J
JerryZ
Guest
I hope your forgetting the 6 million Jews or the 15 million Chinese was just an oversight right?
- Status
L
LEMAITRE
Guest
Don’t be ridiculous. What country would you put the Jews under? What nationality? Israel? U.S.? U.K.? Germany? Jews came from all over Europe.
Read my post again, I’m comparing some COUNTRIES, not the entire list of countries who contributed to the Allied Forces war effort and I’m not comparing ETHNICITY or RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION.
If you want to list the entire list of countries with civilians who died as a result of military activities during WWII. Go ahead. There are about 30countries to sift through. You might want to find out how many Jews were among them and indicate what countries they were from. I couldn’t be bothered which is why I chose to list some countries who had the most civilians killed, some of these citizens may have been Jewish, Muslim, Atheist or Catholic citizens etc.
Besides as far as I am concerned a non-Jewish civilian killed in WWII is as great a loss as a Jew being killed in the same war. A civilian is a civilian regardless of ethnicity or religion or lack of.
H
HansTrappist
Guest
Doesn’t make it right. See the Just War Doctrine.
Second, your history seems a bit off. Stalingrad was a fight to the death between two armies.
The German bombing of London comes closer to the point you are trying to make. But even on this point, the bombing of London was nowhere near as egregious as the bombing of Dresden and the fire bombings of Tokyo, for instance. Upwards of 250,000 people died in Dresden which was packed with refugees at the time of the raids, and was in the path of the advancing Soviet Army (which occupied the city soon after). It could be said that the raid on Dresden was disproportionate,even unnecessary.
Nicholas von Hoffman describes what happened in at Tokyo:
On March 9, 1945, 179 American bombers, armed with incendiary bombs intended to torch the wood-and-paper Japanese capital appeared over Tokyo, a city with population density of 135,000 per square mile. All went according to plan. Tokyo was consumed by fire so ferocious that the heat boiled the water in the lakes and ponds, cooking those who fled to safety there like human lobsters. Official American figures put the death toll for that night’s raid at 87,000 people. Nobody knows what the true number is.
Now, my point is not that the Germans should be given a pass. The point that both sides were guilty of violating the Just War Doctrine and committing war crimes. Churchill even admitted as much and acknowledged what it had all been about: “It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed.” In other words, had Churchill been living today, he would have been considered a “terrorist.” If only there had been Catholics running the world all these years (as opposed to the Freemasons) maybe things would have been more pleasant.
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
This is one of those things that troubles my conscience. On one hand war is anti-human. On the other hand, to stand aside and let evil harm innocent people is also bad. I will defer to the Pope. Whatever he says, I will listen to him. Thank goodness Jesus gave us a pope.
I do happen to think that the Crusades were justified.
I do happen to think that the Crusades were justified.
crystal_waters
New member
No!!! There is never a good reason to bomb and kill others!..god himself said as one of his commandments thou shall not kill
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
So the Allies should have ignored Hitler?
P
Pilgrim2012
Guest
I would say yes. It saved millions of american an japanese lives. the japanese would not surrender for a dime.
they would fight till death.
C
CaptFun
Guest
Well since others have the “No” side covered …
It ended World War II.
The targets were military and “Japan” was still at war with the US.
The US had tested such bombs but had not yet seen what they actually did.
Whole German (and other) cities were wiped out with similar loss of life using
conventional bombs. See Dresden (especially - for parallels).
No one to date has ever used them as weapons since the first two times in August of 1945.
Because of their existence and use, perhaps there has been less war than there would have been. And smaller wars. (Not that war is good mind you!).
The alternative was a massive invasion of Japan with much loss of life and perhaps MORE than two cities destroyed - plus the entry of Russia into the theatre with the opportunistic and evil Stalin gaining vast territories.
Fear of the bomb was so great that Mc Arthur peacefully administered a transition to Democracy and vast new freedoms to the people of Japan, who made a miraculous social and economic recovery and abandoned their racist, aggressive, military past.
Part of the recovery’s fruits were the Godzilla horror movies “inspired” by the idea of radioactive mutation.
The technology for the bombs was soon channeled into power plants and peaceful uses.
