to the world revolution.

Stalin cannot kill the Trotskyist program for it Is a product of actual conditions. Ultimately that program will destroy Stalin, Hitler and all those who stand in the way of world socialism.


Contents

Galen belonged to one of the oldest and most distinguished noble families of Westphalia. [ citation needed ]

Until 1890, Clemens August and his brother Franz were tutored at home. At a time when the Jesuits were still not permitted in Münster, he received his main schooling at a Jesuit School, Stella Matutina in the Vorarlberg, Austria, where only Latin was spoken. He was not an easy student to teach, and his Jesuit superior wrote to his parents: "Infallibility is the main problem with Clemens, who under no circumstance will admit that he may be wrong. It is always his teachers and educators who are wrong. [8]

Because Prussia did not recognize the Stella Matutina academy, Clemens returned home in 1894 to attend a public school in Vechta and by 1896 both Clemens and Franz had passed the examinations that qualified them to attend a university. Upon graduation, his fellow students wrote in his yearbook: "Clemens doesn't make love or go drinking, he does not like worldly deceit." In 1896 he went to study at the Catholic University of Freiburg, which had been established in 1886 by the Dominicans, where he encountered the writings of Thomas Aquinas. In 1897 he began to study a variety of topics, including literature, history, and philosophy. One of his teachers was history professor and noted biblical archaeologist Johann Peter Kirsch. Following their first winter semester at Freiburg, Clemens and Franz visited Rome for three months. At the end of the visit he told Franz that he had decided to become a priest though he was unsure whether to become a contemplative Benedictine or a Jesuit. [9] In 1899 he met Pope Leo XIII in a private audience. He studied at the Theological Faculty and Convent in Innsbruck, founded in 1669 by the Jesuits, where scholastic philosophy was emphasized, and new concepts and ideas avoided. Galen left Innsbruck in 1903 to enter the seminary in Münster and was ordained a priest on 28 May 1904 by Bishop Hermann Dingelstadt. [10] At first he worked for a family member, the Auxiliary Bishop of Münster, as Chaplain. [11] Soon he moved to Berlin, where he worked as parish priest at St. Matthias. [12]

Galen arrived in Berlin on 23 April 1906 and stayed until 16 April 1929. Germany's capital contained districts of Protestant elites, a Catholic community composed of primarily working-class people and a Jewish community of both middle-class and poorer immigrants. It was a booming commercial and cultural metropolis at the time he arrived — its population increased from 900,000 in 1871 to slightly less than 4 million by 1920. Religion did not bring the community together — "religion and fears of a loss of religious belief came to be a major source of internal division." [13] For the working class, Catholicism and Social Democracy competed for allegiance. In this atmosphere, Galen sought to be an energetic and idealistic leader of his parish. He made visits to the sick and poor, became president of the Catholic Young Men's Association, gave religious instruction in the schools, and for his efforts he was named Papa Galen by the parishioners he served. A commanding presence (6 feet 7 inches (2.01 m) tall) — his rooms were furnished simply, he wore unpretentious clothing, and he spoke plainly — he did not like the theatre, secular music (except for military marches), or literature. His only reported vice, which he refused to give up, was smoking his pipes. [14]

During the First World War, Galen volunteered for military service in order to demonstrate his loyalty to the Kaiser. As parish priest, he encouraged his parishioners to serve their country willingly. In August 1917 he visited the front lines in France and found the optimistic morale of the troops uplifting. "Feelings of German nationalism, apparently, could triumph over concern for the violations of the sanctity of human life in war." [15] In 1916 and 1917 he welcomed reports that the German military had a plan to colonize Eastern Europe, stating that German Catholics should be moved into the area, especially Lithuania, with the goal not of expelling the Lithuanians, but educating them to think and feel as Germans. [15]

Following the German surrender in November 1918, Galen, still in Berlin, worked to create soup kitchens, aid societies, and clothing drives to deal with immediate problems of hunger and poverty. He feared the lower classes would embrace radicalism and anarchy. Galen deplored the fall of the monarchy and was suspicious of the new Weimar democracy, believing that "the revolutionary ideas of 1918 had caused considerable damage to Catholic Christianity." [16] He believed the stab-in-the-back myth, which held that the German Army hadn't been defeated in battle but by being undermined by defeatist elements on the home front [17] and, as did most Germans, considered the Treaty of Versailles unjust.

Throughout the Weimar years he remained on the right of German politics. He often criticized the Centre Party for being too left-wing. [17] Galen openly supported the Protestant Paul von Hindenburg against the Centre Party's candidate, Wilhelm Marx, in the presidential elections of 1925. Galen was known as a fierce anti-Communist (he later supported the battle by the Axis powers on the Eastern Front against Joseph Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union [18] ). His views on Communism were largely formed as a consequence of the Stalinization and relentless persecution of Christians within the Soviet Union after 1918, during which virtually all Catholic bishops were either killed or forced underground. He also expressed his opposition to modernity in his book Die Pest des Laizismus und ihre Erscheinungsformen (The Plague of Laicism and its Forms of Expression) (1932). [3]

Galen became the pastor of St. Lambert's Church, Münster, where he initially upset some parishioners with his political conservatism. At a meeting in Münster of the Association of Catholic Academicians in June 1933, Galen spoke against those scholars who had criticised the Nazi government and called for "a just and objective evaluation of [Hitler's] new political movement". [3] In 1933, Galen was elected bishop of Münster, although he was not the popular candidate to succeed the previous bishop, Johannes Poggenburg, and was selected only after other candidates had declined to be nominated and despite a protest from the Papal Nuncio Cesare Orsenigo, who reported that Galen was bossy and paternalistic in his public utterances. [19]

