As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[GKC]

I guess the bottom line has to be: It was a war crime, but it was necessary, and possibly the lesser of two evils.
This then throws a new light on the War-Crime trials, which then are by this definition, ‘Victors’ Justice’.
Thus many good German and Japanese officers were murdered under the guise of ‘justice’, and America’s refusal to accept treaties of international law fall into place.
So, America, and G_d help us, UK have hands just as dirty as our enemies, past and present.
War is dirty, and no-one comes out of it clean.
So, an apology is necessary, but a qualified apology.
Forgiveness is required by both parties.
From one party for forcing the other into sin, and from the other for committing the sin.

War crimes as to the bombs is your conclusion. I’m not interested in it.That they were the lesser of two evils is my conclusion. You are not necessarily interested in that.

Victors’ justice it certainly was, post-war, but not necessarily injustice, for all that. The 3 classes of war criminals tried included some few that were probably convicted unjustly, Generals Homma and Yamashita, in particular (Taylor/A TRAIL OF GENERALS). But, in general, the problem was much less that innocent individuals were convicted as that guilty ones were not, or not tried. Shiro Ishii, of the infamous Unit 731, in particular. For an idea of what sort of things class C Japanese war criminals might have been tried for (and were), see Dawes/PRISONERS OF THE JAPANESE.

The German trials were somewhat the same. The main injustice was in those who escaped justice.

War is dirty. And sometimes necessary. It is desirable not to have such past-times. If unavoidable, ending the war, with the least cost in lives, is the the moral imperative. This is not a point I discuss, but it is what drives my continued history lesson.

Two planes. Two bombs. No more war.

Good.

GKC

 

[jonbhorton]

I guess the bottom line has to be: It was a war crime, but it was necessary, and possibly the lesser of two evils.
This then throws a new light on the War-Crime trials, which then are by this definition, ‘Victors’ Justice’.
Thus many good German and Japanese officers were murdered under the guise of ‘justice’, and America’s refusal to accept treaties of international law fall into place.
So, America, and G_d help us, UK have hands just as dirty as our enemies, past and present.
War is dirty, and no-one comes out of it clean.
So, an apology is necessary, but a qualified apology.
Forgiveness is required by both parties.
From one party for forcing the other into sin, and from the other for committing the sin.

What are you using to qualify it as a war crime?

If it was, a qualified apology is more insulting than no apology.

Forgiveness took form in the US helping the Japanese rebuild and becoming one of the most technologically prolific countries in the world. Japan has no reason to be rich except for the USA’s help. It would have been totally easy for the Allied powers to make the former Axis powers anathema in all things politics. It could easily have taken a different turn. It didn’t. It was not allowed to. You’re ignoring the obvious.

You’re taking all sorts of things, which have to be considered, out of context and it seems out of the equation in total.

What next, forcing abused wives to apologize for restraining orders which fall under the Lautenberg Amendment, because their abusive husband lost his job which required the carrying of a firearm?

Lady Liberty doesn’t need to apologize for an attack on her and her children which caused a counter-campaign, and resulted in the aggressor getting the smack down laid on them.

You do not understand war. IF you did, you would be fighting as a pacifist against it (lost cause), and when the other side brings hostilities, you would step aside and let the warriors do their job; not understanding it, you’d fight the warriors too and find yourself waylaid by the aggressor they were trying to protect you from.

The only option in a Japanese mind at the time, based on what they knew, was: win, or die trying. The nuclear factor changed the equation, and for the first time, Japan realized the national consequence of that individual mentality and considered, and affected, surrender.

To have held off on ending the war quickly via leading numbers to their death approaching 1 million would have been a war crime, given the moral position you’re taking. The wanton and rampant destruction a land invasion would have brought to the infrastructure, already heavily damaged, would have been a war crime- for another option, albeit hard to stomach, existed. To pontificate on it in baseless rantings is a crime against your own brain and potential further understanding.

If a crime exists in the retroactive couch-coaching of the All-American team, it is miscalling their plays on a field they never wanted to be on in the first place, in a game which is not understood by the refs/coach, by rules which boil down to semantics and circumstance- which are also misunderstood.

Perhaps ingrained, and unrealized, American-Exceptionalism as Stalin intended the term is the issue. It would help to quit believing what is ultimately Marxist propaganda in regard to revisionist history. Everyone hates the warrior when the war is done now. Hate the warrior of 1945 if you want, but don’t come crawling to his grand-kids when we see this aggression happen again. We, the grand-kids, don’t take too kindly to being told our granddad was a war criminal- particularly when it isn’t true.

If you wanna harp on the grand-kids of war criminals from WW2, might I suggest a German, Japanese, Russian, or Italian forum, though specifically Japanese for this issue. They exist there in droves as the offspring of the men who made the Axis powers and forced the issue to the place it ended.

