As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[exnihilo]

No, it isn’t. Didn’t you read the “intellectual and moral disgrace on a massive scale”? The author was criticizing the media and the intelligencia.

I guess you never saw any of the anti-communism films americanthinker.com/2007/10/the_buried_legacy_of_hollywood_1.html . The author makes the point that the unavailability of these films today is no accident. Hitler was second only to Joseph Stalin in the number of murders he caused,* yet we never hear about Stalin’s crimes, only Hitler’s.* This is also no accident.

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? I’m saying that the general public is not aware of the scale of murder carried out by the Soviets. I’m saying that schools and the mass media focus on Germany while ignoring the bigger evil, numerically, Russia.

How do you get the people to fight against a real threat if you don’t convince them of its reality? [Its morality is another question, except in the case of America, its motives are always immoral, never its enemies’.]

Hopefully for a war it does not take much convincing. The evidence should be clear. In practice the evidence is usually not clear and or outright lies. ‘Making the case for war’ is going to be making the case for an unjust war.

 

[ETEXAS]

I disagree. It is attempt to prey on Americans’ guilt phobia. If this were an honest question, why haven’t those who ask it first and foremost ask was the attack on Pearl Harbor a moral act? What about the Rape of Nanking? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking

What about the 20th century’s deka-megamurders:

61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse

hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

Nothing is ever mentioned about these; it’s only America that has to suffer rebuke because it tried to end the insanity of the rest of the world. BTW, in his biography of General Douglas MacArthur, American Caesar, William Manchester mentioned that MacArthur increased the Japanese life expectancy by 5 years in his relatively short term as head of the military occupation of Japan. No one would know this unless he’d read the book.

This is Manichaean: either you are a good Catholic and thus a bad American, or you are a good American and thus a bad Catholic. There is no other choice. As a Catholic, I consider my obligation is to defend my country against unjust criticism.

I find that your questioning America as a result of the use of the A-bomb virtually guarantees a “double standard” that America is judged by and that I reject.

Liberal author Peter Beinart similarly “seeks legitimacy” for America’s power and holds America up to the “highest standards” of democracy and human rights. The notion of holding a nation to a “higher standard” than other nations is nothing more than “cultural Leninism” – the worldview that all life is a struggle between economic classes, but applied to nations instead. Thus, morality of a nation is determined not by its actions measured against any objective standard such as tradition or international law, but inversely proportional to its perceived degree of military power. Since communism failed, the Left must hand America a defeat to equalize the situation. Therefore, according to Beinart and the lamenters of the bomb, because America is militarily strong, it is immoral and needs to be made “legitimate” by denying its use of its military, deployed or not. Thus, America must now legitimize itself by meeting “highest standards” of human rights – standards not expected of any other nation.

The fact of the matter is, America will NEVER live up to Beinart’s and its critics’ “highest standards” expectations because they can always be ratcheted up. Jettisoning objective international law as a yardstick has allowed Beinart, and other Left-thinkers like him, to seek those higher standards. Thus, only America has to redeem itself for committing an unforgivable.

---

“The more America does to improve itself, the more unbearable become its remaining shortcomings.”

Right ON! An actual linear thinker on the Thread not some sucker thinking they at a some Monterey Pop Festival “LOVE IN” Make love not war maaaaaaaan! Get past it.

 

[Godfollower]

I disagree. It is attempt to prey on Americans’ guilt phobia. If this were an honest question, why haven’t those who ask it first and foremost ask was the attack on Pearl Harbor a moral act? What about the Rape of Nanking? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking

What about the 20th century’s deka-megamurders:

61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse

hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

If we agree with you that those incidents were immoral, would you agree with us that setting off an atomic weapon on a city is immoral?

 

[Godfollower]

smichhertz;8130555:

Exactly, its the indiscriminate nature of the Hiroshima bombing that makes it (in my opinion) immoral.

Would you feel less concerned if attacks were more discriminate, as in genocide?

CCC 2313: … Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

You stopped reading one sentence too soon:

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶ 2314.

 

[smichhertz]

Right ON! An actual linear thinker on the Thread not some sucker thinking they at a some Monterey Pop Festival “LOVE IN” Make love not war maaaaaaaan! Get past it.

No one on this thread is advocating pacifism. I’m all for waging war, as long as it is just. Simply declaring a particular act of war immoral doesn’t mean that war itself is immoral.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

No one on this thread is advocating pacifism. I’m all for waging war, as long as it is just. Simply declaring a particular act of war immoral doesn’t mean that war itself is immoral.

I would agree. Warfare may be conducted for legitimate or just reasons. However, that doesn’t give free license to act without any considerations or limits.

 

[sw85]

The alternative is to let evil continue its course, which in and of itself is evil. It is moral to do “good,” while knowing the end will be evil?

The alternative is to find a way to fight evil that is not, itself, evil.