Galen was named bishop by Pope Pius XI on 5 September 1933. On 28 October, he was consecrated as bishop in Münster's cathedral by Cardinal Karl Joseph Schulte. [10] He chose as his motto "Nec laudibus nec timore", a phase from the liturgy used for a bishop's consecration when the consecrating bishop prays that the new bishop be overcome "neither by flattery nor by fear". [1] As bishop, Galen campaigned against the totalitarian approach of the Nazi Party in national education, appealing to parents to insist on Catholic teaching in schools. Citing the recently agreed-upon Reichskonkordat assurance that the Church had the right to determine its own religious instruction, he successfully forced the National Socialists to permit continued Catholic instruction in Catholic schools. It was one of the first instances where the Reichskonkordat was used by the Church against the government, which was one of the intentions of Pope Pius XI. [20] In 1933, when the Nazi school superintendent of Münster issued a decree that religious instruction be combined with discussion of the "demoralising power" of the "people of Israel", Galen refused, writing that such interference in the school curriculum was a breach of the Concordat and that he feared children would be confused as to their "obligation to act with charity to all men" and as to the historical mission of the people of Israel. [21] Galen often protested against violations of the Concordat to Hitler directly. In 1936, when the Nazis removed crucifixes from schools, Galen's protest led to a public demonstration. Together with Munich's Cardinal Faulhaber and Berlin's Bishop Preysing, Galen helped to draft Pope Pius XI's anti-Nazi encyclical Mit brennender Sorge (With Burning Concern) of 1937. [22] [23]

In 1934, Bishop Galen began to attack the racial ideology of the Nazi regime, partly poking fun at it, partly critiquing its ideological basis as presented by the Nazi ideologist Alfred Rosenberg. He declared it unacceptable to argue that Jewish authorship of the Old Testament diminished its authority, or that morality and virtue were in any way derived from the perceived usefulness of a particular race. [24] In January 1934, he criticized Nazi racial policy in a sermon and, in subsequent homilies, equated unquestioning loyalty to the Reich with "slavery". He spoke against Hitler's theory of the purity of German blood. [23] Bishop Galen also derided the neo-pagan theories of Rosenberg in The Myth of the Twentieth Century as perhaps no more than "an occasion for laughter in the educated world", but warned that Rosenberg's "immense importance lies in the acceptance of his basic notions as the authentic philosophy of National Socialism and in his almost unlimited power in the field of German education. Herr Rosenberg must be taken seriously if the German situation is to be understood." [25]

In retaliation, two senior SS officers visited Galen to pressure him into endorsing Rosenberg's doctrines publicly, threatening the confiscation of Church property and an anti-Catholic propaganda campaign. One of them was the future SS General Jürgen Stroop, who later recalled, "Bishop von Galen was a great gentleman, a true aristocrat, a Renaissance prince of the Church. He welcomed us politely but with reserve." [26] Galen began by commending Stroop's mother for her devout Catholicism, then categorically refused to accept or praise Rosenberg's doctrines of euthanizing or forcibly sterilizing the disabled. He denounced the Nazis for trying to introduce Germanic neo-paganism into his diocese. He scoffed at marriage ceremonies and funerals conducted before altars dedicated to Wotan, surprising Stroop, who had attended such a ceremony only days before. Galen closed by assuring the officers that the Church would remain loyal to the state in all lawful matters. He expressed his deep love for Germany and reminded them that he had been the first bishop to publicly acknowledge the new regime. [26] In Stroop's view, Galen's German patriotism "was tainted by Papist ideals, which have been harmful to Germany for centuries. Besides, the Archbishop's [ clarification needed ] orders came from outside the Fatherland, a fact which disturbed us. We all know that despite its diverse factions, the Catholic Church is a world community, which sticks together when the chips are down." [26]

In June 1935 he delivered a sermon that connected the heresy of the Anabaptists to the "sins of the Jews". He told his audience that "whoever does not listen to the Church is a heathen and officially is a sinner". He described how "the Israelites debased the Savior", and how people who resisted Jesus as the Christ appeared on the "side of the blinded Jews". He equated the rejection of Christianity with rejection of worldly authority, leading to anarchy and chaos. He pointed to the Russians also as among those who had not respected God-given authority. Galen did not protest the antisemitic 1935 Nuremberg Laws, or the Kristallnacht pogrom of 1938. Until his death, he refused to admit that referring to Jews as "degenerate", "rejected", and "lost" or labeling anarchy or liberalism as "Jewish", in any way aided the Nazi regime or and its racist antisemitism. [27]

By late 1935, Galen was urging a joint pastoral letter from the German bishops to protest about an "underground war" against the church. [21] By early 1937, the church hierarchy in Germany, which had initially attempted to co-operate with the Nazi government, had become highly disillusioned. In March, Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge (With Burning Concern), accusing the Nazi government of violating the 1933 Concordat and of sowing the "tales of suspicion, discord, hatred, calumny, of secret and open fundamental hostility to Christ and His Church". [28] Galen was part of the five-member commission that prepared the papal encyclical. The Nazis responded with an intensification of their campaign against the Catholic Church. [29] There were mass arrests of clergy and church publishing houses were expropriated, followed by widely spread abuse allegations and staged morality trials against members of religious orders and priests. [30]

In 1941 Galen welcomed the German war against the USSR as a positive development [31] as he had rallied also to the cause of Germany when Hitler invaded Poland, offering a patriotic benediction. [32]

Euthanasia Edit

While the Nazi extermination of Jewish people took place primarily on Polish territory, the murder of people with disabilities (viewed by the nazi regime as "invalid" individuals) became public knowledge because it took place on German soil and interfered directly in Catholic and Protestant welfare institutions. Church leaders who opposed it – chiefly Bishop Galen and Theophil Wurm, the Lutheran Bishop of Württemberg – were able to rouse widespread public opposition. [33] The regime initiated its euthanasia program in 1939. [34] It targeted people with dementia, cognitive/mental disabilities, mental illness, epileptic, physical disabilities, children with Down's Syndrome and people with similar afflictions. [35] The programme systematically murdered more than 70,000 people between September 1939 and August 1941. [34] After 1941 the killing continued unofficially, with the total number of deaths estimated at 200,000. [36]