Further, as you will see in these documents (<<Link) which have a necessary weight on a moral determination, they were not declassified, generally, until around the mid-70’s. This is well after Pope Pius XII, the Second Vatican Council, and the recent remarks from Bishops which basically echo the V-II sentiment. A sentiment which is largely uninformed due to the necessary classification of the information.

You will also see a memo from Dr. Oppenheimer, and the entire effect of the radiation is, while acknowledged to a partial degree, apparently misunderstood in its full scope, or, is already factored in to determine if they should go ahead. I cannot conclusively state the latter, but, I can opine on the total idea.

Unless the Vatican had covert agents with access to these documents as far back as the middle of the 1950’s, the Church’s opinion on this is just simply not formed from the full scope of the information. While the Church may repeat itself, arriving at the same conclusion held now, based on the actual information which preceded the bombing, mere statements which have only part of the information are but worthless.

 

[Abenader111]

The Japanese were lucky and should be thankful that the US dropped the 2 bombs, they would have lost ten fold the amount if we had to ground assault Japan, the bombs saved many more lives than lost, therefore it was moral and just. The Japanese should have just surrendered knowing they had a total lost cause, they committed the immoral act. Humans have the right to save lives.

 

[GKC]

The Japanese were lucky and should be thankful that the US dropped the 2 bombs, they would have lost ten fold the amount if we had to ground assault Japan, the bombs saved many more lives than lost, therefore it was moral and just. The Japanese should have just surrendered knowing they had a total lost cause, they committed the immoral act. Humans have the right to save lives.

In general, I agree.

GKC

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

What are you using to qualify it as a war crime?

If it was, a qualified apology is more insulting than no apology.

Forgiveness took form in the US helping the Japanese rebuild and becoming one of the most technologically prolific countries in the world. Japan has no reason to be rich except for the USA’s help. It would have been totally easy for the Allied powers to make the former Axis powers anathema in all things politics. It could easily have taken a different turn. It didn’t. It was not allowed to. You’re ignoring the obvious.

You’re taking all sorts of things, which have to be considered, out of context and it seems out of the equation in total.

What next, forcing abused wives to apologize for restraining orders which fall under the Lautenberg Amendment, because their abusive husband lost his job which required the carrying of a firearm?

Lady Liberty doesn’t need to apologize for an attack on her and her children which caused a counter-campaign, and resulted in the aggressor getting the smack down laid on them.

You do not understand war. IF you did, you would be fighting as a pacifist against it (lost cause), and when the other side brings hostilities, you would step aside and let the warriors do their job; not understanding it, you’d fight the warriors too and find yourself waylaid by the aggressor they were trying to protect you from.

The only option in a Japanese mind at the time, based on what they knew, was: win, or die trying. The nuclear factor changed the equation, and for the first time, Japan realized the national consequence of that individual mentality and considered, and affected, surrender.

To have held off on ending the war quickly via leading numbers to their death approaching 1 million would have been a war crime, given the moral position you’re taking. The wanton and rampant destruction a land invasion would have brought to the infrastructure, already heavily damaged, would have been a war crime- for another option, albeit hard to stomach, existed. To pontificate on it in baseless rantings is a crime against your own brain and potential further understanding.

If a crime exists in the retroactive couch-coaching of the All-American team, it is miscalling their plays on a field they never wanted to be on in the first place, in a game which is not understood by the refs/coach, by rules which boil down to semantics and circumstance- which are also misunderstood.

Perhaps ingrained, and unrealized, American-Exceptionalism as Stalin intended the term is the issue. It would help to quit believing what is ultimately Marxist propaganda in regard to revisionist history. Everyone hates the warrior when the war is done now. Hate the warrior of 1945 if you want, but don’t come crawling to his grand-kids when we see this aggression happen again. We, the grand-kids, don’t take too kindly to being told our granddad was a war criminal- particularly when it isn’t true.

If you wanna harp on the grand-kids of war criminals from WW2, might I suggest a German, Japanese, Russian, or Italian forum, though specifically Japanese for this issue. They exist there in droves as the offspring of the men who made the Axis powers and forced the issue to the place it ended.

Further, as you will see in these documents (<<Link) which have a necessary weight on a moral determination, they were not declassified, generally, until around the mid-70’s. This is well after Pope Pius XII, the Second Vatican Council, and the recent remarks from Bishops which basically echo the V-II sentiment. A sentiment which is largely uninformed due to the necessary classification of the information.

You will also see a memo from Dr. Oppenheimer, and the entire effect of the radiation is, while acknowledged to a partial degree, apparently misunderstood in its full scope, or, is already factored in to determine if they should go ahead. I cannot conclusively state the latter, but, I can opine on the total idea.

Unless the Vatican had covert agents with access to these documents as far back as the middle of the 1950’s, the Church’s opinion on this is just simply not formed from the full scope of the information. While the Church may repeat itself, arriving at the same conclusion held now, based on the actual information which preceded the bombing, mere statements which have only part of the information are but worthless.

