Blast From The Past Classic Caveman
Here's one I did last year. Seeing that today is the 61st anniversary of the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima, I thought I'd re-post.
Atomic Bombing of Japan
Can Catholics say it was moral?
Without a doubt, I say yes. Here's some of my rationale;
1. In an invasion of the Home Islands, U.S. KIA estimates were approx 1,000,000.
2. In an invasion of the Home Islands, British Commonwealth KIA estimates were approx 1,000,000.
3. In an invasion of the Home Islands, Japanese civilian deaths from famine alone were estimated at approx 5,000,000.
4. During the invasions of Saipan and Okinawa, Japanese parents killed their children by the hundreds (some estimate thousands). Then the parents would commit suicide themselves. What would happen during an invasion of the Home Islands where millions lived?
5. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far from "innocent" targets. Both were centers of war industry and war transportation (valid military targets). Hiroshima was also slated to be the HQ for the Japanese defense on the Southern Front (Operation "Getsu-Go"; Japan's plans for defense of the home islands) when the Allies invaded (Operations Down Fall, Coronet and Olympic).
6. Hiroshima also had thousands of soldiers stationed in and around the city. Hiroshima was also the HQ for the 2d Imperial Army. Again, making it a valid military target.
7. The entire nation of Japan was girding for armed combat. If you thought that the German "Volkssturm" units (little boys and old men who fought the Red Army to the death) were tough, wait until we met the Japanese Home Guard, bushido tradition and all. And yes, 9 year old little Japanese boys and girls were in training to charge American machine gun nests with sharpened bamboo spears. Don't kid yourself... they would have done it. And Allied troops would have had no choice but to mow them down by the tens, if not hundreds of thousands.
8. There was a slogan popular in Japan in the closing months of the war; "One hundred million heartbeats. One death". Hmmm, what did they mean by that? National Hari-Kiri or a National Fight To The Death.... or both?
9. If "the war was already over and Japan was ready to surrender" as the revisionists tell us... why did it take TWO atomic bombs to make Japan surrender?
10. Many within The Church point to #2314 of the CCC; "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."[109] A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes." Notice the word "indiscriminate"? Taking out a valid military target is far from indiscriminate.
So, it's a fact that we killed 180,000 Japanese in the atomic bombings of Japan. Here's one I have for the revisionists.... would they have been happy if more than 2,000,000 Allied Servicemen died, along with most of the Japanese people?
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
8:32 AM
24 Comments:
Didn't we warn them in advance, too?
The Catholic doctrine on just warfare REQUIRES that the deaths of civilian non-combatants be minimised.
We did. One hundred and eighty thousand is a lot less than one hundred million. Hence, civilian casualties were minimized.
It might interest you to know that the majority of inhabitants in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Catholics, since those cities were the two most Catholic areas in Japan.
Factually incorrect. Nagasaki did have the greatest number of Catholics of any Japanese city... but it was always just a small fraction. "The most" doesn't always equate to "a majority".
According to catholic-hierarchy.org, the total number of Catholics within the Diocese of Nagasaki in 1950 was a total of 63,170 out of a total population of 1,651,558. Catholics were a total of 3.8% of the population. How could have Catholics gone from a majority to just 3.8% of the population in just 5 years?
Also, according to catholic-hierarchy.org, the total number of Catholics within the Diocese of Hiroshima in 1950 was a total of 4,670 out of a total population of 7,000,000. Catholics were a total of .005% of the population. How could have Catholics gone from a majority, to just .005% of the population in just 5 years?
So as you see, saying that "the majority of inhabitants in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Catholics" is simply wrong.
As far as the charge that it was Freemasons trying to destroy Catholicism, then how does one explain the hundreds of thousands of non-Catholcis killed in the bombings of Tokyo, Osaka, Yokosuka, etc, etc?
Had the atomic bomb been dropped on more legitimate, military targets, the action MIGHT have been justified.
I've already shown how Nagasaki and Hiroshima were in fact, valid, legitimate military targets. If you dispute my facts, I invite you to cite sources stating that Hiroshima didn't have the 2d Army stationed there... or that both cities were not centers of war production and transportation hubs used by the Japanese Armed Forces.
