As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[GKC]

Ghostly-

“First of all I’ve never claimed that it was “just for the Hell of it” or that the U.S. wanted to punish the Japanese. I’ve said that whole cities were targeted, with no discrimination between combatant and non-combatant, for the purpose of shocking the Japanese government into surrender. As for the accepted legal practice of war, that’s irrelevant to the discussion because we’re talking about Catholic moral teaching, not war crimes.”

I disagree, based on your use of “”…intention of maximizing indiscriminate destruction…". Rephrased, you are saying the primary purpose [the intent] of the bombing of Hiroshima, London, and Dresdan was to kill as many people and material as possible without regard to their status (combatant/non-combatant) [indiscriminate], without regard to their status as valid targets (of military/political strategic/tactical value)and without regard [indiscriminate] to said bombings effects on the war. This was not the case for any of them.

As for targeting the whole cities, I suggest you review the military bombing technology of the day. We’re talking of the days when bombs were hunks of iron dropping from the sky, bombing calculations were done by hand, bomb sights were extremely primative [human hairs were used to create the crosshairs in them], and military bombing strategies and tactics were less then 20 years old *. A large amount of collateral damage [military for unintended death and destruction caused/a result of military operations] is already in the bombing of targets by these limitations. Then add the fact said bombings aren’t done in a vacuum [the enemy is trying to kill you therefore bombs will be dropped early/off target/etc].

Additionally, you aren’t talking about Catholic morality in regards to bombings. You are trying to apply a higher/different moral standard to 3 cases that are really no different then a vast number of bombings that took place during the war. If you wish to discuss Catholic morality, talk of it as a whole or select actual cases that are “special”/outside the norm [such as Coventry (British handling of it), Dolittle’s Raid, or the use of terror weapons (rockets) by the Germans].

“It wouldn’t have increased the suffering of the non-combatants as they wouldn’t have been as many. The idea was to hit a location that was fully populated, precisely for the purpose you cite here”

Which is less moral
-the bombing of a city that is a valid military target, would be bombed anyway if the invasion took place, could be used to end the war
or
-the bombing of a city that isn’t a valid military target, the bombing of which would only serve to cause needless destruction, would have no impact on the war, whose civil infrastructure is already destroyed/collapsing/overloaded by previous bombings, and whose populace is already suffering from the unintended consequences [collateral damage] of war

You are in effect arguing it is more moral to kill the robber you have already wounded [those already suffering] and neutralized then to shot the robber that is unwounded [those not suffering] and still coming after you.

"It is not revisionism to say that the targets were chosen in order to maximize indiscriminate destruction, it is from the documents of the Targeting Committee itself. To wit:

Quote:
2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)"

It is revisionism. Why? Because you took a military evaluation concerning the selection of a valid target and decided it shows the intent of maximizing indiscriminate destruction. A review of the document you cited [Atomic Bomb: Decision -- Target Committee, May 10-11, 1945]](Atomic Bomb: Decision -- Target Committee, May 10-11, 1945])* would show that the selection for what cities to bomb was very discriminate. It, in fact, shows that Tokyo [the Emperor’s Palace] was considered, but not on the target list due to lack of strategic value. And a more in-depth search concerning the selection of what city to bomb would show that the Sec. of War got Kyoto taken off the list because of its cultural importance (for Japan and the world).

[continued]

Stimson took it off, Groves had it put back on, Stimson took it off again. Determined man, Stimson.

It should also be noted that the 3rd bomb, the casings for which were on Tinian by 15 Aug, though the plutonium core was still held in San Francisco, would have theoretically been available for use before the end of the month. Several people in authority were, in frustration, advancing the idea that it should be used on Tokyo. Given Marshall’s plan to use all available bombs produced between August and the start of “Olympic” as tactical weapons in support of the invasion of Kyushu, and for other reasons, I doubt the 3rd bomb would have actually been dropped on Tokyo.

GKC

 

[Ghosty]

Armyvet007:

I disagree, based on your use of “”…intention of maximizing indiscriminate destruction…". Rephrased, you are saying the primary purpose [the intent] of the bombing of Hiroshima, London, and Dresdan was to kill as many people and material as possible without regard to their status (combatant/non-combatant) [indiscriminate], without regard to their status as valid targets (of military/political strategic/tactical value)and without regard [indiscriminate] to said bombings effects on the war. This was not the case for any of them.