You question War-Crime, and you are a Catholic. I find that incomprehensible.
Forgiveness requires repentance. That is basic. Repentance is embodied in an apology, but both side need to repent, so both sides need to apologise. That is the meaning of the phrase: ‘qualified apology’.
Innocents were deliberately targeted, and what is worse, when the landings occurred, the scientists studied the victims, but did not render help. They used it as a massive human experiment.
Clearly many Americans are every bit as brainwashed as the poor Japanese were.
I find your misguided pride saddening, but unsurprising, for what did your forebears do to your aborigines?
It knocks what Hitler did into the 3rd division.

What the Spanish did to their aborigines in the Southern continent was accidental, they did not deliberately spread the plagues which annihilated their aborigines, they did not understand the medical science as we do now.

Do not be so proud of your Lady Liberty, presented to you by Lady France, whom you were so quick to condemn when she had the gaul to rebuke you for your illegal adventures in Iraq.

 

[GKC]

What are you using to qualify it as a war crime?

If it was, a qualified apology is more insulting than no apology.

Forgiveness took form in the US helping the Japanese rebuild and becoming one of the most technologically prolific countries in the world. Japan has no reason to be rich except for the USA’s help. It would have been totally easy for the Allied powers to make the former Axis powers anathema in all things politics. It could easily have taken a different turn. It didn’t. It was not allowed to. You’re ignoring the obvious.

You’re taking all sorts of things, which have to be considered, out of context and it seems out of the equation in total.

What next, forcing abused wives to apologize for restraining orders which fall under the Lautenberg Amendment, because their abusive husband lost his job which required the carrying of a firearm?

Lady Liberty doesn’t need to apologize for an attack on her and her children which caused a counter-campaign, and resulted in the aggressor getting the smack down laid on them.

You do not understand war. IF you did, you would be fighting as a pacifist against it (lost cause), and when the other side brings hostilities, you would step aside and let the warriors do their job; not understanding it, you’d fight the warriors too and find yourself waylaid by the aggressor they were trying to protect you from.

The only option in a Japanese mind at the time, based on what they knew, was: win, or die trying. The nuclear factor changed the equation, and for the first time, Japan realized the national consequence of that individual mentality and considered, and affected, surrender.

To have held off on ending the war quickly via leading numbers to their death approaching 1 million would have been a war crime, given the moral position you’re taking. The wanton and rampant destruction a land invasion would have brought to the infrastructure, already heavily damaged, would have been a war crime- for another option, albeit hard to stomach, existed. To pontificate on it in baseless rantings is a crime against your own brain and potential further understanding.

If a crime exists in the retroactive couch-coaching of the All-American team, it is miscalling their plays on a field they never wanted to be on in the first place, in a game which is not understood by the refs/coach, by rules which boil down to semantics and circumstance- which are also misunderstood.

Perhaps ingrained, and unrealized, American-Exceptionalism as Stalin intended the term is the issue. It would help to quit believing what is ultimately Marxist propaganda in regard to revisionist history. Everyone hates the warrior when the war is done now. Hate the warrior of 1945 if you want, but don’t come crawling to his grand-kids when we see this aggression happen again. We, the grand-kids, don’t take too kindly to being told our granddad was a war criminal- particularly when it isn’t true.

If you wanna harp on the grand-kids of war criminals from WW2, might I suggest a German, Japanese, Russian, or Italian forum, though specifically Japanese for this issue. They exist there in droves as the offspring of the men who made the Axis powers and forced the issue to the place it ended.

Further, as you will see in these documents (<<Link) which have a necessary weight on a moral determination, they were not declassified, generally, until around the mid-70’s. This is well after Pope Pius XII, the Second Vatican Council, and the recent remarks from Bishops which basically echo the V-II sentiment. A sentiment which is largely uninformed due to the necessary classification of the information.

You will also see a memo from Dr. Oppenheimer, and the entire effect of the radiation is, while acknowledged to a partial degree, apparently misunderstood in its full scope, or, is already factored in to determine if they should go ahead. I cannot conclusively state the latter, but, I can opine on the total idea.

Unless the Vatican had covert agents with access to these documents as far back as the middle of the 1950’s, the Church’s opinion on this is just simply not formed from the full scope of the information. While the Church may repeat itself, arriving at the same conclusion held now, based on the actual information which preceded the bombing, mere statements which have only part of the information are but worthless.

My reference library includes the bulk of the open source authors listed in the footnotes. Not that I actually counted.

I didn’t look for the reference to Oppenheimer, but the results of the Trinity test gave an inaccurate expectation on the radiation, as to how long it would remain a danger. Oppie had a data base sample of precisely one at the time. Hence the plan Marshall was considering.