Wow, so the Eucharist was vaporized, along with the catholics in the blasts as well. Shouldn't we be proud, or would that be considered sacrilege?
"That which you do to the least of these, that you do unto me." or something like that..
I wonder if a full scale invasion of Japan would have been justified by Just War Theory, as well as the Atomic Bombing. When the bombs were dropped, was there any immediate threat to other civilian populations by the Japanese Military? Or were we carried forward by the momentum of the campaign?
Jimbob,
Yes, it was a terrible thing that Catholic churches were destroyed. No more terrible than the Catholic churches in Guam, in the Phillipines, in China, etc, etc, that were destroyed by the Japanese.
Here's the difference... Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid, legitimate military targets.
PETRUS RADII,
It is simply an historical fact that the US Government went out of its way, beginning at least with Monte Cassino
No, it was British Commonwealth (New Zealand) Gen. Bernard Freyberg that advocated the bombing of Monte Cassino. The majority of the American High Command was against it.
Also, I note that the Catholic Caveman suddenly leaps from 1 million to 100 million potential casualties from a land invasion. I'm sorry, but that is gross overstatement.
No, one million is what I quoted as the US KIA estimate. One hundred million was the total population of Japan. In keeping with National Policy, would the entire nation have fought to the death? (hence, my 100,000,000 deaths estimate)
(One need only think of the criminal devastation wreaked by the carpet-bombing of Dresden, for example.)
Take that up with the Brits, Dresden was their "pay-back" for the London Blitz.
The deliberate and brutal targeting of civilian populations...
PR, when the "innocent civilians" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki started manning the arms factories, and working the railway yards and port facilities for the Japanese Armed Forces, they no longer became "innocent civilians".
In closing, both JIMBOB and PETRUS... guys, I don't know where this "antiseptic war" is that both of you desire. It simply doesn't exist.
Have either of you considered the persepctive that JAPAN just may be slightly culpable here? It was Japan who stationed troops in and around Hiroshima... it was JAPAN who kept the war machine going at full steam ahead... it was JAPAN who was training her children to become suicide attackers... it was JAPAN who needed a SECOND bomb to wake up and smell the coffee.
But somehow... all this is America's fault?
I am of the opinion that the atomic bombing of the two Japanese cities during the second world war was absolutely immoral and indefensible from a Catholic point of view. There is simply no coherent argument that can be made to justify such actions.
HST was a jackass (or am I redundant?) and was deliberately mis-informed by the Commies which he retained in his Government despite Joe McCarthy's warnings...
The commies intercepted Jap communications (through Stalin AND through the Vatican) to further the Russians' hegemonic goals.
Having said that, it still seems as though your case is one of "The End Justifies the Means."
Or can you show me that your case does NOT do so?
GG,
Could it be possible that There is simply no coherent argument that you personally happen to agree with that can be made to justify such actions.(?)
JIMBOB,
...that to end a war, we had to nuke Rome and the Vatican. Would you give the order?
To answer your hypothetical question, let's just say... hypothetically... that a few hundred Italian suicide pilots had killed over 10,000 American, and the Itilains were training thousands more.
let's say that Italian parents had already killed their own children by the hundreds (some say thousand), and it was glaringly obvious that when we hit mainland Italy, the numbers would increase thousands-fold.
Let's just say that the Italians were already training their children (by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions) to suicide charge American troop positions.
Let's just say that Rome had thousands of troops stationed in and around the city AND Rome was a center for war production AND military logistics.
Let's just say that it was Italian National Policy that every single Italian... man, woman and child... should either fight to the death, or commit suicide.
Let's just say that we already dropped one A-Bomb on one Italian city let's say... Taranto), and they STILL refused to surrender.
Now, hypothetically, we can end the war in Italy be using conventional means, hence ensuring the deaths of millions upon millions upon millions of Italians (both military and civilian) and Allied troops... or we can nuke Rome and save millions upon millions upon millions of lives.
