In a flash, a changed world

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s almost personal to me since I’m on the south side of Chicago, near the monument to nuclear research. There still were some hot buildings in Chicago in the seventies since the researchers were not all that careful with their radioactive research.

What many folks fail to consider is that the WWII carpet firebombing of Tokyo killed about as many civilians as died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. It was the worst single air raid in world history and killed more than 110,000 people.
 
And all this happened after Japan was trying to sue for peace through Moscow. Such a shame.
 
Last edited:
Japan was not trying to sue for peace through Moscow, using Sato, the Japanese ambassador. Who had pointedly asked if this was a surrender move, and was it one approved by the Saiko Senso Shido Kaigi. Togo said it was not a surrender effort and should not be so presented. Togo was seeking to feel out the Soviets to act as friendly intermediators, to negotiate a softer end to the war, Sato, the realist, tries very hard to get Togo to understand that the idea is a fantasy, and that the only approach is to surrender. Immediately. In one of his final messages before the bomb, if you don’t surrender, “…all Japan will be reduced to ashes and we will not be able (to avoid) following the road to ruin”. That was 4 days before Hiroshima. Sato was correct.
 
GKMotley said:
Togo was seeking to feel out the Soviets to act as friendly intermediators, to negotiate a softer end to the war…
Click to expand...
You say tomato, I say…

Either way, many deaths could have been avoided. Like I said, a shame.
 
Sato said surrender, too. To the full Potsdam requirements, if necessary. I again suggest Frank/DOWNFALL and Kort/THE COLUMBIA GUIDE TO HIROSHIMA AND THE BOMB.

Many deaths were avoided.
 
Come back after you’ve read Frank, Kort, and maybe Giangreco/HELL TO PAY and Gruhl/IMPERIAL JAPAN’S WWII. We’ll talk. Until then, we’ve done all this before. And I have another project I’m working on.
 
That’s nice. I won’t cite Catholic teaching on war as I doubt you care. . . . It’s distressing to see someone justify the bombings. God bless you.
 
Last edited:
You may not have seen me posting on this topic, from the beginning (around 15 years now). Thus you may not know that I’ve often said (maybe in this thread, somewhere, but many times) that I don’t address the RCC moral position on the bombs. Only history.

Here’s an example of such:

I don’t engage in discussions on the judging the morality of the use of those weapons, as may be taught by the magisterium ((in the CCC, in Gaudium et Spes, etc). Nor do I try to argue RCs out of adherence to such teachings. All RCs should affirm the Church’s teachings, at the relevant level of theological certitude. I long ago, after many years of studying the relevant history, made a decision that killing fewer people is preferable to killing more people. I don’t compare my moral take to that of others, though mine often appears in my posts. But I do correct historical inaccuracies/ supply historical facts, or suggest where they might be found.

Often repeated, in varying ways.

On the deaths avoided, also see also Maddox (ed.) HIROSHIMA IN HISTORY, in general, and chaps 2-5, esp. And Newman’s TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT, passim, chaps 6-8, in particular.

The board says I’m talking to you too much. Back to my project.
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
I long ago, after many years of studying the relevant history, made a decision that killing fewer people is preferable to killing more people.
Click to expand...
Except when the enemy goes through Russia? You’ve confirmed my view of the bombings before. There was an alternative as you yourself have admitted. But unconditional surrender was the only thing we wanted.
 
As we did with Germany. Not to repeat the errors of WWI. We restructured the national polity. In both countries. So that Pershing’s predictions in 1923 wouldn’t come true again.
 
Last edited:
So predictions necessitated the murder of civilians.

We’re talking in circles. Neither of us is going to change the other’s mind. Good day.
 
I am plodding through Hell to Pay. I’d love to discuss this more with you when I am done. I have always believed it to be of paramount importance to study and consider history, but I think that too few refer to history when making decisions regarding foreign and domestic relations, to our detriment.
 
Do you have the first edition (date 2009, I think, but I gave it to my child, with around 50 other titles on this topic, all duplicates). I kept the updated edition with new chaps 11 and 17. I don’t think there is much difference, otherwise.

PM me when you’re done. I might help or I might hinder. One never knows.

I think knowing history is essential. Getting it accurately is difficult.
 
The war had to end, and an invasion would have meant more deaths on both sides.

At the time, they weren’t privy to 2000s theories that an invasion wasn’t necessary. They were getting ready to do it.

ICXC NIKA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top