Fighting a Just War today from lessons of WW II

[tqualey]

Using the lessons of WW II, just how can a moral and ethical war be fought today?

I recently had a discussion with a German friend of mine who told me about Sir Arthur Harris (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Arthur_Harris,_1st_Baronet) and his intentional ‘area bombing’ of German civilian populations that no no specific military target - but for the purpose of disrupting German workers from getting to the factories to make war equipment, to demoralize the German people and to cause mass refugees (along with fatalities) which would over-burden the Germany government’s ability to maintain its own infrastructure.

Briefly: In May 1942 Air Marshal Harris began the ‘area bombing’ campaign by attacking Cologne. These ‘area bombings’ directed primarily against civilians continued until the end of the war. By Feb 1943, Germany had lost the Eastern Front and by June 1944 (D-Day ) German controlled France had been invaded and defeated. The march was now on to Berlin. Effectively, Germany had lost the war but, was not going to surrender. In July 1944 a serious but failedd attempt was made to assassinate Hitler.

I have attempted to apply the Just War Doctrine (ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm) but, honestly, keep on bogging down. My idea is that bombing women and children is wrong - sending V2-rockets to kill women and children is also wrong. Stopping the war making ability of Nazi German seems to be a justified end. But, dealing with non-combatants who are (amoong others) working in war factories seems to be appropriate - but, I have this nagging voice telling me it isn’t!

Guidance is appreciated.

God bless

 

[catholictiger]

Using the lessons of WW II, just how can a moral and ethical war be fought today?

I recently had a discussion with a German friend of mine who told me about Sir Arthur Harris (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Arthur_Harris,_1st_Baronet) and his intentional ‘area bombing’ of German civilian populations that no no specific military target - but for the purpose of disrupting German workers from getting to the factories to make war equipment, to demoralize the German people and to cause mass refugees (along with fatalities) which would over-burden the Germany government’s ability to maintain its own infrastructure.

Briefly: In May 1942 Air Marshal Harris began the ‘area bombing’ campaign by attacking Cologne. These ‘area bombings’ directed primarily against civilians continued until the end of the war. By Feb 1943, Germany had lost the Eastern Front and by June 1944 (D-Day ) German controlled France had been invaded and defeated. The march was now on to Berlin. Effectively, Germany had lost the war but, was not going to surrender. In July 1944 a serious but failedd attempt was made to assassinate Hitler.

I have attempted to apply the Just War Doctrine (ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm) but, honestly, keep on bogging down. My idea is that bombing women and children is wrong - sending V2-rockets to kill women and children is also wrong. Stopping the war making ability of Nazi German seems to be a justified end. But, dealing with non-combatants who are (amoong others) working in war factories seems to be appropriate - but, I have this nagging voice telling me it isn’t!

Guidance is appreciated.

God bless

This is a difficult concept to rap your head around how do you deal with how do you deal with factories, the people in a factory are not combatants but contribute significantly to the war effort. Personally I think if the destroying of a factory that contributes to the enemies war effort is done in a way to destroy the factory but trying to keep loss of life as low as possible. You can make the argument that women in factories are combatants.

again when fighting a way you must be discriminatory against combatants and non combatants in WWII it was mostly simple, dudes in uniforms are combatants people in civilian clothes are non combatants shoot the dude in uniforms and not the people in civilian clothes. Same with bombing. Also WOMDs are wrong because they are non discriminatory. You can target only combatants with precession bombs/missiles you can’t with WOMDs.

again because a war factory contributes to the war effort of another country it is morally legit to attack it (its good to apply the principle of double effect in this)

these are mostly my opinions keep in mind.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Catholictiger,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful response.

God bless

This is a difficult concept to rap your head around how do you deal with how do you deal with factories, the people in a factory are not combatants but contribute significantly to the war effort. Personally I think if the destroying of a factory that contributes to the enemies war effort is done in a way to destroy the factory but trying to keep loss of life as low as possible. You can make the argument that women in factories are combatants.

again when fighting a way you must be discriminatory against combatants and non combatants in WWII it was mostly simple, dudes in uniforms are combatants people in civilian clothes are non combatants shoot the dude in uniforms and not the people in civilian clothes. Same with bombing. Also WOMDs are wrong because they are non discriminatory. You can target only combatants with precession bombs/missiles you can’t with WOMDs.

again because a war factory contributes to the war effort of another country it is morally legit to attack it (its good to apply the principle of double effect in this)

these are mostly my opinions keep in mind.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Traditional distinctions between combatants and non-combatants had broken down by WWII. Hitler was a social revolutionary, not just a military leader. The civilian mobs who cheered Hitler and Mussolini were not innocents, they were fully complicit in mass murder.