Indiscriminate in this discussion simply means that there was no discrimination between combatant and non-combatant. This is how the term is used in the relevant Catholic documents. It doesn’t refer to any other element of decision making, especially with regard to the end of the war. I’ve said many times that the bombings were done with the intent of ending the war and preserving more lives in the long run.

As for targeting the whole cities, I suggest you review the military bombing technology of the day. We’re talking of the days when bombs were hunks of iron dropping from the sky, bombing calculations were done by hand, bomb sights were extremely primative [human hairs were used to create the crosshairs in them], and military bombing strategies and tactics were less then 20 years old *. A large amount of collateral damage [military for unintended death and destruction caused/a result of military operations] is already in the bombing of targets by these limitations. Then add the fact said bombings aren’t done in a vacuum [the enemy is trying to kill you therefore bombs will be dropped early/off target/etc].
*

I’m well aware of the limitations of early bombing runs. That doesn’t change the fact that the target of these bombings was entire cities, combatant and non-combatant alike (indiscriminate), with the intent of maximizing destruction (urban concentration, local geographic features that would enhance the destructive power of the bombs, ect). Collateral damage is not the same as intentionally targeting a whole city without discrimination between combatant and non-combatant; if you’re just bombing the military base but bombs go off-target and hit civilian houses then that’s collateral damage, but it you are trying to burn the whole city down then it’s not collateral damage but intended damage. This is true regardless of bombing technology.

Additionally, you aren’t talking about Catholic morality in regards to bombings. You are trying to apply a higher/different moral standard to 3 cases that are really no different then a vast number of bombings that took place during the war. If you wish to discuss Catholic morality, talk of it as a whole or select actual cases that are “special”/outside the norm [such as Coventry (British handling of it), Dolittle’s Raid, or the use of terror weapons (rockets) by the Germans].

I honestly don’t understand what you’re suggesting here. I’m talking about the Catholic morality of targeting non-combatants in the context of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I’m not discussing other cases, nor all the various immoral actions that may have been taken during the war. I’m not a war-buff, but I am someone interested in moral theology.

Which is less moral
-the bombing of a city that is a valid military target, would be bombed anyway if the invasion took place, could be used to end the war
or
-the bombing of a city that isn’t a valid military target, the bombing of which would only serve to cause needless destruction, would have no impact on the war, whose civil infrastructure is already destroyed/collapsing/overloaded by previous bombings, and whose populace is already suffering from the unintended consequences [collateral damage] of war

This is a completely different issue from what I was addressing. I was taking “increased” as meaning the suffering would be greater than if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, but I see now that I misread what you wrote. Either way the morality wasn’t what I was addressing in that point, but rather the numbers I mistakenly thought you were suggesting. My apologies.

It is revisionism. Why? Because you took a military evaluation concerning the selection of a valid target and decided it shows the intent of maximizing indiscriminate destruction. A review of the document you cited [Atomic Bomb: Decision -- Target Committee, May 10-11, 1945]](http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html])

would show that the selection for what cities to bomb was very discriminate. It, in fact, shows that Tokyo [the Emperor’s Palace] was considered, but not on the target list due to lack of strategic value. And a more in-depth search concerning the selection of what city to bomb would show that the Sec. of War got Kyoto taken off the list because of its cultural importance (for Japan and the world).

Again, you’re apply “discriminate” to issues beyond the scope of its use in Catholic moral teaching. The point is that there was no discrimination between combatant and non-combatant, not that discernment wasn’t used in selecting a target. Discriminate doesn’t mean “intentionally target”, it means to differentiate; “indiscriminate” simply means that no differentiation is made between two or more things, and the targeting of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made no differentiation between combatant and non-combatant.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Daralharb]

Again, you’re apply “discriminate” to issues beyond the scope of its use in Catholic moral teaching. The point is that there was no discrimination between combatant and non-combatant, not that discernment wasn’t used in selecting a target. Discriminate doesn’t mean “intentionally target”, it means to differentiate; “indiscriminate” simply means that no differentiation is made between two or more things, and the targeting of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made no differentiation between combatant and non-combatant.