In 1941, with the Wehrmacht still marching on Moscow, Galen, despite his long-time nationalist sympathies, denounced the lawlessness of the Gestapo, the confiscations of church properties, and the Nazi euthanasia programme. [37] He attacked the Gestapo for converting church properties to their own purposes – including use as cinemas and brothels. [38] He protested against the mistreatment of Catholics in Germany: the arrests and imprisonment without legal process, the suppression of monasteries, and the expulsion of religious orders. But his sermons went further than defending the church, he spoke of a moral danger to Germany from the regime's violations of basic human rights: "the right to life, to inviolability, and to freedom is an indispensable part of any moral social order", he said – and any government that punishes without court proceedings "undermines its own authority and respect for its sovereignty within the conscience of its citizens". [39] Galen said that it was the duty of Christians to resist the taking of human life, even if it meant losing their own lives. [40]

Hitler's order for the "Aktion T4" Euthanasia Programme was dated 1 September 1939, the day Germany invaded Poland. As word of the programme spread, protest grew, until finally, Bishop Galen delivered his famous August 1941 sermons denouncing the programme as "murder". [39] On 3 August 1941, in one of his series of denunciations, Galen declared: [41]

"Thou shalt not kill." God engraved this commandment on the souls of men long before any penal code. God has engraved these commandments in our hearts. They are the unchangeable and fundamental truths of our social life. Where in Germany and where, here, is obedience to the precepts of God? [. ] As for the first commandment, "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me," instead of the One, True, Eternal God, men have created at the dictates of their whim, their own gods to adore: Nature, the State, the Nation, or the Race.

1941 sermons Edit

Galen's three powerful sermons of July and August 1941 earned him the nickname of the "Lion of Münster". The sermons were printed and distributed illegally. [38] Hitler wanted to have Galen removed as a bishop, but Goebbels told him this would result in the loss of the loyalty of the population of Westphalia. [38] The sermons protested against Nazi policies such as Gestapo terror, euthanasia, forced sterilization, and concentration camps. [42] His attacks on the Nazis were so severe that Nazi official Walter Tiessler proposed in a letter to Martin Bormann that the Bishop of Münster be executed. [42]

On 13 July 1941, Galen attacked the regime for its Gestapo tactics of terror, including disappearances without trial, the closure of Catholic institutions without any stated justifications, and the resultant fear imposed on all Germans. The Gestapo, he argued, reduced even the most decent and loyal citizens to fear of ending up in a cellar prison or a concentration camp. Even though the country was at war, Galen rejected the notion that his speech undermined German solidarity or unity. Quoting Pope Pius XII's Opus Justitiae Pax and Justitia fundamentum Regnorum, Galen noted that "Peace is the work of Justice and Justice, the basis for dominion", then attacked the Third Reich for undermining justice, the belief in justice and for reducing the German people to a state of permanent fear, even cowardice. He concluded: "As a German, as a decent citizen, I demand Justice". [43]

In a second sermon on 20 July 1941, Galen said that all written protests against the Nazi hostilities had proved to be useless. The confiscation of religious institutions continued unabated. Members of religious orders were still being deported or jailed. He asked his listeners to be patient and to endure, and said that the German people were being destroyed not by the Allied bombing from the outside, but from negative forces within. [44]

On 3 August 1941, Galen's third sermon described the continued desecration of Catholic churches, the closing and confiscation of convents and monasteries, and the deportation of mentally ill people to undisclosed destinations, while a notice was sent to family members stating that the person in question had died. This is murder, he exclaimed, unlawful by divine and German law, a rejection of the laws of God. He said he had forwarded his evidence to the State Attorney. "These are people, our brothers and sisters maybe their life is unproductive, but productivity is not a justification for killing." If that were indeed a justification for execution, he reasoned, everybody would have to be afraid to even go to a doctor for fear of what might be discovered. The social fabric would be affected. Galen then remarked that a regime which can do away with the Fifth Commandment ("Thou shalt not kill.") can destroy the other commandments as well. [45] Galen went on to raise the question of whether permanently injured German soldiers would fall under the programme as well.

Thousands of copies of the sermons were circulated throughout Germany. [39] The resulting local protests in Germany broke the secrecy that had surrounded the euthanasia programme known as Aktion T4. [46] The local Nazi Gauleiter was furious and demanded Galen's immediate arrest. Joseph Goebbels and party pragmatists preferred to wait until the end of hostilities to avoid undermining German morale in a heavily Catholic area. [47] A year later, the euthanasia programme was still active, but the regime was conducting it in greater secrecy.

According to Robert Jay Lifton, "[t]his powerful, populist sermon was immediately reproduced and distributed throughout Germany — indeed, it was dropped among German troops by British Royal Air Force flyers. Galen's sermon probably had a greater impact than any other one statement in consolidating anti-'euthanasia' sentiment." [48] Howard K. Smith called Galen "heroic", writing that the movement he represented was so widespread that the Nazi government could not arrest the bishop. [49] Ian Kershaw called Galen's "open attack" on the government's euthanasia programme in 1941 a "vigorous denunciation of Nazi inhumanity and barbarism". [50] According to Anton Gill, "Galen used his condemnation of this appalling policy to draw wider conclusions about the nature of the Nazi state." [35]

The sermons inspired various people in the German Resistance. The Lübeck martyrs distributed von Galen's sermons. [51] The sermons influenced the Scholl siblings in founding the White Rose pacifist student resistance group. [6] One of von Galen's sermons of 1941 was the group's first pamphlet. [52] Generalmajor Hans Oster, a devout Lutheran and a leading member of the German Resistance, once said of Galen: [53]

He's a man of courage and conviction. And what resolution in his sermons! There should be a handful of such people in all our churches, and at least two handfuls in the Wehrmacht. If there were, Germany would look quite different!