 

[sedonaman]

It’s quite true that the atomic bombings were not the worst of the horrors of the twentieth century. Anyone who reads “The Black Book of Communism” will see that the deaths they caused pale in comparison to those deliberately inflicted by evil regimes. If so much attention is focused on these war ending actions to the extent that we ignore the worse genocides that followed, we risk not learning from history.

Mega

 

[sedonaman]

What? Of course not. You’re putting words in my mouth. Simply because an act of war is discriminate doesn’t mean it’s licit.

My point is simply that each act of war must be directed toward a legitimate target. Hence, indiscriminate acts are immoral as they do not at least attempt discriminating between civilian and combatant.

That’s not to say that every discriminate act is necessarily morally licit. I never said anything like that.

Let me try to make my point another way. There are different degrees of immorality. You steal a nickle from Bill Gates; I steal a laborer’s $900 paycheck. Who committed the worse sin? It’s the same with the A-bomb argument. In the analogy, you are the U.S. and I am Stalin. The way I see it, for over 65 years we’ve been wringing our hands and reciting mea culpae over how immoral it was for you to steal Gate’s nickle while ignoring my crime against humanity. I might add that there never would have been any A-bomb attacks if certain countries had not embarked on aggressive wars of conquests, which are also immoral.

 

[sedonaman]

The alternative is to let evil continue its course, which in and of itself is evil. It is moral to do “good,” while knowing the end will be evil?

No. I think it was JP II himself who said that it would be immoral to let evil triumph.

 

[Godfollower]

Let me try to make my point another way. There are different degrees of immorality. You steal a nickle from Bill Gates; I steal a laborer’s $900 paycheck. Who committed the worse sin? It’s the same with the A-bomb argument. In the analogy, you are the U.S. and I am Stalin. The way I see it, for over 65 years we’ve been wringing our hands and reciting mea culpae over how immoral it was for you to steal Gate’s nickle while ignoring my crime against humanity. I might add that there never would have been any A-bomb attacks if certain countries had not embarked on aggressive wars of conquests, which are also immoral.

I don’t really see it that way, because no one’s out there arguing that Stalin acted morally. No one’s claiming that the Bataan Death March was moral. No one’s claiming that the Holocaust was moral (although some idiots claim it didn’t happen). No one’s claiming that Pearl Harbor was moral.

Some people are claiming that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were moral, which raises the question: “How, given the Catechism’s prohibition on indiscriminate killing of noncombatants?” So you have one group saying it was moral, and another saying it wasn’t.

That’s a debate.

There is no debate about the other examples, because no one showed up at the other podium.

 

[smichhertz]

Let me try to make my point another way. There are different degrees of immorality. You steal a nickle from Bill Gates; I steal a laborer’s $900 paycheck. Who committed the worse sin? It’s the same with the A-bomb argument. In the analogy, you are the U.S. and I am Stalin. The way I see it, for over 65 years we’ve been wringing our hands and reciting mea culpae over how immoral it was for you to steal Gate’s nickle while ignoring my crime against humanity. I might add that there never would have been any A-bomb attacks if certain countries had not embarked on aggressive wars of conquests, which are also immoral.

Ah, I see. So you agree that the bombing of Hiroshima was immoral, you just think there are worse things besides that. Now I understand your genocide comment.

I can understand your general sentiment, but the topic the OP put forward is Hiroshima, so that’s the question we’re trying to answer here. I can certainly agree that Germany and Japan committed many immoral atrocities, but that still doesn’t justify the bombing of Hiroshima. If something’s immoral, than it’s immoral and you shouldn’t do it.

And yes, Japan and Germany were undoubtedly the unjust aggressors. Pearl Harbor was undoubtedly an immoral act. We were completely justified in entering WWII.

 

[Godfollower]

No. I think it was JP II himself who said that it would be immoral to let evil triumph.

He also promulgated the Catechism, which states in part:

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Catechism ¶ 1756.

 

[sedonaman]

I don’t really see it that way, because no one’s out there arguing that Stalin acted morally. No one’s claiming that the Bataan Death March was moral. No one’s claiming that the Holocaust was moral (although some idiots claim it didn’t happen). No one’s claiming that Pearl Harbor was moral.
…
That’s a debate.

There is no debate about the other examples, because no one showed up at the other podium.

Yes, they are claiming they are moral by ignoring them or giving them a pass, just like they ignored the Harvest of Sorrow.

The reason no one showed up at the other podium is there are no other podiums. The media create the podiums and decide what the debates are going to be, and they decided that America’s sins are the debate; no others are entertained.

 

[Godfollower]

Yes, they are claiming they are moral by ignoring them or giving them a pass, just like they ignored the Harvest of Sorrow.

The reason no one showed up at the other podium is there are no other podiums. The media create the podiums and decide what the debates are going to be, and they decided that America’s sins are the debate; no others are entertained.