Peace and God bless!

(underlined bold)
And when did any other bombing run in the history of the war make such a distinction from either side? What’s different about the nuke aside from its effectiveness? What is the Church’s definition of indiscriminate (for the military definition is as Armyvet described and his assessment is correct in saying Pope Pius XII didn’t have the necessary info).

65+ pages. heh. I wonder what sort of accomplishments could have taken place in a thread this long about cheap or free ways to help the poor and needy instead of arguing over this nonsense.

Shall we now debate the morality of the crucifixion and argue ourselves back into the damnation of the law? Why not? This thread seems to be all about arguing such concepts. :twocents:

 

[Armyvet007]

“Indiscriminate in this discussion simply means that there was no discrimination between combatant and non-combatant. This is how the term is used in the relevant Catholic documents”

Please link me where the Church defined it as such [for my own education, not doubting your honesty]. Assuming that is the right definition [right used here to indicate how it is defined/used/implied by the Church] then I stand corrected and agree that it was a case of intentional indiscriminate destruction.

“I’m well aware of the limitations of early bombing runs…”

My point is invalid/wrong if the above definition of indiscriminate is the correct one.

“I honestly don’t understand what you’re suggesting here. I’m talking about the Catholic morality of targeting non-combatants in the context of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I’m not discussing other cases, nor all the various immoral actions that may have been taken during the war. I’m not a war-buff, but I am someone interested in moral theology.”

This goes back to my first post concerning the fact that Hiroshima isn’t any different then numerous other bombings that took place during the war. It was morally no different then any number of bombings that took place during the war (which, regardless of how one defines indiscriminate, was morally wrong). I listed the Conventry, etc. because they are “special” cases:
-Coventry- war effort > protecting innocent lives
-Dolittle Raid- death/destruction > justifible [as defined by the Church] military action
-Terror bombings (rockets)- death/destruction > justifible military action

“Again, you’re apply “discriminate” to issues beyond the scope of its use in Catholic moral teaching”

But, you can’t take the Catholic definition of “indiscriminate” and apply it to a system/organization/culture/etc [the military] for which the Catholic definition is not the normal definition; and for which “indiscriminate” means something completely different. If you tell a soldier, like me, that allied planes indiscriminately bombed cities during WW2, he will take objection to it. He will object, like me, because “indiscriminate” in the military means “lack of care/concern for limiting/eliminating avoidable collateral damage/needless destruction.”

This would be similar to me taking the modern commonly accepted definition of the word “gay” and using it to argue that the Flintstone cartoon promoted homosexuality; with the phrase “gay ole time” from the theme song being the basis for my arguement.

Hence my rather long winded disagreement with you over your use of “intentional indiscriminate,” and my emphasizing that it was intentional and discriminate targeting.

To reduce the possibility of miscommunication [which I think is what is going on]-

The bombing of Hiroshima (and numerous other cities) was morally wrong because non-combatants [as defined by the Church] were a specific intentional target. The use of an atomic weapon is irrelivant [due to the nature in which bombings were conducted during the war] in the regards to the morality of the bombing.

 

[Jesuit_Boy_63]

As a Catholic I have always been troubled by the use of Nuclear weapons in any case and under any circumstances. As a retired Army officer and combat veteran I have no love for war but accept that under some circumstances it falls under the heading of ‘no other choice’. As a soldier I consider attacks against non-combatants to be dishonorable.

That being said, there is one other issue which has always troubled me regarding the targeting of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Coincidence is quite a stretch when one considers that these two cities were historically the centers of Roman Catholicism in Japan. I cannot help but wonder …

 

[EddyDRR]

As a Catholic I have always been troubled by the use of Nuclear weapons in any case and under any circumstances. As a retired Army officer and combat veteran I have no love for war but accept that under some circumstances it falls under the heading of ‘no other choice’. As a soldier I consider attacks against non-combatants to be dishonorable.