And nuclear powered submarines which thwarted a big war by being “ever patrolling
sentinels” that did not need to refuel all the time.
My father and his group in Europe got to go home … instead of to a proposed invasion of Japan.
FDR built them and Truman didn’t know about them until he was President. He was advised to drop them (though Douglas Mc Arthur was against it).
Truman’s take: “I’m still waiting for them to apologize for Pearl Harbor!”
The fruits of peace and its immediacy vitiate in favor of the decision.
The collateral damage was astounding - but perhaps not foreseen in its scope until it happened.
Perhaps a better question is “In what case, if any, could Atomic bombs be used again?”
I’ll tell you … I’d rather stick with defending the two dropped in 1945. If I’m to defend at all.
“War is hell” – William Tecumseh Sherman
It ended World War II.
The targets were military and “Japan” was still at war with the US.
The US had tested such bombs but had not yet seen what they actually did.
Whole German (and other) cities were wiped out with similar loss of life using
conventional bombs. See Dresden (especially - for parallels).
No one to date has ever used them as weapons since the first two times in August of 1945.
Because of their existence and use, perhaps there has been less war than there would have been. And smaller wars. (Not that war is good mind you!).
The alternative was a massive invasion of Japan with much loss of life and perhaps MORE than two cities destroyed - plus the entry of Russia into the theatre with the opportunistic and evil Stalin gaining vast territories.
Fear of the bomb was so great that Mc Arthur peacefully administered a transition to Democracy and vast new freedoms to the people of Japan, who made a miraculous social and economic recovery and abandoned their racist, aggressive, military past.
Part of the recovery’s fruits were the Godzilla horror movies “inspired” by the idea of radioactive mutation.
The technology for the bombs was soon channeled into power plants and peaceful uses.
And nuclear powered submarines which thwarted a big war by being “ever patrolling
sentinels” that did not need to refuel all the time.
My father and his group in Europe got to go home … instead of to a proposed invasion of Japan.
FDR built them and Truman didn’t know about them until he was President. He was advised to drop them (though Douglas Mc Arthur was against it).
Truman’s take: “I’m still waiting for them to apologize for Pearl Harbor!”
The fruits of peace and its immediacy vitiate in favor of the decision.
The collateral damage was astounding - but perhaps not foreseen in its scope until it happened.
Perhaps a better question is “In what case, if any, could Atomic bombs be used again?”
I’ll tell you … I’d rather stick with defending the two dropped in 1945. If I’m to defend at all.
“War is hell” – William Tecumseh Sherman
M
mkdl_v17
Guest
Personally, I view the atomic bombings as unnecessary, no different from the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo as a display of earthly power. I wonder if the pilots of Enola Gay had used smaller, conventional bombs with lesser blast radii, targeted only at military installations in Hiroshima.
Was the Imperial Family of Japan open to peaceful negotiations with the Allies when the first atomic bomb began to be dropped at Hiroshima?
Was the Imperial Family of Japan open to peaceful negotiations with the Allies when the first atomic bomb began to be dropped at Hiroshima?
V
ValPal
Guest
This is exactly what the people that actually fought the Japanese told me. Plus it coincides in the manner that Japanese act. You could wipe out the entire Japanese army; they’re still not surrendering. The reality of the situation is that if the events of WWII did not occur as they did, they would simply have to fight to a draw.
Futhermore, if the Japanese knew that the U.S. would only fight the military and harm no innocents, they would use that to the advantage. They would simply fight around pockets of civilians so that they would not attacked. Basic war tactics. Not that I support such things, but people in war aren’t thinking humility and kindness, but rather survival.
J
JimG
Guest
No. That’s why it took a second atomic bomb to induce a surrender. Historical hindisght may seem to be 20/20. But it isn’t. I’m not going to go through all the history of it again. Anyone who’s interested in the history of the event, and in deciding whether the bombings saved lives, might wish to go back and read through those prior threads I linked to, paying particular attention to poster GKC, who had a great deal of historical data and background on the matter.
J
JimG
Guest
In that case, war is never justified, and we should just have surrendered to Hitler and to Tojo at the outset.