The victims of Hitler and Imperial Japan had the right and, indeed, the responsibility to do whatever they could to defeat these evil powers. The peoples of Germany, Italy, and Japan had the responsibility to do whatever they could to resist their wicked rulers. They had ZERO right to complain about the Allies, their victims, making defensive war against them.

In retrospect, the strategic bombing of WWII may not have been very accurate or effective but that does not make it immoral.

 

[odile53]

Don’t forget, supply lines, such as roads, bridges, and railroads, because they are being used for the transport of troops and weaponry, are also legitimate military targets. Those infrastructure features are also used by civilians, making double effect operative here.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PaulfromIowa,

Thank you for your response. I had never really thought in terms of civilians being anything other than non-combatants. But, you are quite correct in identifying their active role in the war. Persecution of all Jews and other minorities could never have been as devestating as it was had not the ‘neighbors’ betrayed them.

Now, all I know about ‘area bombing’ was what I read in the Wiki article (hardly the best of all sources) about Sir Arthur Harris. It would appear that there was a ‘learning curve’ associated with this type of bombing operation - so while their beginning efforts may have been unsuccessful, by the time they got to Colonge, they were destroying more while losing fewer planes. So, based on the quotes attributed to Harris, targeting traditional non-military targets was both the aim and outcome of the program. I am wondering about basing morality on an outcome being declared inaccurate and ineffective. Really, this seems to be almost incidental to the decision to make those specific bombing plans.

But, I am just guessing on this one.

God bless

Traditional distinctions between combatants and non-combatants had broken down by WWII. Hitler was a social revolutionary, not just a military leader. The civilian mobs who cheered Hitler and Mussolini were not innocents, they were fully complicit in mass murder.

The victims of Hitler and Imperial Japan had the right and, indeed, the responsibility to do whatever they could to defeat these evil powers. The peoples of Germany, Italy, and Japan had the responsibility to do whatever they could to resist their wicked rulers. They had ZERO right to complain about the Allies, their victims, making defensive war against them.

In retrospect, the strategic bombing of WWII may not have been very accurate or effective but that does not make it immoral.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Odile53,

This is just a guess because I have no information to back it up - but, I would be very surprised if infrastructure items were not also on the target list.

The principle of double effect was something I had not considered when I was thinking about fighting a Just War. After giving it some thought, however, itmay be a difficult one to actually apply. Here are the four conditions of this principle:

**1. the act to be done must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent; by the act to be done is meant the deed itself taken independently of its consequences;

1. the good effect must not be obtained by means of the evil effect; the evil must be only an incidental by-product and not an actual factor in the accomplishment of the good;
2. the evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted; all bad will must be excluded form the act;
3. there must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect. ** catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33215

Here is where I am having problems:

1- I do not see the act (dropping bombs on human beings) as either good or morally indifferent. My objective is to stop Hitler from killing others and to end the war as quickly as possible before more die or the resulting starvation and disease. But, here we are dropping bombs. Now the source I quoted below does not have a problem with the submarine firing on an armed merchant ship carrying supplies to the enemy even though the children on board may die. But, I have just not gotten to that point

2- So, obtaining my stated good objective is brought about by bombing others. I just do not see the killing of others in this case as simply ‘incidental’. And while the author does not see torpedoing the enemy ship as evil in and of itself ( destroying private property belonging to another does not sound like a good or morally neutral act to me) I have a problem with this, too.

1. This one looks like we have met the criteria - but, the problem is that all of these elements must apply.
2. I think this one meets criteria, too. Hitler started to kill people and invade their countries first - the Allies responded. The idea of this response was not vengence or revenge or anger - although there were surely elements of this and more amongst all of the Allies. I think the basis for the response was to stop the attacks launched by Hitler on innocents. And, to do this, Germany’s innocents became casualties.

So, items 1 & 2 do not seem to fit the way I am looking at this matter - but, this is probably due to my limitations. So, if anyone can see how to get past 1 & 2 - then Double Effect may well have an application here.

God bless

.

Don’t forget, supply lines, such as roads, bridges, and railroads, because they are being used for the transport of troops and weaponry, are also legitimate military targets. Those infrastructure features are also used by civilians, making double effect operative here.