Galen suffered virtual house arrest from 1941 until the end of the war. Documents suggest the Nazis intended to hang him at the end of the war. [37] In a Table Talk from 1942, Hitler said: "The fact that I remain silent in public over Church affairs is not in the least misunderstood by the sly foxes of the Catholic Church, and I am quite sure that a man like Bishop von Galen knows full well that after the war I shall extract retribution to the last farthing". [54]

Despite Galen's opposition to National Socialism and its racial theories, he nonetheless believed Germany was the last bulwark against the spread of atheist Bolshevism. Parts of a sermon he gave in 1943 are said to have been used by the Nazis to aid in the enlistment of Dutch men to voluntarily join the Waffen SS against the Soviet Union. [55] Galen feared that German Catholics were being relegated to second-class status in Hitler's Germany and believed Hitler was missing the point that the Catholic Church and the state could be aligned against Bolshevism. [ citation needed ] Although von Galen boldly spoke out against Nazi policies and the euthanasia programme, an historian alleged that Galen remained silent on other issues such as the roundup, deportation and mass murder of Jews. [56] German historian Joachim Kuropka dismissed the latter allegation as part of "misjudgments" of this historian. [57] Kuropka, referring to Wilhelm Damberg's discovery which in his opinion had not received enough attention so far, pointed out that the diocesan leadership in Münster had instructed all its pastors in June 1938 to recommend a brochure against anti-Semitism titled “The Nathanael Question of Our Days” („Die Nathanaelfrage unserer Tage“) to all faithful to read. [58] Kuropka also emphasized Galen's cordial personal relationship with Münster town rabbi Fritz Steinthal. [59] According to Kuropka, while there was no evidence in church archives for the rabbi's statement made from memory that after the Kristallnacht, by order of Galen, prayers for the Jews were said in all the churches of the Diocese of Münster, Kuropka was able to cite confirmatory evidence from Rhineland Gestapo files. [60] In his résumé, Kuropka emphasized the uniqueness of the brochure distribution and the prayer campaign in Galen's diocese of Münster. However, like other bishops, according to Kuropka, Galen missed the right time to “escape into the public eye” on the question of the persecution of the Jews, which Galen later claimed to have blamed himself for. [61] Apart from official pronouncements on the subject by the Pope and by German church bodies, Galen himself denounced Nazi racism on multiple occasions, [62] and he was partly responsible for the German bishops' conference condemnation of racial persecution in the 1943 pastoral letter Dekalog-Hirtenbrief. After the war, Münster rabbi Fritz Steinthal recorded Galen's support after Night of the broken glass, while expressing his firm conviction as rabbi that most Catholics in his city of Münster were horrified by the pogrom and in fact feared that they would be the next victims. [63] During a commemoration in 2012, Jewish Holocaust survivor and witness Hans Kaufmann of Münster reminded of the fact that bishop Clemens August von Galen had offered a helping hand to the town's rabbi Fritz Steinthal after the 1938 Kristallnacht, but deplored that other Jewish victims in Münster did not receive much aid from neighbours the day after. [64]

While not as explicit and not as effective as the vocal German episcopate's 1941 protests, in September 1943, von Galen and his fellow bishops in Germany drafted another condemnation of Nazi racial persecution and ordered it to be read from all pulpits in the diocese of Münster and across the German Empire, therein denouncing the killing of "the innocent and defenceless mentally handicapped and mentally ill, the incurably infirm and fatally wounded, innocent hostages and disarmed prisoners of war and criminal offenders, people of foreign race or descent". [65]

In his history of the German Resistance, Theodore S. Hamerow characterised the resistance approach of Galen as "trying to influence the Third Reich from within". While some clergymen refused ever to feign support for the regime, in the Church's conflict with the State over ecclesiastical autonomy, the Catholic hierarchy adopted a strategy of "seeming acceptance of the Third Reich", by couching their criticisms as motivated merely by a desire to "point out mistakes that some of its overzealous followers committed" in order to strengthen the government. [66] Thus when Bishop Galen delivered his famous 1941 denunciations of Nazi euthanasia and the lawlessness of the Gestapo, he also said that the Church had never sought the "overthrow of the Reich government". [67]

After the war, Galen protested against the mistreatment of the German population by the Allied occupation forces. On 13 April 1945, he raised a protest with American military authorities against the mass rape of German women by Allied and particularly Soviet soldiers as well as against the plundering of German homes, factories, research centres, firms and offices by American and British troops. [68] [69]

In a joint interview with British officials, Galen told the international press that "just as I fought against Nazi injustices, I will fight any injustice, no matter where it comes from". [70] He repeated these claims in a sermon on 1 July 1945, which was copied and illegally distributed throughout occupied Germany. The British authorities ordered him to renounce the sermon immediately, but the bishop refused. [71] In the face of his resistance and broad popularity, they allowed him free speech without any censorship. In an interview with Swiss media, Galen demanded punishment for Nazi criminals but humane treatment for the millions of German prisoners of war who had not committed any crimes and who were being denied contact with their relatives by the British. He criticized the British dismissal of Germans from public service without investigation and trial. [72] He forcefully condemned the expulsion of German civilians from former German provinces and territories in the east annexed by communist Poland and the Soviet Union.

A paper from the British Foreign Office called Galen "the most outstanding personality among the clergy in the British zone. Statuesque in appearance and uncompromising in discussion, this oak-bottomed old aristocrat. is a German nationalist through and through." [73]

When SS-General Kurt Meyer, accused of complicity in the shooting of eighteen Canadian prisoners of war, was sentenced to death, Galen pleaded for his life to be spared: "According to what has been reported to me, General Kurt Meyer was sentenced to death because his subordinates committed crimes he didn't arrange and of which he did not approve. As a proponent of Christian legal opinion, which states that you are only responsible for your own deeds, I support the plea for clemency for General Meyer and pledge for a pardon." On second review, a Canadian general, finding only "a mass of circumstantial evidence", commuted Meyer's death sentence to imprisonment. Meyer served nine years in British and Canadian military prisons. [74]

Unexpectedly, at Christmas 1945 it became known that Pope Pius XII would appoint three new German cardinals: Bishop Clemens August von Galen, Bishop Konrad von Preysing of Berlin, and Archbishop Josef Frings of Cologne. Despite numerous British obstacles and denial of air travel, Galen arrived in Rome 5 February 1946. [75] Generous American cardinals financed his Roman stay, as German money was not in demand. He had become famous and popular, so after the pope had placed the red hat on his head with the words: 'God bless you, God bless Germany', Saint Peter's Basilica for minutes thundered in a "triumphant applause" for Galen. [76]

While in Rome, he visited the German POW camps in Taranto and told the German Wehrmacht soldiers that he would take care of their release, and that the Pope himself was working on the release of POWs. He took a large number of comforting personal messages to their worried families. [77]