GKC

 

[jonbhorton]

You question War-Crime, and you are a Catholic. I find that incomprehensible.
Forgiveness requires repentance. That is basic. Repentance is embodied in an apology, but both side need to repent, so both sides need to apologise. That is the meaning of the phrase: ‘qualified apology’.
Innocents were deliberately targeted, and what is worse, when the landings occurred, the scientists studied the victims, but did not render help. They used it as a massive human experiment.
Clearly many Americans are every bit as brainwashed as the poor Japanese were.
I find your misguided pride saddening, but unsurprising, for what did your forebears do to your aborigines?
It knocks what Hitler did into the 3rd division.

What the Spanish did to their aborigines in the Southern continent was accidental, they did not deliberately spread the plagues which annihilated their aborigines, they did not understand the medical science as we do now.

Do not be so proud of your Lady Liberty, presented to you by Lady France, whom you were so quick to condemn when she had the gaul to rebuke you for your illegal adventures in Iraq.

The guilty verdict for a crime requires a trial, of which there is none in history of any weight, by any determining body. The United States has never been brought to trial, ergo, no verdict exists. We can’t just go making things up in light of present systems and call that official.

If you wish to present the case of a war crime, present the case, otherwise, leave your accusations at the door.

Your use of incidents relating to a government and people not in charge in 1945, to condemn the government and people in charge in 1945 is not even pedantic, it’s just shallow, though lacking logic through every meandering turn. The circumstances relating to the crimes against the tribes are completely removed from this discussion. For what it’s worth, biological warfare isn’t an American invention. Additionally, some seem to have this idea that the tribes were this peaceful conglomerate and the white man came and ruined it. Again, myopically fallacious and revisionist to boot. Further, we are not discussing an issue of occupation, which has its own headaches to flesh out, but the ending of a war by putting an ultimatum on the table.

As the documents I linked to address practically every objection in this thread, and expound on the reasons why, it must be understood that the men who made the decisions in the process grappled with the same objections presented against them.

They overcame those objections, and, despite some of the documents alluding to a possible Japanese desire to end the war, Japan, in trying to save pride, never addressed this desire in an official manner to the United States as far as I can tell.
So, in this regard, it seems Russia is the culpable party and not the US, for Russia basically ignored the Japanese.

Even worse, the Prime Minister declared the following after the Potsdam Declaration, which, if accepted, would have ended the war: “We can only ignore [mokusatsu] it. We will do our utmost to complete the war to the bitter end.”(Hasegawa, 168; Bix, 518.) Source: the GWU page, explanation of document 36

Catch that? Bitter end. Well, if written history is hindsight’s factotum, they got it, boy, in droves. Bitter as can be.

If you want to talk about the French, feel free to start a thread on the FFL. It is the entity which goes to places and does France’s dirty work while their people sit around and complain about a military which doesn’t, as a matter of course, inculcate a hardness in a man which enables him to conduct the operations the Legionaires do.

As you are not interested in discussion, facts, or common sense, I consider our transaction complete.

 

[jonbhorton]

My reference library includes the bulk of the open source authors listed in the footnotes. Not that I actually counted.

I didn’t look for the reference to Oppenheimer, but the results of the Trinity test gave an inaccurate expectation on the radiation, as to how long it would remain a danger. Oppie had a data base sample of precisely one at the time. Hence the plan Marshall was considering.

GKC

Roger. My sentence regarding the radiation was muddy in light of your revelation of the Marshall plan’s use of the bombs and the impact it would have on US troops.

Have you any sources on the post-war military/government reaction to the effects of the radiation? I’d be interested in understanding their reaction to the full understanding of the bomb’s effects in light of what they had previously assumed.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jonbhorton,

Ah… where to begin … let me start here and then move to just a few items.

I read Voco proTatiano’s response - and I guess he will stay both amazed and in a state of revisionist confusion. Hardly good territory to be in. As I read his post I had the thought of a planter finding a ‘revisionist’ tree and then taking a branch of ''ad hominem" comments spliced in with a branch of "non sequitur ‘’ comments and grafting them together. As I see it, the post just not address the issues and goes quite far afield to criticize our country.

The one observation I have really deals with, not a lack of understanding about war - but, a real lack of gratitude for the men who sacrificed greatly to bring the war to an end. And, that would include stopping those V-2’s from bringing death and destruction to English cities.

It is easy today to criticize the efforts of others - but, maybe some thought should be given to what would have happened had the Nazis been victorious by dropping an atomic bomb on London? Or the Japanese dropping an atomic bomb on San Francisco? These now conquering governments did not suffer criticism for long - and concentration camps via death marches would have probably taken care of much of the discontent we hear today.

Oh, how I wish we had a perfect world, with godly leaders who truly worked for the common good. Until someone like St. Francis runs for political office - we are all confronted with the potential horrors of war and the haunting ambiguity of not knowing the right thing to do. Actually, what is being found out is that about 25% troops returning from the fighting in the Middle East are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - and many have as the root cause - ‘moral injury’ ptsd.va.gov/professional/pages/moral_injury_at_war.asp It is the lack of clear targets that conform to what we think of as an armed enemy soldier - not a small child wearing a suicide vest detonated by the adult hiding behind a wall.