 

[catholictiger]

Traditional distinctions between combatants and non-combatants had broken down by WWII. Hitler was a social revolutionary, not just a military leader. The civilian mobs who cheered Hitler and Mussolini were not innocents, they were fully complicit in mass murder.

The victims of Hitler and Imperial Japan had the right and, indeed, the responsibility to do whatever they could to defeat these evil powers. The peoples of Germany, Italy, and Japan had the responsibility to do whatever they could to resist their wicked rulers. They had ZERO right to complain about the Allies, their victims, making defensive war against them.

In retrospect, the strategic bombing of WWII may not have been very accurate or effective but that does not make it immoral.

so I would disagree with your theory of non-combatants just because someone supports an evil doesn’t make him a combatant are you saying all the American Citizens who vote GOP are combatants and if we went to war with lets say china they could bomb us because of immoral war we may participate in.

I think combatants are anyone who positively contributes to the war effort. So a person workings in a weapons factory could be considered a combatant I think.

Where I believe the line between non combatants and combatants has broken down is in modern day war fare. In the middle east children fight, women fight, and men fight, and they may or may not be in military garb. So really in modern warfare it is difficult to discriminate between combatants and non combatants so with the exception of WOMD it can be argued that most action in war is moral.

also Nuclear weapons can never ever be morally legitament it is an intrinsic moral evil. Why because it is indiscriminate descruction, when you drop it doens’t discriminate between combatants and non combatants. When we bombed Japan there were Thousands of noncombatant deaths. Because of that alteast in STA’s view a nuclear bomb should never be used, on targets with people in them.

 

[catholictiger]

Hi, Odile53,

This is just a guess because I have no information to back it up - but, I would be very surprised if infrastructure items were not also on the target list.

The principle of double effect was something I had not considered when I was thinking about fighting a Just War. After giving it some thought, however, itmay be a difficult one to actually apply. Here are the four conditions of this principle:

**1. the act to be done must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent; by the act to be done is meant the deed itself taken independently of its consequences;

1. the good effect must not be obtained by means of the evil effect; the evil must be only an incidental by-product and not an actual factor in the accomplishment of the good;
2. the evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted; all bad will must be excluded form the act;
3. there must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect. ** catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33215

Here is where I am having problems:

1- I do not see the act (dropping bombs on human beings) as either good or morally indifferent. My objective is to stop Hitler from killing others and to end the war as quickly as possible before more die or the resulting starvation and disease. But, here we are dropping bombs. Now the source I quoted below does not have a problem with the submarine firing on an armed merchant ship carrying supplies to the enemy even though the children on board may die. But, I have just not gotten to that point

2- So, obtaining my stated good objective is brought about by bombing others. I just do not see the killing of others in this case as simply ‘incidental’. And while the author does not see torpedoing the enemy ship as evil in and of itself ( destroying private property belonging to another does not sound like a good or morally neutral act to me) I have a problem with this, too.

1. This one looks like we have met the criteria - but, the problem is that all of these elements must apply.
2. I think this one meets criteria, too. Hitler started to kill people and invade their countries first - the Allies responded. The idea of this response was not vengence or revenge or anger - although there were surely elements of this and more amongst all of the Allies. I think the basis for the response was to stop the attacks launched by Hitler on innocents. And, to do this, Germany’s innocents became casualties.

So, items 1 & 2 do not seem to fit the way I am looking at this matter - but, this is probably due to my limitations. So, if anyone can see how to get past 1 & 2 - then Double Effect may well have an application here.

God bless

.

let me try to explain dropping bombs on factories.

1 you say the act is the dropping of bombs on human beings. I disagree the act that is taking place is the bombing of the factory, not the human beings. The act is the same if the building is occupied or unoccupied, it is possible that when they see bombers they evacuate the military buildings so when you bomb the factory it is in fact empty. It could also have people in it, but the act is bombing the facotry not the people.
2. The evil will be a by product of the act, why because when you bomb a facotry or torpedo a ship the act is the firing of the weapon at the ship not at people. The death of workers or sailors is the by product of the act.
3. again the good reduce deaths in the war, evil deaths from bombing this is good.
4. proportionality depends on each situation you have to do this by a case by case basis, but I would suspect it would apply.

the issue you are having is I think you are not correctly applying the act. You think it is the bombing of people when in fact it is the bombing of a military building that may or may not have people in it.