After receiving the red hat, Galen went to see Madre Pascalina, the faithful servant of the Pope. He told her how the Pope had quoted long passages from Galen's 1941 sermons from memory and how the Pope thanked him for his courage. Galen told the Pope, "Yes, Holy Father, but many of my very best priests died in concentration camps, because they distributed my sermons." Pius replied that he was always aware that thousands of innocent persons would have been sent to certain death if he as pope had protested. They talked about the old days in Berlin, and Galen declared: "for nothing in the world would I want to have missed those two hours, not even for the red hat." [78]

Following his return from the wearisome travel to Vatican City, the new cardinal was celebrated enthusiastically in his native Westphalia and in his destroyed city of Münster, which still lay completely in ruins as a result of the air raids. He died a few days after his return from Rome in the St. Franziskus Hospital of Münster due to an appendix infection diagnosed too late. His last words were: [79] "Yes, Yes, as God wills it. May God reward you for it. May God protect the dear fatherland. Go on working for Him. oh, you dear Saviour!" He was buried in the family crypt of the Galen family in the destroyed Cathedral of Münster.

The cause for beatification was requested by his successor, Bishop Michael Keller of Münster and began under Pope Pius XII in 1956. It was concluded positively in November 2004 under Pope John Paul II. Clemens August Graf von Galen was beatified on 9 October 2005 outside St. Peter's Basilica by Pope Benedict XVI, the 47th anniversary of the death of Pope Pius (1958).


WI: Hitler dies on October 16, 1941

Let's say the German commander-in-chief dies right before the Germans begin major operations on the Mozhaistk line and after their capture of Rhzev. Let's say he dies from choking to death or something sudden, and not related to an organize coup attempt. What happens?

The reason I choose this POD because Nazi Germany is at its very peak of military power, having just surrounded more than half a million Russian soldiers in Russia and being on ground they were able to successfully defend as per OTL. Further, the Germans avoid a great degree of their major personnel and equipment losses from their over extended lines in OTL.

1. Who realistically takes over?
2. What are the Russian counter-measures to this?
3. Presuming the war continues, how does it realistically end one way or the other?
4. Lastly, how is Hitler remembered today?

I have an opinion, but I want to dig your minds first.

WiseApple

Pattersonautobody

Amakan

Onkel Willie

Himmler, in 1941, isn't powerful enough yet. Besides that, he wasn't well liked by the army, and the army is much stronger than his Waffen SS at this point in time. Goering is more likely to take over due to his image as the 'moderate' Nazi.

I actually see the Eastern Front going worse for the Germans. Goering will likely not have a micromanaging approach on the conduct of the war, instead letting his generals run it for him. As an ideological rival, being on the left wing of the party, Goebbels will probably be sidetracked. As plenipotentiary for the four year plans, Goering will also set his sight on Himmler's pool of slave labour: he will therefore try to make him an ally or try to replace him with someone more malleable.

This could mean that the no-retreat order in the face of the Soviet counteroffensive at Moscow is never given, resulting in a collapse of the frontlines of Army Group Centre and a much greater Soviet advance than IOTL in December 1941. Perhaps they could be thrown as far back as Minsk by the time the Red Army loses momentum.

I imagine Goering will then try to butt out of the war in the east with a peace treaty that looks like victory. The question is whether Stalin will accept since the Germans are obviously negotiating from a position of weakness.

Deleted member 1487

I think the German resistance would act, as this was their peak. What was holding them back was the oath to Hitler that kept a number of officers from participating and Hitler's popularity, yet they still tried to kill him repeatedly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_July_plot#Background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster_Conspiracy

The 1942 resistance team wasn't put together yet, but Goering has lost his luster to a point by this point and his role in the Blomberg-Fritsch affair has not been forgotten, nor forgiven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blomberg-Fritsch_Affair

The Nazis probably fight it out and the army steps in, as Goering has really been on the outs with Hitler due to the BoB failure and increased bombing of Germany by the RAF. In December he was dropped as leader of the war economy in favor of Speer, so this is just before then. Typhoon probably still happens, but stays in permanent remission when the rains start there is a power struggle in Berlin and probably a Junta being formed. Goering doesn't have the power he once did, nor the political luster in fact he was pretty much out of the public eye since 1940 IIRC. Himmler was hated by the army, while everyone else but Todt depended on Hitler for their authority, including Goebbels. Todt is probably kept around, despite his conflicts with the army economic staff, while everyone else probably gets purged. The army runs the war from this point on, not sure how 1942 on shakes out or if there is a DoW against the US. In fact the resistance was pretty much hoping for a deal with the West post-Hitler, so if they take power, they probably will try and deal, which might be possible given Canaris's connections with the British, while the Uboat war is called off/calmed down, making US entry non-viable.

This might end up a European Axis vs. Soviet war if there can be a deal with the Brits, while the US stays out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris#World_War_II

ObssesedNuker

The shock to the command structure from the CnC suddenly dropping dead certainly will cause some problems. Typhoon might get delayed, which is bad for the Germans and very good for the Soviets. The retreat order going out in the winter probably makes things worse for the Germans, but I don't see the Soviets really achieving anything decisive during the winter of '41, although they can inflict more casualties and gain more territory then IOTL which will have knock-on effects for the summer '42 campaign season. The Japanese are still due to bomb Pearl by December which will piss off the Americans and immediately put them on the side of the British. and by extension, against the Germans.

If any of the dissident German officer tries to throw out the Nazis, then they'll likely worsen the command confusion.

Which was wishful thinking on their part. The British believed the war to be as much the result of the exact kind of German conservatives who would now be in power as it was of the Nazis.


Zavala County Sentinel (Crystal City, Tex.), Vol. 30, No. 16, Ed. 1 Friday, August 22, 1941

Weekly newspaper from Crystal City, Texas that includes local, state, and national news along with advertising.

Physical Description

eight pages : ill. page 23 x 17 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.

Creation Information

Context

This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Texas Borderlands Newspaper Collection and was provided by the UNT Libraries to The Portal to Texas History, a digital repository hosted by the UNT Libraries. It has been viewed 19 times. More information about this issue can be viewed below.