That being said, there is one other issue which has always troubled me regarding the targeting of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Coincidence is quite a stretch when one considers that **these two cities were historically the centers of Roman Catholicism in Japan. I cannot help but wonder **…

You’re insinuating that which is found nowhere in documents or personal writings.

You’re also ignoring the fact that Nagasaki was only bombed as an alternative to the original target, and poorly at that.

In fact, the Catholic presence of those cities might even be seen, if one wished, as a blessing from God for it would hold that more would go to Heaven than Hell all things considered. A predominantly Buddhist city, or a predominantly militaristic city would have in all likelihood seen less in a state of grace, no?

In the end, no one knows but those who know.

 

[Jesuit_Boy_63]

You’re insinuating that which is found nowhere in documents or personal writings.
You’re also ignoring the fact that Nagasaki was only bombed as an alternative to the original target, and poorly at that.
In fact, the Catholic presence of those cities might even be seen, if one wished, as a blessing from God for it would hold that more would go to Heaven than Hell all things considered. A predominantly Buddhist city, or a predominantly militaristic city would have in all likelihood seen less in a state of grace, no?
In the end, no one knows but those who know.

====================================================

That is a rather sweeping statement which presumes that you assert specific knowledge of the “non-existance” of corroborative documents or personal writings. As a matter of definition a personal writing is a document. Perhaps you meant to say “official document” or a “generally accepted document” or something similar. A “document” per se is simply something written down.
Getting back on point, my sources for my thoughts are Fr. Thomas Clancy, SJ, PhD, Prof of Poli-Sci at Loyola Univ - New Orleans; Prof. Jeremy Adams, PhD, History, SMU Dallas;
Prof. Eiechi Shimomisae, History, Univ. of Kyoto, Japan; and Fr. Vincent Miceli, SJ, PhD, Prof. Theology and Philosophy, The Gregorian University - Rome.
Now, the question posed in this thread was, “What do YOU think about Hiroshima?” I believe that I answered that question directly. As an additional side comment I stated that I could not help but wonder about the simple fact that those two cities in particular were destroyed by atomic bombs.
As to your comment that it might be seen as “a blessing from God”, that the people fried alive there were more likely to have been in the state of grace strikes me as a monumental presumption on your part. I trust in the mercy of God but dare not to presume to know His mind as to the state of grace of hundreds of thousands of souls.
AMDG.

 

[EddyDRR]

====================================================

That is a rather sweeping statement which presumes that you assert specific knowledge of the “non-existance” of corroborative documents or personal writings. As a matter of definition a personal writing is a document. Perhaps you meant to say “official document” or a “generally accepted document” or something similar. A “document” per se is simply something written down.
Getting back on point, my sources for my thoughts are Fr. Thomas Clancy, SJ, PhD, Prof of Poli-Sci at Loyola Univ - New Orleans; Prof. Jeremy Adams, PhD, History, SMU Dallas;
Prof. Eiechi Shimomisae, History, Univ. of Kyoto, Japan; and Fr. Vincent Miceli, SJ, PhD, Prof. Theology and Philosophy, The Gregorian University - Rome.
Now, the question posed in this thread was, “What do YOU think about Hiroshima?” I believe that I answered that question directly. As an additional side comment I stated that I could not help but wonder about the simple fact that those two cities in particular were destroyed by atomic bombs.
As to your comment that it might be seen as “a blessing from God”, that the people fried alive there were more likely to have been in the state of grace strikes me as a monumental presumption on your part. I trust in the mercy of God but dare not to presume to know His mind as to the state of grace of hundreds of thousands of souls.
AMDG.

Do you not make an equally sweeping statement by insinuating some dark Satanic cabal against the Catholics of Nagasaki? Something apparently only found in the fantasies of your Jesuit heroes? Where is the documentation on it? Why, if this is true, have no documents been brought forth to specifically say so? Why, if this was the goal, was Nagasaki the alternative target to the 2nd drop? Did the US Government manufacture clouds over the original target city? Is HAARP that old?