All right, then; let me put it this way:

As a Catholic, What do you think about 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State?

It was immoral.
As a Catholic, What do you think about 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill?
It was immoral.
As a Catholic, What do you think about 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State?
It was immoral.
As a Catholic, What do you think about 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime?
It was immoral.
As a Catholic, What do you think about 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military?
It was immoral.
As a Catholic, What do you think about 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State?
It was immoral.
As a Catholic, What do you think about 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges?
It was immoral.
As a Catholic, What do you think about 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State?
It was immoral.
As a Catholic, What do you think about 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing?
It was immoral.
As a Catholic, What do you think about 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State?
It was immoral.
As a Catholic, What do you think about 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse?
It was immoral.
As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?
It was immoral.​

 

[JimG]

Yes, they are claiming they are moral by ignoring them or giving them a pass, just like they ignored the Harvest of Sorrow.

The reason no one showed up at the other podium is there are no other podiums. The media create the podiums and decide what the debates are going to be, and they decided that America’s sins are the debate; no others are entertained.

I understand this point. It has been sometimes pointed out that the atrocities of the twentieth century, enumerated in several posts above referring to “the 20th century’s deka-megamurders,” outnumber all the atrocities of the past 2,000 years combined, perhaps all of prior history. People are often astonished to hear this, because it has never been taught. And some of the atrocities of communism had to await the fall of the soviet union before being fully revealed and documented.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not even the worst of the immoralities of WW-II, even on the Allied side. Yet it is these that we return to year after year. We don’t have memorials of the fire bombing of Tokyo, the Bataan death march, the Soviet Gulags, Stalin’s mass starvations, or others.

 

[sedonaman]

He also promulgated the Catechism, which states in part:

Catechism ¶ 1756.

That’s all well and good, but you are asking President Truman to consider in 1945 what a 2002 pope was going to say. Did Pope Pius XII condemn WMDs before the war? They certainly existed in the form of poison gas in WW-I.

 

[Warrior1979]

The alternative is to find a way to fight evil that is not, itself, evil.

I’m all ears as to what those solutions are. It’s nice to talk in platitudes, but when it comes to specifics, suddenly silence ensues.

 

[Lui]

I think the war would have ended anyway and Truman just wanted to test the new technology. I don’t think that was the best option. Germany’s collapse and the intensive bombing of Japan and the surprise attack of the Soviet Union would have ended the war anyway.

WWII was so horrendous though that it is almost impossible to have an opinion. My German grandfather fought in Russia as a simple soldier(he wasn’t a Nazi). When he came back from the war he was a traumatized person. He refused to eat off normal dishes and just ate off his army dish ware for a few weeks. He told my mother that what he saw his own troops(who weren’t Nazis) do was the most barbaric things you can imagine, like locking people in a shed and setting it on fire, burning them alive. After the war the former Nazis would still talk about the good ol’ war days while they were having a drink at bars. When my grandfather got upset at them and argued with them, they mocked him. Even Oscar Schindler was being assaulted. Now he is considered a hero but during his final years in Frankfurt he wasn’t. He died as an alcoholic.

I find it hard to judge because I can’t even imagine what is must have been like to have been in WWII. I know Germany and Japan started the war but I don’t think my German grandparents who owned a simple flower shop were responsible. My grandfather first had to fight, if he wanted or not, and then work in Belgium mines as a prisoner of war for an additional couple of years after the war ended. My grandmother was completely bombed out. In her home city Cologne there was not one stone left on top of the other, except for the famous Catholic Cathedral that survived the bombing. Everything else was destroyed.
I saw a documentary where the Canadian air pilots got together with the civilians who were being bombed. They met each other at a gathering 50 years later. The Germans told how it was when the bombing took place and the Canadian pilots cried and said they were just fighting Nazi Germany but coming face to face was really tear jerking for both sides.

I also saw a documentary on the US soldiers who fought in the Normandy and what they went through. One Christian soldier kept a diary and at the end he lost all faith because of what he witnessed.
I think about 30 million Soviets died so there were no “winners” at the end, except maybe the devil who rubbed his hands.

So I can’t really judge if Hiroshima was just.

 

[Neildown]

I can’t really pick between either two choices in reality, but I chose “we had to do it”.

Of course it was morally wrong - all warfare is. The fact that nations try to kill each other is an unfortunate fact of life which is morally wrong, but it can’t be stopped.

Hiroshima was one of those unfortunate times, and I think America, as well as the rest of the world, was tired of the war going on. We, especially, were tired of Japan, not surprisingly after Pearl Harbor. A lot of people were infuriated at the audacity of attacking one of our bases before a formal declaration of war. The war went on for some time, and the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought it to a dead stop. I assume this action - though it was absolutely horrific - probably prevented more bloodshed than the alternative would have.