I'd nuke Rome. Hypothetically, of course.
JIMBOB,
also;
Is expediency the only answer when deciding a military course of action, or should we endeavor to see Christ in our opponent, and treat Him accordingly?
Military expedience IS saving lives. As far as "seeing Christ in our opponent", I'm sure glad you weren't at The Attack on Pearl Harbor, or The Rape of Manila, or The Rape of Nanking, etc, etc.
I don't know if I could ever "see Christ" in those who machine gun my buddies helpless in the water... or for sport, toss thousands of Filipino babies into the air and catch them with their bayonets... or rape to death tens of thousands of Chinese girls and women.
Dad29,
HST and Russian hegemony aside for the moment... is it not the objective in war to make the bad guys surrender as quickly as possible?
World War II wasn't some debutant ball. Hell, weren't we suppose to make Japan surrender as quick as possible?
I tell ya what, guys.... what say we all hunt down some Marine, sailor, soldier, Coastie or airman in the Pacific, or anyplace else world-wide who was slated to be sent to the Pacific for the invasion of the Home Islands, and ask them how they felt about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Every single one I've spoken to has responded with "thank God we dropped 'em".
VSC:
Could it be possible that There is simply no coherent argument that you personally happen to agree with that can be made to justify such actions.(?)
Frankly, and with all due respect, no. I try not to make it a "personal" issue, stick with Catholic doctrine, and compare it against the facts. And the facts dont support the conclusion that the atomic bombing of Japan was justifiable from a Catholic point of view.
And, I dont say that to desecrate the honour of those brave men who did what they consider to have been their duty. The average soldier, sailor, Marine, or airman doesnt have the luxury of grand, historical perspective; many dont have access to the information necessary to make informed decisions concerning whether or not they agree with the morality of a given political course of action.
They are simply called to duty, and -- like good patriots -- they go.
In much the same manner, I might add, as many of our Novus Ordo brethren who, never having been exposed to the True Faith, conclude that there is nothing else but the Novus Ordo. They simply obey because they dont know any other way. They simply cannot conceive of one.
It makes no difference to me whether one, some, or all of the veterans from the War to Save Bolshevism "feel" that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do. The truth is not subject to a majority vote, nor is it subject to _feelings_.
The thing to remember is this: the US is not [presently] a Catholic nation, and has never been guided intentionally by Catholic principles. Indeed, it was founded on many anti-Catholic principles.
And that includes most of the actions we've taken in time of war. I dont say that lightly. It is with much regret and disappointment that I have made these observations after a lot of thought and prayer. I've served my country in peace and at war, and know well war's cost in material and spiritual terms. Most of the time I just shake my head ruefully while wondering why our government does what it does, pray for our government that they will finally see the light, and do my duty: first to God, then to my family, and finally to my country... all in the spirit of true Catholic patriotism.
Semper fidelis
As for alternative options for closing the war, one thing that was unthinkable was leaving the Japanese high command in place (just as leaving the Nazis in charge of Germany was not an option).
The Japanese had been fighting aggressive wars in Asia and the Pacific for half a century.
GG,
I honestly don't believe that I made a personal attack on anyone. I'm just commenting that you don't happen to agree with any of the reasoning that I've pointed out.
I've given example upon example that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid targets. And I've cited that from a Catholic viewpoint civilian casulaties were kept to a ridiculous minimum. You disagree with them.
I can live with that.
Also, the average Marine, sailor, soldier, Coastie and airman may not have had the "luxury of grand, historical perspective...", let's just keep in mind that they were the ones who were staring the invasion of the Home Islands in the face... not us. They were the ones looking at getting killed by the truck load.
You're a logistitian... can you give me an idea of the log train needed to send a million dead Americans home from the Far East? No Catholic Charity for them?
VSC,
I didnt take personal offence at anything you stated; I merely wanted to clarify to you that this is not a personal, emotional issue to me. It is one of fact and analysis.
Being of partial Pacific Islander descent, perhaps you had family that were lost in the conflict. That being the case, I understand why you might be inclined to think that the US decision to target a civilian population with the express intent to undermine the will of the enemy government was legitimate.