God bless

What are you using to qualify it as a war crime?

If it was, a qualified apology is more insulting than no apology.

Forgiveness took form in the US helping the Japanese rebuild and becoming one of the most technologically prolific countries in the world. Japan has no reason to be rich except for the USA’s help. It would have been totally easy for the Allied powers to make the former Axis powers anathema in all things politics. It could easily have taken a different turn. It didn’t. It was not allowed to. You’re ignoring the obvious.

You’re taking all sorts of things, which have to be considered, out of context and it seems out of the equation in total.

What next, forcing abused wives to apologize for restraining orders which fall under the Lautenberg Amendment, because their abusive husband lost his job which required the carrying of a firearm?

Lady Liberty doesn’t need to apologize for an attack on her and her children which caused a counter-campaign, and resulted in the aggressor getting the smack down laid on them.

You do not understand war. IF you did, you would be fighting as a pacifist against it (lost cause), and when the other side brings hostilities, you would step aside and let the warriors do their job; not understanding it, you’d fight the warriors too and find yourself waylaid by the aggressor they were trying to protect you from.

The only option in a Japanese mind at the time, based on what they knew, was: win, or die trying. The nuclear factor changed the equation, and for the first time, Japan realized the national consequence of that individual mentality and considered, and affected, surrender.

To have held off on ending the war quickly via leading numbers to their death approaching 1 million would have been a war crime, given the moral position you’re taking. The wanton and rampant destruction a land invasion would have brought to the infrastructure, already heavily damaged, would have been a war crime- for another option, albeit hard to stomach, existed. To pontificate on it in baseless rantings is a crime against your own brain and potential further understanding.

If a crime exists in the retroactive couch-coaching of the All-American team, it is miscalling their plays on a field they never wanted to be on in the first place, in a game which is not understood by the refs/coach, by rules which boil down to semantics and circumstance- which are also misunderstood.

Perhaps ingrained, and unrealized, American-Exceptionalism as Stalin intended the term is the issue. It would help to quit believing what is ultimately Marxist propaganda in regard to revisionist history. Everyone hates the warrior when the war is done now. Hate the warrior of 1945 if you want, but don’t come crawling to his grand-kids when we see this aggression happen again. We, the grand-kids, don’t take too kindly to being told our granddad was a war criminal- particularly when it isn’t true.

 

[GKC]

Roger. My sentence regarding the radiation was muddy in light of your revelation of the Marshall plan’s use of the bombs and the impact it would have on US troops.

Have you any sources on the post-war military/government reaction to the effects of the radiation? I’d be interested in understanding their reaction to the full understanding of the bomb’s effects in light of what they had previously assumed.

It is possible I do, but the subject is not in my sandbox. If I see anything pertinent, I’ll post it.

GKC

 

[GKC]

*Mokusatsu * (literally, “kill with silence”) covers a range of meanings to the Japanese: take no notice/treat with silent contempt/ignore.

Suzuki was basically in the peace camp on the Supreme Committee for the Conduct of the War, but he was pressed to make a strong rejection of the Potsdam Declaration by the Anami war hawk faction. And, as the power politics were, in Japan, he did so. A good account is found in Frank/DOWNFALL, pp. 234-235.

Max Hastings, in RETRIBUTION, made a good observation to the effect that throughout the war, the Japanese took no notice of the relationship of the state of the war at a given time, and their ability to control the end of the war, as if time was in their control. There was always the concept of the decisive battle, to change the tide, plus the superiority of the spirit of Yamato. The decisive battle was a central, though morphing, concept in Japanese military thinking, throughout the war. By this time, it meant the Ketsu-Go plan.

GKC

 

[Ghosty]

johnbhorton: You seem to be holding to the notion that the U.S. did not intend to kill civilians, that somehow there was discrimination between civilian and military targets. The documents of the Targeting Committee prove you wrong in this: the death of civilians was directly intended as an element of shock to the Japanese government. Though the U.S. attempted to limit the amount of civilian death by dropping leaflets, the fact remains that their deaths were calculated and intended. The U.S. wanted Japan to believe that it could, and would, kill every last Japanese man, woman, and child without an invasion of the home islands, and the total destruction of urban centers, military and civilian elements included, was part of this message.

This kind of attack on civilians is condemned by the Catholic Church, and you as a Catholic should not be arguing against this condemnation. You are subscribing to a moral viewpoint known as consequentialism (the ends justify the means), which is a grave moral error. We can’t target innocents in order to prevent the death of more innocents, any more than we can strangle an infant in its crib to save the life of a hundred other children. If the war had continued more people would have surely died, but their deaths would not necessarily be the result of evil actions on the part of U.S. commanders and soldiers.

