The Nation of Japan agreed to unconditional surrender marking the end of the 2nd World War in the Pacific. Thank you to all the men and women who served, the families that waited for their return. For those who sacrificed their lives and those who mourn their passing, you are remembered in prayer.
We should certainly hear an echo of the Lord’s Prayer in today’s gospel: ““Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus answered, “I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times.” The mention of “forgiveness” should echo Jesus’ teaching about prayer. In the Lord’s prayer we are told to forgive others as we are forgiven: “If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.” (Mt 6:14-15)
OK, the principle is clear, but the practical outworking still needs to be clarified, since its open-ended demand may easily be exploited by a manipulative person; surely there must be a limit? If Mishna B. Yoma represents rabbinic teaching, three times was regarded as sufficient. So, Peter’s proposal of up to seven times is probably intended to express a new limit of generosity. Or maybe it is a reference and contrast to sevenfold vengeance in the case of Cain (as in Cain and Abel). When Cain, doomed to wander homeless, worries that “Anyone may kill me at sight” (Gen 4:14), the Lord promises “Not so! the LORD said to him. If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged seven times.” (Gen 4:15)
And so Jesus’ reply in our reading is all the more startling: “I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times.” (Mt 18:22)
Continue readingWhile perhaps familiar to many of the readers, it might be useful to offer a brief summary of the early months of the War in the Pacific. In a modification of Japan’s war plan, Kantai Kessen, on December 7, 1941, Japan launched a surprise and devastating attack on the U.S. Fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The goal was the decisive battle that would neutralize the U.S. Pacific Fleet and secure freedom of action for the planned offensive in Southeast Asia. The results of the attack are well known, but the battle was not decisive for three major reasons: the U.S. aircraft carriers were not in port, the fuel depot was not attacked, nor was the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. Had the depot and shipyard been destroyed the fleet would have withdrawn to the west coast affording incalculable time for Japan to advance and more firmly secure its war gains.
Japan rapidly expanded across the Pacific and Southeast Asia in a coordinated offensive:
Japan planned Operation MI, an operation to lure the U.S. Navy into a decisive battle by attacking and occupying Midway Atoll, a key American base northwest of Hawaii. Their hope was for a decisive Kantai Kessen-style battle that would destroy the last Pacific assets: U.S. aircraft carriers. Victory would cement Japanese strategic dominance in the Pacific.
Station Hapo, Hawaii – using signal intelligence vs. pure code breaking – learned of the attack on Midway and in an “all-in” gamble, Admiral Chester Nimitz committed the U.S. carries to the action that stopped the tide of Japanese advance in the Pacific. At the Battle of Midway (June 4–7, 1942) Japan suffered a catastrophic defeat, losing four fleet carriers and shifting the balance of naval power in the Pacific.
War Plan Orange – greatly revised, but with key elements intact – was now free to work its way westward to prosecute the War in the Pacific on new terms and conditions.
I do not plan to work step-by-step through the war in the Pacific. I will leave the heroic battles of places such as Guadalcanal and Tarawa for you to research. As well, I do not discuss the 1942 naval engagements such as Savo Island, Eastern Solomons, Cape Esperance, Santa Cruz, sea battle of Guadalcanal and Tassafaronga – all in the defense of the Marine Division on the island of Guadalcanal. I would note that the US Navy suffered more killed-in-action than the US Marines during the Guadalcanal campaign.
Moving ahead, I will highlight key several military actions that reveal fundamental shifts in Japanese military tactics and strategy. These shifts will shape planning for an invasion of the Japanese home islands in 1945-1946, an endeavor whose potential for the loss of life – military and civilian – defied estimation.
By the end of 1942 the advance of the Japanese has been stopped. The advent of 1943 would see the allied forces move from the defense to offense. The might of American industrial power in shipping building (combatants and merchants), aircraft, ammunition, and every aspect of logistics support would “come fully on line” as the work of the US submarines interdicted needed critical war supplies from Southwest Asia to Japan.
As noted in the first post, this series is not aimed at concluding with “the atomic bomb was the lesser of all the evils about to be faced.” It is intended to hopefully provide a correct historical understanding available to the 1945 leadership who faced the impossible task of ending a war with an intractable enemy and not repeating the armistice of 1919 that became the next war.
Image credit: various photographs from Naval Aviation Museum, National World War II Museum, and US Navy Archives.
The Sunday gospel (Luke 12:48-53) continues its emphatic message and leaves little to the imagination of a soft and easy landing. To the question whether Jesus came to bring peace most of us would unhesitatingly reply ‘Yes’. But Jesus’ “No, I tell you” is emphatic (ouchi). Why would Jesus proclaim He has come to create division? “Divisiveness erodes the social, political, emotional and psychological bonds that bind us, one to another. Divisiveness is spawned by antagonism, distrust, hostility and often erupts into war. Divisiveness eats away at the viable network of human society, leaving lonely, disconnected isolates in its wake. Why then would Jesus choose to characterize his purpose and mission in terms of fire and division? Was he frustrated by his disciples’ obtuseness? Had he become impatient with Jewish rejection and resentful of Roman oppression? Had he decided that his message of gentle caring and merciful forgiveness needed “teeth”? Or, was he simply being frank, honest, and realistic as regards the very serious crisis confronting humankind by virtue of his person and mission?” [Patricia Sanchez]
Divisive is often the effect of prophetic speech. In this Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Simeon (Luke 2:35). But one must note that the division is really caused – not by the prophetic speech – but by the decisions one makes because of that speech. This has already been seen when people are called to decide if Jesus is of God or of Satan (Luke 11:14-20). Those who see Jesus must decide rightly lest “the light in you not become darkness” (11:35).
The cross challenges people. Jesus calls on his followers to take up their own cross as they follow him (9:23ff.; 14:27). When people do not rise to this challenge it is not unusual for them to become critical of those who do. Jesus’ words are quite literal and were the experience of the early church (and in differing ways, the experience of the church is all ages). Verses 52-53 strongly echo the words of the OT: “For the son dishonors his father, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man’s enemies are those of his household. But as for me, I will look to the LORD, I will put my trust in God my savior; my God will hear me!” (Micah 7:6-7).
friarmusings 