People and organizations associated with either the creation of this newspaper or its content.

Editor

Publisher

Audiences

Check out our Resources for Educators Site! We've identified this newspaper as a primary source within our collections. Researchers, educators, and students may find this issue useful in their work.

Provided By

UNT Libraries

The UNT Libraries serve the university and community by providing access to physical and online collections, fostering information literacy, supporting academic research, and much, much more.

Contact Us

Descriptive information to help identify this newspaper. Follow the links below to find similar items on the Portal.

Titles

  • Main Title: Zavala County Sentinel (Crystal City, Tex.), Vol. 30, No. 16, Ed. 1 Friday, August 22, 1941
  • Serial Title:Zavala County Sentinel

Description

Weekly newspaper from Crystal City, Texas that includes local, state, and national news along with advertising.

Physical Description

eight pages : ill. page 23 x 17 in.
Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.

Notes

Subjects

Library of Congress Subject Headings

University of North Texas Libraries Browse Structure

Language

Item Type

Identifier

Unique identifying numbers for this issue in the Portal or other systems.

  • Library of Congress Control Number: sn86088522
  • OCLC: 14109098 | External Link
  • Archival Resource Key: ark:/67531/metapth1092482

Publication Information

  • Volume: 30
  • Issue: 16
  • Edition: 1

Collections

This issue is part of the following collections of related materials.

Texas Borderlands Newspaper Collection

Newspapers from the 19th to the 21st centuries serving counties along the Texas-Mexico border. Funding provided by three TexTreasures grants from the Institute of Museum and Library Services, awarded through the Texas State Library and Archives Commission.

Texas Digital Newspaper Program

The Texas Digital Newspaper Program (TDNP) partners with communities, publishers, and institutions to promote standards-based digitization of Texas newspapers and to make them freely accessible.


16.Panzer-Division

The 16.Panzer-Division was formed in August of 1940 from portions of the 16.Infanterie-Division. Those portions not used tohelp form the 16.Panzer-Division were used in the formation of the 16.Infanterie-Division (mot).

After its initial training, the 16.Panzer-Division was sent to Romania for use as atraining unit for the Romanian Armed Forces, being code named “Lehrstab-R II”while still being under the control of the German Mission in Romania.

The 16.Panzer-Division was held in Reserve during the Balkan Campaign, but took partin the Invasion of the Soviet Union in June, 1941, being used in the southernsector of the Front.

During the fighting against the Soviet Uniont the 16.Panzer-Division advancing to Stalingrad via Lvov, Pervomaisk, Zaporozhe,Taganrog, Makeevka and Artemorsk. It was destroyed in the StalingradPocket in early 1943.

The 16.Panzer-Division was reformed in March, 1943 in France. Afterreformation the 16.Panzer-Division was sent to Italy where it was heavilyengaged in the battles for Salerno after the Allied landings, and later in the struggle for Naples.

The 16.Panzer-Division was transfered to the Eastern Front in November-December,1943, arriving in Bobruisk on December 13th where it took part in defensiveoperations before seeing action in the massive counterattacks for Kiev.These actions heavily weakened the 16.Panzer-Division once more and it was forced towithdraw to the the Baranow area on the Vistula River.

During the summer of 1944 the 16.Panzer-Division was pulled back into Poland where it wasrefit. It was then transfered to the Baranow region once more in January, 1945 where ittook part in defensive operations until being pushed back to theareas of Lauban and Brno in March-April, 1945.

Portions of the the 16.Panzer surrendered to the Soviets and others to the Americans.


HMS Hood Refit between August 1940 - April 1941

Engine refurbished, extra AA, more armor over the shell bunker's (if there isn't time to move them somewhere less vulnerable), guns rebarrelled, any outstanding major repairs that have had to wait for dry docking. As I mentioned the navy was well aware of the need to up protection on the shell bunkers but beyond that it would be closer to the OTL Rodney refit, a quick go over to fix what need's fixing and just get her back to full fighting condition. There simply wasn't time during the war to do much else which was why the battle line was getting a bit worn out by 1945.

. A full rebuild ala Renown would take at least a year even under wartime conditions and with the KM and the Japanese threat the RN couldn't afford to keep one of its most powerful assets docked for very long. At this point the KGV''s are still coming into service, the lion project is dying and while the Queen Liz''s had been refit to something like modern standards the navy was still stuck with a load of R types that were good for nothing. That left the KGV, two Nelson''s and a pile of old ships to defend the country, which is half the reason the refit never happened as they could not afford to have Hood off the line for that long.

Coulsdon Eagle

I do like your Fantasy Force Z - will be a fun one to game.

Think you confused your Glorious with your Courageous

Zheng He

Quite a bit actually. USS Tennessee got an eight month refit in 1942 and 1943 and came out of it looking like a brand new ship:

Logan2879

I do like your Fantasy Force Z - will be a fun one to game.

Think you confused your Glorious with your Courageous

Logan2879

Quite a bit actually. USS Tennessee got an eight month refit in 1942 and 1943 and came out of it looking like a brand new ship:

Logan2879

Cymraeg

Paulo the Limey

Merlin

Cymraeg

Nbcman

The IJN had 6 older BBs plus the Hosho in the Bonin Islands as distant cover for the Pearl Harbor strike force IOTL. They could have easily reassigned some or all of these vessels to support Haruna and Kongo in the waters off Malaya although the addition of BBs that were at least 5 knots slower than the BCs may not be of much help.

EDIT: Assuming they are facing a task force that includes the Prince of Wales, it would not be so bad to have the slower IJN BBs as the PoW was rated for about 28 knots.

King Augeas

There's a good chance of getting a hideously messy night battle that could go anywhere from "radar gives the RN a super-Matapan" to "RN gets a dozen Long Lances to the face".

However, I think the disparity in land-based air strength means that even a crushing RN victory would be in vain for the defence of Malaya, although you can certainly buy time.