I find it disingenuous, nay, repugnant, that you would attempt to, in the process of not actually presenting any real information (I’m sorry, but you only provided names, not source documentation. Hearsay much?), you then seek to disenfranchise my mere questioning of where you get this opinion by engaging in a soap-box treatise on the correct terminology by fleshing out that which I said in terms of “documents”. Obviously, given that you perfectly said what I mean, that documents = official and personal writings = personal writings, as “documentary” as they might be. That actually is a rather egregious way of addressing someone as it smacks of you having no actual tenable position at all, and must seek to diminish the question and the questioner by lording over them false intellectualism. I shall now give Mr. Webster a headache and invent a new word: errorudite.

Jesuit conspiracy theories outside of the historically verified documents don’t lend any credence to themselves when they conflict with logical and reasonable explanations.

Who creates clouds, I wonder? And why would He allow them on a day when their absence could save so many Catholics instead of sending equal numbers to their almost certain spot in Hell?

I am not defending the bombings, just fighting the stupid theory put forth by men so rabid to find an enemy, they refuse to see how they become the enemy when putting forth such ridiculous self-victimization mentalities. It’s outright slander. If the Jesuits wish to shed light on the grave immorality of the bombings, fine, but no one wishes to hear that which is unprovable when there is documentation otherwise, and common sense just agrees.

If the bombing was meant to eradicate a Catholic city, nothing in the documents I’ve read indicate that as such. I cannot find any evidence when specifically search for that concept either, outside of those sources which, again, choose to ignore the chronological narrative and use logic and reason from there.

 

[Jesuit_Boy_63]

Do you not make an equally sweeping statement by insinuating some dark Satanic cabal against the Catholics of Nagasaki? Something apparently only found in the fantasies of your Jesuit heroes? Where is the documentation on it? Why, if this is true, have no documents been brought forth to specifically say so? Why, if this was the goal, was Nagasaki the alternative target to the 2nd drop? Did the US Government manufacture clouds over the original target city? Is HAARP that old?

I find it disingenuous, nay, repugnant, that you would attempt to, in the process of not actually presenting any real information (I’m sorry, but you only provided names, not source documentation. Hearsay much?), you then seek to disenfranchise my mere questioning of where you get this opinion by engaging in a soap-box treatise on the correct terminology by fleshing out that which I said in terms of “documents”. Obviously, given that you perfectly said what I mean, that documents = official and personal writings = personal writings, as “documentary” as they might be. That actually is a rather egregious way of addressing someone as it smacks of you having no actual tenable position at all, and must seek to diminish the question and the questioner by lording over them false intellectualism. I shall now give Mr. Webster a headache and invent a new word: errorudite.

Jesuit conspiracy theories outside of the historically verified documents don’t lend any credence to themselves when they conflict with logical and reasonable explanations.

Who creates clouds, I wonder? And why would He allow them on a day when their absence could save so many Catholics instead of sending equal numbers to their almost certain spot in Hell?

I am not defending the bombings, just fighting the stupid theory put forth by men so rabid to find an enemy, they refuse to see how they become the enemy when putting forth such ridiculous self-victimization mentalities. It’s outright slander. If the Jesuits wish to shed light on the grave immorality of the bombings, fine, but no one wishes to hear that which is unprovable when there is documentation otherwise, and common sense just agrees.

If the bombing was meant to eradicate a Catholic city, nothing in the documents I’ve read indicate that as such. I cannot find any evidence when specifically search for that concept either, outside of those sources which, again, choose to ignore the chronological narrative and use logic and reason from there.

====================================================

Ah, I see my mistake. I thought you were seriously discussing this issue. I answered the question posed at the start of the thread and simply wondered about the coincidences involved as an aside. You have taken an approach better suited to the unpleasant snipers on GC. So be it. I doubt if the moderator will allow this sort of thing to continue so I can always propose a solution, better suited to other locations such as GC, that we might discuss this early tomorrow morning - pistols for two, coffee for one.
(In case you are slow on the pick up, my comment is to express mild amusement and relegation of this discourse to the realm of absurdity.

 

[MariaGoretti88]

I don’t know all the details minus what we heard in school, but just thinking about those bombings, I’m so against it…

 

[Barb3]

MariaGoretti88 --whatwould you suggest as to how and when the United States would end the war??? What if your Dad was in the South Pacific?? What if a brother was on Guadacanal?? What if a friend was a POW of the Japanese and you learned after the end of the war the HORRIBLE treatment the Japanese gave their POW’S. It’s so easy to judge President Truman’s decision nearly 80 years later.
I’m old enough to remember the War – I remember Pearl Harbor very well – the bombing ended the war – Thank God!!!