 

[BrunoMaria]

Tom wrote:

My objective is to stop Hitler from killing others and to end the war as quickly as possible before more die or the resulting starvation and disease<.

---

Well Tom my good friend, sorry, but you had not a lucky hand when you wrote this thread. Yes, the at the time hellish Germany started this war. No doubt about this. But even before and during he war, the inner-German terror was almost as terrifying as the bombing-raids.

As we all know, Hitler could not be stopped by the allies bombing his people, for his people the Germans where nothing but filth to Hitler and the Nazis. They where just more or less useful “stuff”. Nothing but. The Nazis ever cared a dime for neither their soldiers, nor their civilians.
I am German, and I experienced the war as a child. I saw as many scattered civilians, women and children as hardly anyone would think of. I also saw German soldiers hanging on lanterns with a shield around their neck: I WAS A COWARD! Thanks heavens I wasn’t 14 or 15 yet, else I too had to go and “defend” the Rhine here in Karlsruhe.
We took a big Madonna-statue down into our apartment-house’s air-raid-shelter. This “air-shelter” was not a real shelter, but a psychological thing. Anyhow. I as the youngest prayed aloud and all others joined the prayers, asking God and Holy Mary that our house was not blown up by the many bombs that fell around us. The air-raids where terrifying, terrifying the noise of exploding houses, burning people on the road. Our house was not hit, though many around fell. When it was all over and between two air-raids we rushed outside and saw many terribly mutilated, many screaming of ache before they died.
This terror did certainly NOT stop Hitler at all. “It was just civilians - who cares…” Dare to say a single word against the Nazis, and you where shot on the spot.
The end was as all wars end. The “winners” rioted, raped, avenged themselves on the losers. This wasn’t else in all wars in all history. Evil was payed back by evil. The actual starvation started after the war and many died of starvation then.
Recollection on humanity started late in the 40s. It was then the Quakers, who saved many German Children from starvation. Even though there stood US-Soldiers on the school-doors to prevent us kids to smuggle some food home, we did secretly, to share with mom.
Oh - let’s thank God, that humanity finally won, and all the dirt Nazi-Germany piled up, vanished.
Yes, it was me, who named Bomber-Harry’s actions war-crime. That Nazi-Germany committed even more war-crimes is hardly a excuse to again commit such thing.
But I won’t comment any further.

Yours
Bruno

 

[ColdComfort]

Tom wrote:

My objective is to stop Hitler from killing others and to end the war as quickly as possible before more die or the resulting starvation and disease<.

The debate on the morality of British, American and Canadian bombing of Germany goes on. The US esp. had reservations which is one of the reasons they bombed by daylight. The British, having been bombed themselves, were less scrupulous and bombed by night.

I’m afraid I have to disagree with you all things considered. The bombing of German cities targeted legitimate military installations. In the 1940’s bombing did not have the precision it has today. Roads, train stations, factories etc. located in cities had to lead to large civilian deaths. There is no doubt that Allied bombing was one of the keys to victory.

It must have been a terrible time for your family. My father survived the war but two of my mother’s brothers were killed.

I do agree with you that the Nazi’s cared not one bit for the suffering of Germans. Nor did their general support for Hitler make them legitimate targets.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The debate on the morality of British, American and Canadian bombing of Germany goes on. The US esp. had reservations which is one of the reasons they bombed by daylight. The British, having been bombed themselves, were less scrupulous and bombed by night.

I’m afraid I have to disagree with you all things considered. The bombing of German cities targeted legitimate military installations. In the 1940’s bombing did not have the precision it has today. Roads, train stations, factories etc. located in cities had to lead to large civilian deaths. There is no doubt that Allied bombing was one of the keys to victory.

It must have been a terrible time for your family. My father survived the war but two of my mother’s brothers were killed.

I do agree with you that the Nazi’s cared not one bit for the suffering of Germans. Nor did their general support for Hitler make them legitimate targets.

And what about Dresden?

 

[ColdComfort]

And what about Dresden?

Dresden is probably the most controversial, coming late in the war, but even it has it’s defenders who I agree with:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

In any event, if the bombing of Dresden was not justified then I still contend that earlier bombing of German cities was as well as the general policy.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ColdComfort,

This goes to the heart of the issue.