Logan2879

The IJN had 6 older BBs plus the Hosho in the Bonin Islands as distant cover for the Pearl Harbor strike force IOTL. They could have easily reassigned some or all of these vessels to support Haruna and Kongo in the waters off Malaya although the addition of BBs that were at least 5 knots slower than the BCs may not be of much help.

EDIT: Assuming they are facing a task force that includes the Prince of Wales, it would not be so bad to have the slower IJN BBs as the PoW was rated for about 28 knots.

Cryhavoc101

Where were the other 2 Kongos at this time?

Also I wonder if having some light forces (Vosper 70' MTBs) based on the East coast of Malaya (ie Kota Bharu and Kuantan) and might have caused problems for any landings in the region?

Nbcman

Rather than relying on thoughts, it can be verified from Combined Fleet for the Tabular Record of Movement for Nagato on 8 December 1941:

8 December 1941: Operation "Z" – The Attack on Pearl Harbor:
BatDiv 1 sorties from Hashirajima to the Bonin Islands with the First Fleet's BatDiv 2's ISE, FUSO, YAMASHIRO, HYUGA, CarDiv 3's light carrier HOSHO, escorted by DesDiv 21's WAKABA, NENOHI, HATSUHARU and HATSUSHIMO and DesDiv 27's ARIAKE, YUGURE, SHIRATSUYU, SHIGURE, MIKAZUKI and YUKAZE.


13 December 1941:
The First Fleet returns to Hashirajima.

Where were the other 2 Kongos at this time?

Also I wonder if having some light forces (Vosper 70' MTBs) based on the East coast of Malaya (ie Kota Bharu and Kuantan) and might have caused problems for any landings in the region?

HMS Warspite

Where were the other 2 Kongos at this time?

Also I wonder if having some light forces (Vosper 70' MTBs) based on the East coast of Malaya (ie Kota Bharu and Kuantan) and might have caused problems for any landings in the region?

Hiei and Kirishima were still on the way back to Japan, covering the Kido Butai from the Pearl Harbor Raid. Sentai-3, section-2 as well as Sentai-8 (Tone and Chikuma) were assigned as supportvessels to escort the Kido Butai on the Pearl Harbor Attack, sailing all the way to and from the target.

As for the few MTB's in the SE Asia region, namely Singapore, they lacked the numbers to make much of an impression, while their fightingcapabilities were not optimised for operations in relatively open waters, found on the Malayan eastcoastline. Their defensive armament was almost non existend, being a pair of .303 machineguns only, not the sort of weapons needed to stop shipping, if they could not use their torpedoes. Daytime was not favoured by these boats, if they wated to have some succes, while even at night they lacked the means (no radar) to fight as well.

Logan2879

HMS Warspite

I wonder what the four old fourstackers could add to FLAK defense, with their non existant AA outfit. (Just 2 mg's at best each ship.) Better have these operate independently as a light hit and run group, or delete them entirely. Also, NO SPITFIRES in 1941 outside the UK and Malta, as the Spitfire was still urgently needed in the UK and not being send abroad. Simmilarly, the IJN had no carriers likely here, as there was enough landbased airpower nearby, besides the carriers being needed for other tasks, such as buidling up airgroups and support over the Philippines.

Likely, the building up of British forces would force the IJN to allocate more strikeforces in the Saigon erea, with a second airgroup, which in the OTL was stationed in Formosa. These would be the main weapons, besides the likely increase in numbers of submarines in the Malayan region. Kondo would then likely have had fewer ships in the consequense, as the IJN was not so stupid to waist his forces against seemingly superior numbers of the opposition. More likely he would remain in the back, for a possible show in the aftermatch, as is trained for by the IJN in the years prior to war, but mainly against the USN. Also the sailing of the convoy is postponed, untill the sting was out of the Allied attackgroups.

What is likely a scenario?
Submarines strike with more force on the Allied ships, possibly killing both the large carriers in these confined waters, where they had nothing to do. Also, the order would have been to act more agressive in line with the IJN Submarinedocytrine against large surfaceships, so it is likely one would have attacked the capital ship force as well. With no aircover again, the result would be simmilar, or even worse, with all larger Alied ships sunk, or damaged and no losses to the IJN ships, besides some possible submarines and a small number of aircraft.


1941 Philadelphia Athletics Statistics

Copyright © 2000-2021 Sports Reference LLC. All rights reserved.

Much of the play-by-play, game results, and transaction information both shown and used to create certain data sets was obtained free of charge from and is copyrighted by RetroSheet.

Win Expectancy, Run Expectancy, and Leverage Index calculations provided by Tom Tango of InsideTheBook.com, and co-author of The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball.

Total Zone Rating and initial framework for Wins above Replacement calculations provided by Sean Smith.

Full-year historical Major League statistics provided by Pete Palmer and Gary Gillette of Hidden Game Sports.

Some defensive statistics Copyright © Baseball Info Solutions, 2010-2021.

Some high school data is courtesy David McWater.

Many historical player head shots courtesy of David Davis. Many thanks to him. All images are property the copyright holder and are displayed here for informational purposes only.


What did the reformers think about the Eastern Orthodox Church?

What was the attitude of the reformers (Martin Luther in particular) toward the Eastern Orthodox Church? Was the idea of becoming part of the Eastern church entertained?

Luther was generally positive toward the Eastern Orthodox church, especially because it rejected many of the things he most disliked about the Roman Catholic church: clerical celibacy, papal supremacy, purgatory, indulgences, and Communion by bread alone. He frequently referred to the beliefs and practices of the "Greek church," as he called it, as evidence that Catholics had deviated from principles upon which Christians formerly agreed.

Luther never attempted to build a bridge to the Eastern church, but some of his followers did. Philipp Melanchthon worked with Demetrios Mysos, a deacon sent by the patriarch of Constantinople to find out about the new religious movement in Germany, to complete a Greek translation/paraphrase of the Augsburg Confession, called the Augustana Graeca. Mysos was supposed to take the document back to Constantinople, but he died on the journey.