 

[mdgspencer]

According to Catholic teaching, the whole population cannot be targeted.
The Japanese did do evil things. Last week on a tour in the Philippines, I learned about new infamies they carried out during the war in the city of Davao. But that does not give permission with God to do evil things in return. The original posting started, “as a Catholic…” Indiscrimately targeting the population of a whole city is against Catholic teaching. What can I think but that it is important to obey God?

MariaGoretti88 --whatwould you suggest as to how and when the United States would end the war??? What if your Dad was in the South Pacific?? What if a brother was on Guadacanal?? What if a friend was a POW of the Japanese and you learned after the end of the war the HORRIBLE treatment the Japanese gave their POW’S. It’s so easy to judge President Truman’s decision nearly 80 years later.
I’m old enough to remember the War – I remember Pearl Harbor very well – the bombing ended the war – Thank God!!!

 

[perro_sarnoso]

3 days that will live in infamy.

Pearl Harbor
Hiroshima
Nagasaki

 

[GKC]

As a Catholic I have always been troubled by the use of Nuclear weapons in any case and under any circumstances. As a retired Army officer and combat veteran I have no love for war but accept that under some circumstances it falls under the heading of ‘no other choice’. As a soldier I consider attacks against non-combatants to be dishonorable.

That being said, there is one other issue which has always troubled me regarding the targeting of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Coincidence is quite a stretch when one considers that these two cities were historically the centers of Roman Catholicism in Japan. I cannot help but wonder …

No. It played no part in the targeting decisions at all. Nagasaki, in fact, was the alternate target for the 2nd bomb. Had clouds and smoke not obscured it, Kokura, not Nagasaki, would have received Fat Man. Indeed, Nagasaki was only added to the list of targets after Kyoto was twice removed from it, by Sec of War Stimson. And it was the alternate target that day, due to proximity to Kokura.

GKC

 

[GKC]

You’re insinuating that which is found nowhere in documents or personal writings.

You’re also ignoring the fact that Nagasaki was only bombed as an alternative to the original target, and poorly at that.

In fact, the Catholic presence of those cities might even be seen, if one wished, as a blessing from God for it would hold that more would go to Heaven than Hell all things considered. A predominantly Buddhist city, or a predominantly militaristic city would have in all likelihood seen less in a state of grace, no?

In the end, no one knows but those who know.

The cloud cover over Nagasaki obscured the drop point to the extent that the A/C commander was in the process of violating one of the mission rules: to make a visual drop, not a radar one. But, at the literal last moment, the bombardier found a momentary hole, identified an alternate drop point, away from the more populated urban area, and thereby saved a number of lives.

The Bocks Car mission was snake-bit from the beginning.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Do you not make an equally sweeping statement by insinuating some dark Satanic cabal against the Catholics of Nagasaki? Something apparently only found in the fantasies of your Jesuit heroes? Where is the documentation on it? Why, if this is true, have no documents been brought forth to specifically say so? Why, if this was the goal, was Nagasaki the alternative target to the 2nd drop? Did the US Government manufacture clouds over the original target city? Is HAARP that old?

I find it disingenuous, nay, repugnant, that you would attempt to, in the process of not actually presenting any real information (I’m sorry, but you only provided names, not source documentation. Hearsay much?), you then seek to disenfranchise my mere questioning of where you get this opinion by engaging in a soap-box treatise on the correct terminology by fleshing out that which I said in terms of “documents”. Obviously, given that you perfectly said what I mean, that documents = official and personal writings = personal writings, as “documentary” as they might be. That actually is a rather egregious way of addressing someone as it smacks of you having no actual tenable position at all, and must seek to diminish the question and the questioner by lording over them false intellectualism. I shall now give Mr. Webster a headache and invent a new word: errorudite.

Jesuit conspiracy theories outside of the historically verified documents don’t lend any credence to themselves when they conflict with logical and reasonable explanations.