War is hell, but so is gout, kidney failure, and Lou Gerhig’s Disease; none of these illnesses warrant committing grave evil to alleviate them, and neither does war. The fact is that the war may have resulted in more deaths, but fewer souls condemned to Hell for grave sins. The loss of one soul to Hell is far greater than the mortal death of a million souls going to Heaven. I don’t say this to judge the eternal fate of those who made the decisions that led to the dropping of the atomic bombs, but only to point out the grave flaw in your moral calculus.

Note that I’m not saying that one should be soft on actual military targets, nor am I saying that collateral damage is always and automatically wrong. I’m speaking about the intentional targeting of civilians for the purpose of demoralizing the enemy, which is precisely what the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were for.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The guilty verdict for a crime requires a trial, of which there is none in history of any weight, by any determining body. The United States has never been brought to trial, ergo, no verdict exists. We can’t just go making things up in light of present systems and call that official.

That is basicly a Jewish argument, and has no basis in Christian Justice.

However, that argument defines the killing of Bin Laden as summary execution, in other words, murder.

A trial is only needed to allocate blame to an individual, or a group, and to assess the retribution required.

As I made clear, The USA, and indeed the UK, committed war crimes in the execution of WW2.
Some of those war crimes were a major sin.

Yes, I accept that they were backed into a corner, real, or imaginary, and they considered the war crime, of in the cases of Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and yes, Dresden too, genocide, was the lesser evil of the choices they had.

In as much as Japan, and indeed all of the Axis nations were responsible, to a degree at least, of causing the conflict, then they share the guilt of forcing this choice on the Allies.

So, As I said, there is mortal sin on BOTH sides
Both sides must repent.
Apology is a symbol of repentance.
So BOTH sides need to apologise.

The point remains that the bombing was a war crime.

My choice, if the use of such a bomb was deemed unavoidable would have been an under water ground burst in Tokyo bay, a couple of miles off-shore.
The unavoidable audience, and the resulting tsunami would have been an adequate demonstration, and very few people would have been killed other than by direct effects.

I tire of this argument, for it is futile.
The American brand if Christianity is strongly INFECTED with Old Testament Puritanusm. It relies too much of Jewish Old Testament Law, and too little on New Testament mercy and forgiveness.
Too many things are either black or white.
The real world is not like that.
This of course dates back to the Pilgrim Fathers, a right nasty bunch of fanatics they were. Britain was well rid of them. Pity is they did not all go.

 

[GKC]

johnbhorton: You seem to be holding to the notion that the U.S. did not intend to kill civilians, that somehow there was discrimination between civilian and military targets. The documents of the Targeting Committee prove you wrong in this: the death of civilians was directly intended as an element of shock to the Japanese government. Though the U.S. attempted to limit the amount of civilian death by dropping leaflets, the fact remains that their deaths were calculated and intended. The U.S. wanted Japan to believe that it could, and would, kill every last Japanese man, woman, and child without an invasion of the home islands, and the total destruction of urban centers, military and civilian elements included, was part of this message.

This kind of attack on civilians is condemned by the Catholic Church, and you as a Catholic should not be arguing against this condemnation. You are subscribing to a moral viewpoint known as consequentialism (the ends justify the means), which is a grave moral error. We can’t target innocents in order to prevent the death of more innocents, any more than we can strangle an infant in its crib to save the life of a hundred other children. If the war had continued more people would have surely died, but their deaths would not necessarily be the result of evil actions on the part of U.S. commanders and soldiers.

War is hell, but so is gout, kidney failure, and Lou Gerhig’s Disease; none of these illnesses warrant committing grave evil to alleviate them, and neither does war. The fact is that the war may have resulted in more deaths, but fewer souls condemned to Hell for grave sins. The loss of one soul to Hell is far greater than the mortal death of a million souls going to Heaven. I don’t say this to judge the eternal fate of those who made the decisions that led to the dropping of the atomic bombs, but only to point out the grave flaw in your moral calculus.

Note that I’m not saying that one should be soft on actual military targets, nor am I saying that collateral damage is always and automatically wrong. I’m speaking about the intentional targeting of civilians for the purpose of demoralizing the enemy, which is precisely what the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were for.

Peace and God bless!

Your first paragraph is correct.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ghosty,

I am honestly having problems with this thread - but, I am trying to move forward.

To the best of my knowledge, both cities had military located in them, along with supplies and transportation equipment intended for military use. There were also civilians - and, if I am not mistaken, the civilians outnumbered the military personnel.

People can give all kinds of reasons - after the fact - for why something was done. This really is not solid proof that the reasons given were even the ones this person used or even heard. And, even in simply, every-day, morally neutral activities, we do things for many purposes.

As I appreciate the arguments - it is not so much that the atomic bomb was used (although there are those who argue that) but, where it was used. Effectively ‘bombing the New Mexico’ test range to see if the atomic bomb even worked - did not bring about moral condemnation. And, maybe (?) if the US forces had never entered Okinawa, had dropped leaflets warning the combatants that they would be subject to a devastating bomb if they did not surrender and then dropping it there would have been no condemnation. And, I have no idea if that was ever discussed because, as far as I am concerned, I made it up! None of us can replay history to see what would be best and from whose point of view.