There are all kinds of ways to assess a city in a country like waring Nazi Germany. Those making bombs and bullets are easy to consider as a #1 target. How about fuel depots and ball bearings - while they obviously have military applications (like in #1 Target Areas) they also have civilian applications as well (unlike those in the #1 group) So, does this cause us to pause and given greater thought if we should include this in the #1 group - or start a #2 Target Area?)

As we progress through our assessment of each city, we may find that the direct military application takes on less weight then direct civilian applications. Now, we come to Dresden.

Ultimately, we must judge war crimes by the laws of the time - many of which come from the post WW II Geneva Convention. Bombing cities for any reason was not against the existing rules of engagement. Rape, murder, use of poison gass and enslavement of captured peoples has few moral defenders. But if bombing Dresden is not to be considered a war crime, then neither was the bombing of London and other English cities. Using today’s standards to judge the actions of yesterday’s events.

One of the things that makes me morally jumpy about this process is that while I am guessing that none of us had any personal role in the decision making process for this bombing program - and the resulting winning of the war against Germany and Japan - virtually all of us benefit from the freedoms we still enjoy by not being conquered by murderous dictators. So, here we are - in the comfort and peace of our own homes, safe in the knowledge that we can communicte freely - questioning the ethics of those who made this conditions for us to continue enjoying this right. Honestly, that bothers me.

I thank God I was not involved in any of the decision making for any of the Allied bombings - and that includes those atomic bombs dropped on Japan. In my heart, I can not blame Truman or anyone else who I think did the best they could do under the circumstances.

God bless

Dresden is probably the most controversial, coming late in the war, but even it has it’s defenders who I agree with:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

In any event, if the bombing of Dresden was not justified then I still contend that earlier bombing of German cities was as well as the general policy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I wonder how possible it was to avoid some of these civilian casualties. I recall reading that British night bombers’ accuracy was only within about five miles. If so, and even if it was within a quarter mile, even within an eighth of a mile, the bombing was only approximate. So what was the choice? Bomb with the inaccuracy of the time or not bomb at all?

I don’t particularly doubt that some of the allies thought “terror bombing” would be effective in ending the war. Turns out that wasn’t so. But I suspect for most allied planners, it wasn’t the purpose, and that the real question was “approximate or nothing”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Tom wrote:

My objective is to stop Hitler from killing others and to end the war as quickly as possible before more die or the resulting starvation and disease<.

Undoubtedly some of this was true, and I’m not challenging your experience. I have, however, talked to American WWII vets, and ill behavior on their part was not pervasive. In fact, without exception, those men told me that when they got into Germany itself and notwithstanding the hatred they had for the Nazis by then, they actually admired ordinary German people. Many soldiers were helpful to them, giving them food, and so on.

I recall one veteran, for example, who, going into Germany after being in France, and observing the relative cleanliness, courtesy and industriousness of the Germans expressed wonder if we had, after all, been on the right side of the war. He didn’t sympathize with the Nazis, of course. He meant only from the standpoint of the character of the ordinary people. He was fluent in German and French, as it happens. He at least claimed that strictly on a “people basis” a lot of American soldiers felt as he did.

I recall another who landed at Normandy and crossed France into Germany and claimed, at least, that the very first flush toilet and toilet paper he saw the whole time was in Germany. “Those people were just like us”, he said…again, talking about the ordinary Germans.

It almost had to be that way. To this very day, the single largest ethic-descent group in the U.S. is German. And those guys were only a generation or two or three removed from Germany.

I don’t doubt the Russians hated you. Probably the French did too. But the average American G.I.? Realizing that one ought not challenge the experience of one who was there, I have serious doubts that most American soldiers were abusive toward German civilians once they were there.

 

[GKC]

Dresden is probably the most controversial, coming late in the war, but even it has it’s defenders who I agree with:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

In any event, if the bombing of Dresden was not justified then I still contend that earlier bombing of German cities was as well as the general policy.

I suggest Frederick Taylor’s DRESDEN:TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1945. It’s even handed on those raids. It was discussed a year or so ago, in detail, in another thread.

GKC

 

[Vouthon]

The “winners” rioted, raped, avenged themselves on the losers. This wasn’t else in all wars in all history. Evil was payed back by evil.