I do not see how it could be considered "Catholic".
I dont have any (known) relatives who fought or died in the Pacific theatre; I had no family who suffered under the Japanese. But I did have relatives who fought the Communists on the Eastern Front, and who suffered and died during the firebombing of Hamburg. So, I think that perhaps I can imagine your point of view to some extent.
With regard to the "example[s] upon example[s]" as to how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid targets. Those examples dont appear to be able to withstand the light of day. Just because a populace labours in support of a war effort does not automatically make them legitimate military targets. Where does the distinction end? With actions? Words? Thoughts? If an elderly Japanese woman expresses support for the war effort, does that make her subject to atomic annihilation?
That concept has no basis in Christian morality. Indeed, it is wholly anti-Christian.
Thus, Hamburg, Dresden, London, Tokyo, Hiroshima, etc. cannot be said to have been "legitimate military targets"... unless, I suppose, you are willing to go to the extreme and label everyone who isnt one of your countrymen or one of your allies -- combatant or not -- "legitimate military targets". Are there any _Christian_ traditions or writings that uphold this point of view? That it is right and proper to kill women, children, the elderly, and the infirm, to compel surrender?
I hope you can see where that line of reasoning leads. Moreover, such disregard for human life begets reciprocal treatment. For example, since Al-Qaeda has been at war with us (albeit as a non-State actor) for at least a decade and a half, the people who died on 9/11 can be said to have been "legitimate military targets". It matters not that they were killed by hijacked, civilian airplanes. Those responsible for the attacks had no aircraft of their own, so they borrowed ours. And, since "we" declare anyone who isnt with us, against us, why should our enemies make the same distinction?
If there is no discrimination between "combatant" and "noncombatant", then all restraints in the use of force disappear and all manner of barbarism and attrocities can be justified in the name of "national defence", "national security", "victory", and so on. As a Catholic, my opinion is that to accept that line of thinking is (at a minimum) a near occasion of sin, because it leads to murder (i.e. the killing of non-combatants).
Semper fidelis,
Gaufridus
P.S. WRT the question, "...[C]an you give me an idea of the log train needed to send a million dead Americans home from the Far East? No Catholic Charity for them?", that is an appeal to emotion, not to fact. Of course I have Catholic charity to my fellow Americans, Catholic or not! However, that question is based on the false premise that those million Americans must have been in the Far East, invading Japan, to begin with: a premise which I reject.
Being of partial Pacific Islander descent, perhaps you had family that were lost in the conflict. That being the case, I understand why you might be inclined to think that the US decision to target a civilian population with the express intent to undermine the will of the enemy government was legitimate.
I do not see how it could be considered "Catholic".
Thatsword cuts both ways. Because you lost family in Germany, do you think that you are inclined to think that America was part of a Freemason/Comunist conspiracy?
Anyhow, here is where I think we disconnect... seeing that both my parents were up close and personal to the war has no bearing whatsoever. I had no family members killed on 9-11 nor aboard the USS Cole, but I can see that such is an attack upon my country, my way of life, my family... and upon me. WWII was no different.
Concerning the "targeting of a civilian population center" as you say, I have already pointed out on numerous occasions that both cities were far from such.
With Japan's track record well established, Bushido tradition and all, who exactly were the "innocent civilians"?
Concerning And, since "we" declare anyone who isnt with us, against us, why should our enemies make the same distinction?
Isn't that a bit of Political Relativism? Granted, that's one of the great things about history, etc... there is no "one right answer" from an academic POV. For debating purposes, that's all well and fine. But in reality, we have to make a moral stand that come out and say "This Is Right, and That Is Wrong".
You've made your stand, I've made mine.
However, that question is based on the false premise that those million Americans must have been in the Far East, invading Japan, to begin with: a premise which I reject.
That statement is based purely on emotion. If one subscribes to the conspiracy theory that the Pacific Theater during WWII was just that.... a conspiracy; all of that is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, is that we were looking at a million dead Americans if we invaded the Home Islands. No amount of theory concerning the beginnings of the war refutes that fact.