The fact of the matter is that there were both civilian and military personnel in both cities when the bombs went off - and many people were killed along with the destruction of the cities. It would seem that what we are really looking at is a judgment call: there were too many civilian deaths to justify the bombing - but, do you have any idea what the proportion of military to civilian inhabitants would be to make this more acceptable. For example, just for discussion, that the ratio at the time of the bombing was 0.0001 to 1 (military to civilian) and this is condemned - but we go back and see, hypothetically, if it were 1:1 or 1:0.5 or 1:01 or even 1 to 0.0001 would that make it more acceptable. At what point is the line crossed?

In all cases, there will be innocent civilian lives lost - so, we are just talking about “How many?” Personally, I see this as an impossible question - but, if you say, as you did, **“Note that I’m not saying that one should be soft on actual military targets, nor am I saying that collateral damage is always and automatically wrong.” ** Just what are you saying?

God bless

johnbhorton: You seem to be holding to the notion that the U.S. did not intend to kill civilians, that somehow there was discrimination between civilian and military targets. The documents of the Targeting Committee prove you wrong in this: the death of civilians was directly intended as an element of shock to the Japanese government. Though the U.S. attempted to limit the amount of civilian death by dropping leaflets, the fact remains that their deaths were calculated and intended. The U.S. wanted Japan to believe that it could, and would, kill every last Japanese man, woman, and child without an invasion of the home islands, and the total destruction of urban centers, military and civilian elements included, was part of this message.

This kind of attack on civilians is condemned by the Catholic Church, and you as a Catholic should not be arguing against this condemnation. You are subscribing to a moral viewpoint known as consequentialism (the ends justify the means), which is a grave moral error. We can’t target innocents in order to prevent the death of more innocents, any more than we can strangle an infant in its crib to save the life of a hundred other children. If the war had continued more people would have surely died, but their deaths would not necessarily be the result of evil actions on the part of U.S. commanders and soldiers.

War is hell, but so is gout, kidney failure, and Lou Gerhig’s Disease; none of these illnesses warrant committing grave evil to alleviate them, and neither does war. The fact is that the war may have resulted in more deaths, but fewer souls condemned to Hell for grave sins. The loss of one soul to Hell is far greater than the mortal death of a million souls going to Heaven. I don’t say this to judge the eternal fate of those who made the decisions that led to the dropping of the atomic bombs, but only to point out the grave flaw in your moral calculus.

Note that I’m not saying that one should be soft on actual military targets, nor am I saying that collateral damage is always and automatically wrong. I’m speaking about the intentional targeting of civilians for the purpose of demoralizing the enemy, which is precisely what the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were for.

Peace and God bless!

 

[GKC]

“To the best of my knowledge, both cities had military located in them, along with supplies and transportation equipment intended for military use. There were also civilians - and, if I am not mistaken, the civilians outnumbered the military personnel”

Correct. Both cities were legitimate military targets. Neither city had a majority of military personnel, though Hiroshima probably had the highest ration of any major Home Island city, of military to total population. 45,000 military were in the city on 5 Aug. This is likely around 15%-20%, though I have no total population number for 1945.

Neither the military, the civilians, nor the infrastructure was the true target of the bombs. That was the will of the Japanese ruling council to continue the war. Details have been given before.

GKC

 

[Ghosty]

In all cases, there will be innocent civilian lives lost - so, we are just talking about “How many?” Personally, I see this as an impossible question - but, if you say, as you did, **“Note that I’m not saying that one should be soft on actual military targets, nor am I saying that collateral damage is always and automatically wrong.” ** Just what are you saying?

I’m saying that the intentional targeting of civilians is wrong. We know from the documents of the Targeting Committee that the civilians were not merely collateral damage; Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and the other cities on the list) were targeted because of their high population density, not in spite of it. This wasn’t because the U.S. government just wanted to wipe out as many Japanese as possible in one go, but rather they wanted the Japanese government to realize that the U.S. was willing, and more importantly capable, of killing soldiers, women, children, and elderly in one easy blow without landing any of its own troops on Japanese soil. The message was essentially “this is what we’re capable of, and we will do this to every single city and population center until you surrender”. The Japanese government got this message loud and clear, and the documentation of their discussions leading up to the surrender shows this.

So it’s not about the number of civilians killed, though if this were truly a case of collateral damage then the number might factor into the morality of the bombing. In these cases the civilian destruction was not collateral, it was intentional, and we don’t have the luxury of ignorance to question what was really going through the minds of the planners of the attacks because the documents from the committee have been declassified (and posted earlier in this thread). If Hiroshima and Nagasaki had simply been targeted for destruction of military assets and civilians were “caught in the blast” this would be a very different discussion, and we could discuss the relative moral weight of unintended civilian collateral damage vs. ending the war. As it stands the discussion, from a Catholic moral perspective, pretty much ends with the fact that civilians, including those unable to fight, were intentionally targeted to cause morale shock.