Pope Benedict XVI also spoke of his experiences living in the last days of Nazi Germany, however he seems to have a very different view of the “winners”:

“…This particular Sunday also marks a significant moment in the life of the British nation, as it is the day chosen to commemorate the seventieth anniversary of the Battle of Britain. For me as one who lived and suffered through the dark days of the Nazi regime in Germany, it is deeply moving to be here with you on this occasion, and to recall how many of your fellow citizens sacrificed their lives, courageously resisting the forces of that evil ideology…”

***- Pope Benedict XVI, Address at beatification ceremony of Cardinal Newman, 2010 (Birmingham) ***

“…I think Benedict felt it was important, as a German pope, to thank the British for standing up to a tyranny that his own country produced and that touched his own early life…”

- John Allen

BTW I am not passing judgement on the morality of the bombings, nor your very raw personal experiences which I fully sympathise with and believe but merely your expressed opinion of the conduct of the Western Allies who as far as I am aware adhered generally to the terms of the Geneva Conventions when dealing with POWS and defeated, occupied nations unlike the Soviets. That’s not to say rogue soldiers and officers didn’t disobey the law on occassion, but the policy of the Western Allies was opposed to such atrocities whereas the German government wasn’t.

At the very least I know that we are all agreed as to the World War Two having a just cause on the part of the Western Allies even if one questions the morality of some specific decisions taken, as Blessed Pope JPII explained:

“…This alliance was the consequence of events that began on September 1939. The Polish Republic was then seeking allies in the West, aware that it would be unable to face the invasion of Hitler’s Germany alone. But perhaps this was not the only reason. Poles were aware of the fact that the conflict they were forced to face was not only demanded by patriotism, to defend the independence of the State they had so recently regained, but also had broader implications for the whole of Europe. Europe had to defend itself from the same threat as Poland. The national socialist system was opposed - if this can be said - to the “European spirit”. And this problem could not be dealt with by endless attempts at apparent solutions. These attempts resulted in further victims with the invasion of Czechoslovakia. It was clear that other similar consequences would have occurred had Europe not decided to take a firm stand in the military sense as well. The decision taken by the Polish Republic in 1939 was therefore right. Indeed, it clearly appeared that Europe could not be defended without deciding on a defensive war, whose first phase was precisely Poland in 1939…Poland had been fighting from the first day to the last, not only to defend her own freedom, but for the future of Europe and the world…On the ruins of the Second World War, a united Europe began to be built, and those who were its first builders staunchly clung to the Christian roots of European culture…”

***- Blessed John Paul II, 1994, THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF MONTE CASSINO ***

Indeed Pope Pius in 1939 had also expressed solidarity with Poland and called upon the whole world to support her in sympathy.

In October 1939, one month after the Nazis conquered Poland and carved it up between themselves and the Soviets, Pius XII issued his first encyclical Summi Pontificatus: On the Unity of Human Society. He declared that he had “no greater debt to Our office than ‘to testify to the truth’ with Apostolic firmness,” he called on people of good will to unify in opposing world evils, particularly “two pernicious errors”: racism and statism.

Of the Nazis, Pius bluntly stated they had “abandoned Christ’s cross for another which brings only death.”

Finally, he expressed his anguish over the war started by the Nazis. He described it as Europe’s:

“…The blood of countless human beings, even noncombatants, raises a piteous dirge over a nation such as Our dear Poland…which has a right to the generous and brotherly sympathy of the whole world…”

***- Pope Pius XII Summi Pontificatus (On the Unity of Human Society), October 1939 ***

The reaction to the encyclical – from both friend and foe – was passionate. In a bold front-page headline, The New York Times declared “Pope Condemns Dictators, Treaty Violators, Racism.” The Times published the entire document and referred to the pope as an Old Testament prophet “speaking words of fire.” The London Daily Telegraph headline: “Pope Condemns Nazi Theory.” And the American Israelite praised the pope’s “denunciation of Nazism.” Records of a November 1939 British Cabinet meeting revealed that the encyclical was considered “in some ways, the most important document the war has yet produced and the wider its circulation the better from all points of view.” The French government reproduced Summi Pontificatus and airdropped 80,000 copies on select German cities.

Christ’s enemies, however, were not at all happy with the pope’s letter to the faithful. Gestapo Chief Heinrich Mueller stated, “This encyclical is directed exclusively against Germany, both in ideology and in regard to the German-Polish dispute; how dangerous it is for our foreign relations as well as our domestic affairs is beyond dispute.” SS chief Reinhard Heydrich said: “this declaration of the pope makes an unequivocal accusation against Germany.”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ridgerunner,

No argument about that - accuracy was never great - and usually ‘in the area’ was about as good as most of the guys got, given the equipment and the flying conditions. So, I think this could be a ‘given’ for further discussion.