Vir Spel:
You still maintain that the End (the surrender of Japan) justified the Means (mass killing of a bunch of non-combatants)
You can't possibly mean that "that is Catholic teaching," can you?
Because you lost family in Germany, do you think that you are inclined to think that America was part of a Freemason/Comunist conspiracy?
But, we're not talking about the European theatre. The topic of discussion is the Pacific, although there are definite similarities between the two.
I had no family members killed on 9-11 nor aboard the USS Cole, but I can see that such is an attack upon my country, my way of life, my family... and upon me. WWII was no different.
Neither did I (have family members killed on 9-11 or aboard the USS Cole). However, while I do see them as attacks upon our country, I dont see those attacks as attacks upon our entire way of life. It is hard to make the leap of logic to thinking that the Mohammedans wish to destroy us just for simply being here. I suppose our unfaltering, unquestioning support of Israel has nothing to do with it?
Concerning the "targeting of a civilian population center" as you say, I have already pointed out on numerous occasions that both cities were far from such.
No, you havent... Unless you are willing to state that civilians engaged in wartime production are not in fact civilians and are in fact legitimate military targets. In which case, there is no objective Right or Wrong: the argument will boil down to a matter of who can amass and deliver the greatest amount of firepower in the shortest amount of time.
Isn't that a bit of Political Relativism? (I.e. "since "we" declare anyone who isnt with us, against us, why should our enemies make the same distinction?")
Not in the slightest. According to the internationally recognised Laws of War, there are such things as "reprisals" to which states, nations, and non-state actors can and will resort to if the other side violates said Laws. It is the principle of reciprocity.
Now, I am not making the argument that what the Muslims did on 9-11 was morally defensible. I am simply stating that they did act rationally, albeit slowly, in response to what they perceive is a continuing threat from the US/Israeli "partnership" (for lack of a better term).
But in reality, we have to make a moral stand that come out and say "This Is Right, and That Is Wrong"
Absolutely. We must, as Catholics and as patriotic Americans, take a moral stand. To do otherwise would be to deny our Faith and repudiate the our love of our country. Which is why I -- in accordance with traditional Catholic theology, mindful of the Just War doctrine, and in keeping with President Washington's axiom of avoiding foreign entanglements -- state that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were morally indefensible from a Catholic (and, indeed, an patriotic American) point of view.
That statement [the false premise that those million Americans must have been in the Far East, invading Japan, to begin with] is based purely on emotion.
Not at all. It is based on what I have read and understood is Catholic doctrine, what I have read and understood was the military and political strategy of the US during the 1941-1945 war, and a juxtaposition of the two.
I admit that my knowledge of the matter might be lacking. I'm neither an ordained theologian nor a professional historian. So perhaps my ability to make a sound judgement concerning the morality of incinerating women, children, the aged, and the infirm is impared.
Nonetheless, based on what might be my insufficient knowledge and "Monday Morning Quarterbacking", I still must conclude that such actions were and are wrong.
With that said, I have no further comment on this matter...
...Unless you bring it up again next year! ;-)
Pax Domini sit semper tecum
Dad29,
We could have done one of two things;
1. Drop the A-Bombs, kill 180,000 Japanese. The war is over.
2. Invade and fight a conventional war. Millions of Allied troops die. Tens of millions of Japanese die. The war is over.
You mentioned "non-combatants"... I know that you read what I posted concerning Japanese National Policy for everyone to either fight to the death, or commit suicide. Japan's track record proves me right.
So where exactly are these "non-combatants"?
G,
As soon as you used the phrase "The War To Save Bolshevism", that made it all encompassing... to include the European Theater.
However, while I do see them as attacks upon our country, I dont see those attacks as attacks upon our entire way of life. It is hard to make the leap of logic to thinking that the Mohammedans wish to destroy us just for simply being here.
And why not? Mohammed & Friends have been doing that since the 600's. Tours, Vienna, Lepanto, etc, etc. Present day is just a different chapter from the same book.