As a military tactic the bombings were direct and brilliant, but that doesn’t make them moral. Targeting civilians, even when quite effective, is always evil and can’t be permitted even if it would end the war quicker and ultimately save more lives in the end.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

“To the best of my knowledge, both cities had military located in them, along with supplies and transportation equipment intended for military use. There were also civilians - and, if I am not mistaken, the civilians outnumbered the military personnel”

Correct. Both cities were legitimate military targets. Neither city had a majority of military personnel, though Hiroshima probably had the highest ration of any major Home Island city, of military to total population. 45,000 military were in the city on 5 Aug. This is likely around 15%-20%, though I have no total population number for 1945.

Neither the military, the civilians, nor the infrastructure was the true target of the bombs. That was the will of the Japanese ruling council to continue the war. Details have been given before.

GKC

The tail is still wagging this dog.
Basically, this was intended as ‘shock and awe’
When an enemy uses this aganst you, you call it terrorism.
Call a spade a spade, or even possibly a shovel. It is not a silver teaspoon.
It was terrorism.
It was a war crime.
It was a MORTAL SIN.
It probably also was a military necessity, I doubt that, but I am not in a position to judge, so I will allow that it was perceived as a necessity, and Goebels told us that perception is more important than reality.
Remember this last statement, it will haunt us all again, and again, as it did with such futility in Iraq.
This really is the bottom, line, it may have been the lesser evil, but evil it was.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Sadly, dispite all the efforts of the Jews to find evidence relating to King David, or the United Israel, they have found nothing.
The archeology denies the mythical history, and the myths are clearly Babylonian in origin, just edited to remove most of the polytheism.
We can safely accept Maccabees, and most of the prophets.
The pentateuch is utter fabrication.
The rest may have traces of history buried in the myths, much as the legends of King Arthur may recall a Roman foreign Legion made up of Sarmatian knights. The Sarmatians were a Celtic race, and modern archeology places Avalon in Scotland, not far from Stirling.
There is no solid archeological support for the OT.
If you want it, and you are welcome to it, it is purely a matter of faith.
We have good archeological support for the NT, and cross reference from non-Christian sources. The like is utterly missing for the OT.

Of all the patently ridiculous anti-semetic drivel I have come across on CAF this, without doubt tops them all. Especially your inventive view of history. However, you are eight weeks too early to be the April Fool!
If you accuse me of being insulting, I will save you the trouble in your case I truely mean it, and have no intention of apologizing or replying. Your foolishness is not worthy of a reply by an intelligent educated person.

 

[jonbhorton]

johnbhorton: You seem to be holding to the notion that the U.S. did not intend to kill civilians, that somehow there was discrimination between civilian and military targets. The documents of the Targeting Committee prove you wrong in this: the death of civilians was directly intended as an element of shock to the Japanese government. Though the U.S. attempted to limit the amount of civilian death by dropping leaflets, the fact remains that their deaths were calculated and intended. The U.S. wanted Japan to believe that it could, and would, kill every last Japanese man, woman, and child without an invasion of the home islands, and the total destruction of urban centers, military and civilian elements included, was part of this message.

I am not holding to the notion the US didn’t intend to kill civilians, nor am I stating the US intended to kill civilians. I recognize that the effect of dead civilians, particularly in their role as non-combatant support, and the obvious segue into combatant status, is a consequence of war.

The targeting committee documents raise the impossible question which is only left to the people who must do what others can’t, won’t, or shouldn’t if other means exist.

What you have identified is exactly why I have stayed active in this thread, and what I have hit on repeatedly in an effort for someone to realize the sound of the hammer smacking the anvil is war.

You misunderstand, or ignore, that the aggressor is the guilty party. You further seek to divorce the reality of war from the civilian population, their work in supporting the effort, etc.

In light of this, your first paragraph, while correct in many aspects, falls on its face in the abstract of war and how that translates to the tangibility of war.

Biblical examples of God commanding total destruction of those who would never surrender, would fight the Israelites to the last man, etc, provide precedent. If you are stating the actual act of certain things in war are always morally wrong, you call God immoral. Even in the flood, do you think only people of the age of reason who had expressly chosen to reject God died? Now, did God kill those of the age of reason, or did they kill themselves through their choices and actions in making spiritual war on God?

Now, the kicker and caveat is that God didn’t command the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, we must realize certain elements exist which are being decried as always immoral, yet, contextual Biblical examples deny this as true.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again- war is hell. War is not pretty. War is not kind. War is not merciful. War is the culmination of everything wrong with humanity. When forced between submitting to evil or fighting for good, the fight for the good can get blurry and muddy as it is forced to step up to meet each of evil’s challenges.

Japan made a challenge. The US answered that challenge. If you want to blame anyone for the cause of the effect, blame Japan.