So, ‘given’ poor marksmenship - what were the Allies aiming at in general and what was Sir Harris encouraging his men to hit over and over again? Even with poor marksmenship, the Allies did significant damage to civilian targets - and this met the goal set by Harris. Contrast this with the tye of ‘accuracy’ used by the ‘Buzz Bombs’ that flew over England and simply fell from the air when they ran out of fuel. These weapons did significant damage to English cities with almost exclusive civilian populations. Maybe it could be said that both sides were into terror bombing.

So, vast areas of English and German cities were laid waste, deaths in the millions and the areas set up for starvation, disease and futher suffering leading to death of both combatants and non-combatants. Gen. Grant was right, “War is hell”. Do we have war crimes here or not? The charge of a crime, in this case, really needs to focus on the law covering war - not just the amount of damage done. While the murdering of prisoners in concentration camps was a war crime back then, I do not think the bombing qualifies.

Here is another item. The US just did not suddenly use atomic bombs on Japan. As I undeerstand the situation, all efforts were made to arm the civilian population (maybe with sticks and stones) to repel the US landing. Truman made two attempts to have Japan surrender unconditionally because the war was over. Yet, Japan refused, and given the devestation before the bombing of Hiroshima, this is very strange. After, Hiroshima, however, the desire of the generals to continue fighting, claiming that this bomb was a fluke and that the US could not do it again, lead to the bombing of Nagasaki.

It was at this time that Japan surrendered. My understanding is that both cities had military items, but these were considered minor contrasted with other cities. I am glad Truman made the decision he did! And, I thank God that I had nothing to do with it - and have only benefitted from his decisive action.

God bless

I wonder how possible it was to avoid some of these civilian casualties. I recall reading that British night bombers’ accuracy was only within about five miles. If so, and even if it was within a quarter mile, even within an eighth of a mile, the bombing was only approximate. So what was the choice? Bomb with the inaccuracy of the time or not bomb at all?

I don’t particularly doubt that some of the allies thought “terror bombing” would be effective in ending the war. Turns out that wasn’t so. But I suspect for most allied planners, it wasn’t the purpose, and that the real question was “approximate or nothing”.

 

[GKC]

Hi, Ridgerunner,

No argument about that - accuracy was never great - and usually ‘in the area’ was about as good as most of the guys got, given the equipment and the flying conditions. So, I think this could be a ‘given’ for further discussion.

So, ‘given’ poor marksmenship - what were the Allies aiming at in general and what was Sir Harris encouraging his men to hit over and over again? Even with poor marksmenship, the Allies did significant damage to civilian targets - and this met the goal set by Harris. Contrast this with the tye of ‘accuracy’ used by the ‘Buzz Bombs’ that flew over England and simply fell from the air when they ran out of fuel. These weapons did significant damage to English cities with almost exclusive civilian populations. Maybe it could be said that both sides were into terror bombing.

So, vast areas of English and German cities were laid waste, deaths in the millions and the areas set up for starvation, disease and futher suffering leading to death of both combatants and non-combatants. Gen. Grant was right, “War is hell”. Do we have war crimes here or not? The charge of a crime, in this case, really needs to focus on the law covering war - not just the amount of damage done. While the murdering of prisoners in concentration camps was a war crime back then, I do not think the bombing qualifies.

Here is another item. The US just did not suddenly use atomic bombs on Japan. As I undeerstand the situation, all efforts were made to arm the civilian population (maybe with sticks and stones) to repel the US landing. Truman made two attempts to have Japan surrender unconditionally because the war was over. Yet, Japan refused, and given the devestation before the bombing of Hiroshima, this is very strange. After, Hiroshima, however, the desire of the generals to continue fighting, claiming that this bomb was a fluke and that the US could not do it again, lead to the bombing of Nagasaki.

It was at this time that Japan surrendered. My understanding is that both cities had military items, but these were considered minor contrasted with other cities. I am glad Truman made the decision he did! And, I thank God that I had nothing to do with it - and have only benefitted from his decisive action.

God bless

General Sherman, not General Grant.

As to Japan, as you may recall, this is one of my areas of study. In brief, you are correct, as far as you go. But I dearly hope the history of that end-game to WWII is not going to start another run here. I’m way over 500 posts, over the past 5 years, on it, already. I’d gladly not have to teach it again.

GKC