Who creates clouds, I wonder? And why would He allow them on a day when their absence could save so many Catholics instead of sending equal numbers to their almost certain spot in Hell?

I am not defending the bombings, just fighting the stupid theory put forth by men so rabid to find an enemy, they refuse to see how they become the enemy when putting forth such ridiculous self-victimization mentalities. It’s outright slander. If the Jesuits wish to shed light on the grave immorality of the bombings, fine, but no one wishes to hear that which is unprovable when there is documentation otherwise, and common sense just agrees.

If the bombing was meant to eradicate a Catholic city, nothing in the documents I’ve read indicate that as such. I cannot find any evidence when specifically search for that concept either, outside of those sources which, again, choose to ignore the chronological narrative and use logic and reason from there.

The end game in the PTO, and the use of the bombs, have been hobby areas of mine for over 10 years. I own around 65 books directly related to the subject, and include another 45 or so, from my WWII library, as peripherally related. In no study or commentary on the use of the bombs, including those of the more unhinged revisionists, have I found a serious assertion that the religion of the target cities had any effect at all. Save only that Kyoto was taken from the target list due to its cultural importance to Japan.

I do fear this thread will never end. And, if it does, it will rise again, around July. As always. Adds to my post count.

GKC

 

[MariaGoretti88]

MariaGoretti88 --whatwould you suggest as to how and when the United States would end the war??? What if your Dad was in the South Pacific?? What if a brother was on Guadacanal?? What if a friend was a POW of the Japanese and you learned after the end of the war the HORRIBLE treatment the Japanese gave their POW’S. It’s so easy to judge President Truman’s decision nearly 80 years later.
I’m old enough to remember the War – I remember Pearl Harbor very well – the bombing ended the war – Thank God!!!

Ends don’t justify means.

 

[GKC]

MariaGoretti88 --whatwould you suggest as to how and when the United States would end the war??? What if your Dad was in the South Pacific?? What if a brother was on Guadacanal?? What if a friend was a POW of the Japanese and you learned after the end of the war the HORRIBLE treatment the Japanese gave their POW’S. It’s so easy to judge President Truman’s decision nearly 80 years later.
I’m old enough to remember the War – I remember Pearl Harbor very well – the bombing ended the war – Thank God!!!

And it ended the war with the smallest number of casualties, of all sorts, of any possible method of doing so, save if we had surrendered to the Japanese.

As I’ve pointed out over the length of this thread.

GKC

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I am old enough to remember what I was doing when the first news about Pearl Harbor came over the radio, and I was old enough to follow all of WW II in the newspapers, and remember very well the end of the War in both Europe and the Pacific.
Being from an immigrant family, I had cousins who saw combat in every major (execpt the Japanese) Army in that war. I also am a student of history.
Throughout this discussion, I constantly read of opinions of
catholic anti-war teaching. Well, at the end of WW II I was in a Jesuit parochial school, and during the war, the carpet bombing in both Europe and Japan was widely reported in the US, and not one priest or Prelate of our church said anything against it. and, in fact, there was not one voice in the church raised against the use of the bomb. The first public religious objections arose during the 1960’s, as an off shoot of the anti-war movement along with the liberalization of the church.
In fact, much of the American clergy during the late '40s, '50’s and early 1960’s were glad we had the bomb because it kept the communist Russians at bay.
If you don’t believe this, just read the American and Western European newspapers of the time.
As for what is taught in most American public schools about the Bomb and the end of WW II is largely propaganda , strong on emotion and weak on fact.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

MariaGoretti88 --whatwould you suggest as to how and when the United States would end the war??? What if your Dad was in the South Pacific?? What if a brother was on Guadacanal?? What if a friend was a POW of the Japanese and you learned after the end of the war the HORRIBLE treatment the Japanese gave their POW’S. It’s so easy to judge President Truman’s decision nearly 80 years later.
I’m old enough to remember the War – I remember Pearl Harbor very well – the bombing ended the war – Thank God!!!

What if your mum, sister, aunty, grandmother walked around with their skin falling off in Hiroshima before they died.

The same God created all people.

Blessings

Eric