E
edwest2
Guest
The answer is no. A naval blockade and fire bombing of military targets would have been just as effective. I have an extensive background in military history and have read the material. A physically weak Japanese population and a severely crippled military infrastructure would have made occupation a less costly option than some claim.
What was the big rush? We had the ships and airpower to wait it out.
Peace,
Ed
What was the big rush? We had the ships and airpower to wait it out.
Peace,
Ed
V
ValPal
Guest
What historic basis do you have for this POV? I’m not aware of Japan surrendering prior WWII. Plus, they’ve been living on an island for thousands of years. It’s not like they’re suddenly going to decide they can’t handle it anymore.
One thing you’ll notice about all these opinions is that come from people that weren’t there and experienced none of what they are talking about. Why not speak to people that have actually fought the Japanese, or people that have suffered under the Japanese in China (FWIW, the mainland Chinese I’ve met and spoken too are still really mad at the Japanese over those events). They’re opinions will be far different from the sterilized views you see on here.
G
Ghosty
Guest
CaptFun:
This isn’t Monday-morning quarterbacking or conspiracy theory, it’s what the Targeting Committee itself said.
Peace and God bless!
These points are where you go wrong. First, the targets were not strictly military; read the targeting documents and you’ll see that they ruled out strictly military targets in favor of civilian + military targets. Second, ends never justify the means in Catholic moral teaching, and therefore the “fruits of peace” don’t enter into the equation. Third, there was no collateral damage because all of the damage was directly intended. Again, the targeting documents make this point very clear: they wanted to wipe out whole cities to demonstrate that the U.S. was able and willing to do so in order to psychologically terrorize the Japanese, and so that the full scope and power of the bombs could be demonstrated and observed.
This isn’t Monday-morning quarterbacking or conspiracy theory, it’s what the Targeting Committee itself said.
Peace and God bless!
J
JimG
Guest
Of course waiting it out would have killed a lot of Japanese civilians too.
Some years ago I was working at the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, and it was announced one day that the director of one of the service organizations was retiring that day. He was an old guy, “Mr. H.” and I decided to stop off at his office for the event.
Some people seem to be taciturn their whole lives, and then turn loquacious at their retirement party. That turned out to be the case with Mr. H. as he got to reminiscing, as he talked to the small group. He had been a POW in Japan at the time. He spoke of having survived the Bataan Death March. Many—most—of his compatriots did not. After the death march, he was in a prison camp under terrible conditions.
Then came Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war ended. He was freed and repatriated. He spoke warmly of Harry Truman.
After his retirement ceremony I was going to the cafeteria with a co-worker.
“How was Mr. H’s retirement party?” he asked
“Pretty good,” I said, “He told some stories. Harry Truman was his hero.”
“Why?” he asked.
“Because of the bomb,” I said. “That’s why he’s alive today.”
“Darn,” said my friend, “I always seem to miss the good ones.”
A blockade wouldn’t have saved Mr. H. He would have starved. He was already nearly starved, so the blockade would have finished him off, along with millions of Japanese civilians. Would a blockade have caused fewer deaths than Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I don’t know, but I doubt it.
Those who were personally involved in the events of World War II have pretty much all died off. We, at some historical remove, get to sit around second guessing their actions, but things may have looked somewhat different at the time.
My brother’s father in law is a WW-II veteran. He’s 91 years old. He has a piece of a Japanese kamikaze fighter plan hanging on his wall. It missed him. I listen to his stories too, because first hand history is best.
I
ishii
Guest
I don’t think the imperial family of Japan was in control at that point - yet. The response to the government after Hiroshimia was to ask its experts if what was dropped on Hiroshima was in fact a nuclear bomb, and if so, how soon could they produce one.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
Nice story, but irrelevant as to the moral analyis of whether the bombing of Nagasaki, etc. was right or wrong.
Ishii
J
JimG
Guest
I don’t say whether they were right or wrong. I do contend that they saved lives by ending the war early. Invasion, blockade, would both have cost far more Japanese lives than the two bombs in four days.
I don’t say they were justified, only that they saved lives. One can argue for alternate options at this late date. But they would have cost more lives.
G
garn9173
Guest
The loss of life would’ve been far greater if we didn’t drop the bombs and opted for an all out invasion of Japan.
- Status