Some Lutheran theologians at Tubingen tried to establish an even closer connection. The "Eastern Orthodoxy" entry in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand, reports:

The Lutherans were convinced that they, rather than Rome, were the true apostolic and catholic church, and thus to establish contact with the venerable Greek church, to enlist its support against the papacy, and perhaps even to enter into communion with this apostolic church would have been a sensational victory. Thus in 1575 they sent the Augustana Graeca to Patriarch Jeremias II (d. 1595), asking his opinion. There ensued over the next six years a friendly but candid exchange of extensive doctrinal .

To continue reading, subscribe now. Subscribers have full digital access.


The bombing of Nagasaki

Nagasaki suffered the same fate as Hiroshima in August 1945. The bombing of Nagasaki on August 9th was the last major act of World War Two and within days the Japanese had surrendered.

Two senior American military figures – General Groves and Admiral Purnell – were convinced that two atomic bombs dropped within days of the other would have such an overwhelming impact on the Japanese government that it would surrender. Scientists at Los Alamos were also intrigued as to which type of bomb was the better – a uranium or plutonium based bomb. ‘Little Boy’ showed its effectiveness at Hiroshima but another bombing mission was needed to see what damage a uranium bomb could do.

Nagasaki was not America’s primary target. This was Kokura. The three potential targets for a second bomb were Kokura, Kyoto and Niigata. Nagasaki was only added to a list of potential targets when Kyoto was withdrawn (it had been the secondary target for a second bomb) because of its religious associations. The third potential target was Niigata – but this was withdrawn from the list as the distance to it was considered to be too great. Therefore, the Americans were left with just two targets – Kokura and Nagasaki.

Nagasaki was a major shipbuilding city and a large military port. But it was not a favoured target as it had been bombed five times in the previous twelve months and any damage caused by an atomic bomb would have been difficult to assess. Also, the way Nagasaki had grown as a port meant that the impact of a powerful bomb might be dissipated as the city had grown across hills and valleys. The city was also broken up with stretches of water. However, fate and the weather was to be Nagasaki’s undoing.

Whereas the ‘Enola Gay‘ had had a relatively uneventful journey to her target at Hiroshima, the same was not true for the plane picked to drop the next atomic bomb – ‘Bockscar’. Both ‘Bockscar’ and ‘Enola Gay’ were B29 Superfortress bombers. The crew of ‘Bockscar’ gathered for their takeoff at 03.40 hours, August 9th, at Tinian Island. The flight commander, Major Sweeney, found that one of the fuel pumps on the B29 was not working. 800 gallons of aviation fuel had to sit in its fuel tank – it could not be used for the engines but the plane had to carry its weight and get nothing in return from the fuel.

‘Bockscar’ carried an atomic bomb that differed from ‘Little Boy’ carried by ‘Enola Gay‘ for the Hiroshima bombing. ‘Fat Man’ was not a gun-type bomb but used the implosion method it had a circle of 64 detonators that would drive pieces of plutonium together into a supercritical mass. ‘Little Boy’ had used Uranium 235. ‘Fat Man’ weighed about 10,000 lbs and was 10 feet 8 inches long. It had the explosive capacity of about 20,000 tons of high explosives.

By the time ‘Bockscar’ got near to its primary target, Kokura, it became clear that the weather had saved the city. The city was covered by cloud. Sweeney made three runs over the city but could find not break. With lack of fuel an issue, he decided to move to his only other target – Nagasaki. Sweeney only had enough fuel for one run over the city and not enough to fly back to Tinian. He would have to land at Okinawa.

The weapons expert on ‘Bockscar’ was Commander Ashworth. Sweeney had been ordered that only a visual run was allowed – not a run guided by radar. Ashworth told Sweeney that radar would have to be used if Nagasaki was covered in cloud – it was. Most of Sweeney’s bombing run was done using radar but at the last minute a break in the cloud was found by the bomb aimer. He targeted a race track and at 28,900 feet, ‘Fat Man’ was dropped.

As Nagasaki had been targeted in the past, people in the city had become blasé when the air raid siren sounded. The same was true on August 9th. The irony was that Nagasaki was well served with good bomb shelters and far fewer people would have been killed or injured if the air raid sirens had been listened to. The surrounding hills had tunnels dug into them which would have been very effective for the people who could have reached them.

‘Fat Man’ was a very effective bomb. Its blast was bigger than ‘Little Boy’s’ but its impact was reduced by the natural topography of the city. Where the bomb blast hit at its peak, massive damage was done. An area about 2.3 miles by 1.9 miles was destroyed but other parts of the city were saved from the blast. Curiously, the city’s train service was not interrupted and the fire damage that followed Hiroshima did not occur in Nagasaki as many parts of the city were broken up by water. The fires simply could not cross these gaps and they burned out.

However, considerable damage was done to the city. The horrific injuries suffered at Hiroshima were also witnessed at Nagasaki. The city’s medical facilities were not totally destroyed by ‘Fat Man’ as at Hiroshima – but nobody was capable of coping with those who were injured in the blast.

One survivor, Sadako Moriyama, had gone to a bomb shelter when the sirens sounded. After the bomb had gone off, she saw what she thought were two large lizards crawling into the shelter she was in, only to realise that they were human beings whose bodies had been shredded of their skin because of the bomb blast.

Death and injury in Nagasaki and the surrounding areas, depended on where people lived. Those who lived on the Koba hillside, just three and a half miles from ground zero, were protected from the blast by a mountain. People caught up in the blast came to Koba for help and Fujie Urata, who lived in Koba and had seen a large flash, could not believe what she was seeing. She described people with great sheets of skin hanging off of their bodies grotesque swollen faces torsos covered with large blisters.

As in Hiroshima, many in Nagasaki died after the immediate impact of the bomb had gone away from mysterious ailments which we now associate with radiation poisoning. No-one, understandably, knew what to do to help the victims of this newest of illnesses.

In 1953, a report by the US Strategic Bombing Survey put the number of deaths at 35,000, wounded at 60,000 and 5,000 missing. In 1960, the Japanese put the number of dead at Nagasaki at 20,000 and the number of wounded at 50,000. Later, the Nagasaki Prefectural Office put the figure for deaths alone at 87,000 with 70% of the city’s industrial zone destroyed.


Watch the video: NBC Nightly News Full Broadcast - August 16th, 2021