Unless you are willing to state that civilians engaged in wartime production are not in fact civilians and are in fact legitimate military targets.
As a logistician, you know darn good and well that supply centers, transpo centers, centers of war production, etc, are valid targets. Have things changed that much since I retired?
Now, I am not making the argument that what the Muslims did on 9-11 was morally defensible. I am simply stating that they did act rationally, albeit slowly, in response to what they perceive is a continuing threat from the US/Israeli "partnership" (for lack of a better term).
I refute that as being short sighted. Please ref what I said concerning the moslems have wanted to wipe us out since Day One.
Absolutely. We must, as Catholics and as patriotic Americans, take a moral stand. To do otherwise would be to deny our Faith and repudiate the our love of our country. Which is why I -- in accordance with traditional Catholic theology, mindful of the Just War doctrine, and in keeping with President Washington's axiom of avoiding foreign entanglements -- state that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were morally indefensible from a Catholic (and, indeed, an patriotic American) point of view.
And you have made a reasoned, intelliegent and very "Catholic" argument... just as I believe I have. We simply disagree (gee, that sounds familiar!)
Not at all. It is based on what I have read and understood is Catholic doctrine, what I have read and understood was the military and political strategy of the US during the 1941-1945 war, and a juxtaposition of the two.
But you didn't answer my question. What would the log train be like to send a millions dead Americans home?
I admit that my knowledge of the matter might be lacking. I'm neither an ordained theologian nor a professional historian. So perhaps my ability to make a sound judgement concerning the morality of incinerating women, children, the aged, and the infirm is impared.
As I've said before... I think Japan was just slightly culpable, don't you think?
With that said, I have no further comment on this matter...
...Unless you bring it up again next year! ;-)
You know damn good and well I will!!! *evil grin!*
Et tu, frate.
Ummnnn...you think that the Just War Theory folks would agree that poeple walking on the streets in Nagasaki/Hiroshima were "combatants?" Please.
You argue that "in order to prevent X deaths, we killed Y people."
Sounds vaguely like the abortionists' line: "Health of the mother..."
It is PERHAPS true that X deaths would have occurred if we had to take the Pacific island-by-island.
But speculation is NOT a moral certainty, is it? I mean, if I kill a bunch of doctors, THEY will not be able to kill more Terri Schiavos, right?
Please address the question: explain how The End Justifies the Means applies to the War in the Pacific.
Ummm.... you mean to tell me that those who manned the factories that produced weapons... those that transported war materiel... those that loaded and unloaded Imperial Japanese warships were "innocent civilians"? Please.
As far as for the truly innocent (infants, invalids, etc), do you not think that Japan is culpable for placing thousands of troops in their midst? Please.
And in all honesty, I really don't know where this "antiseptic war" is that so many seem to think is out there. The deaths of non-combatants, however few, is a terrible thing. But now it's reality time.... sometimes in Total War, innocent people get killed. **Japan, call on line three... Culpability calling!**
Your argument sounds vaguely like "It would be better to let a thousand baby-rapists go free, then to jail an innocent man for a month"
And there is no PERHAPS to the millions of deaths the Allies would have sustained in the taking of the Home Islands. Keep in mind that the majority of battles in the Pacific Theater were fought on islands no bigger than Manhattan. And there were hundreds of thousands of American deaths.
What do you think would have happened when we hit the Home Islands (roughly the size of California?)
To answer your final question, the "end" was victory over an aggressive force. The "means" was a weapon that was, quite simply, the very same as one bomb being the equivilent to a thousand plane raid, followed by a mass invasion from the sea that would have taken months (if not years) and would have cost tens of millions of lives. One method was swift... the other was protracted.
Long story short... one out of sixteen American in uniform would have died in the invasion of the Home Islands. That never happened. How many of us wouldn't even be here if we invaded?
Also in an invasion, upwards of 90% of all Japanese would have either fought to the death or killed themselves. That never happened either. Face it, we saved millions upon millions of Japanese lives by dropping the bombs
We will have to agree to disagree.
It is SPECULATED that 'millions would die' because no one KNOWS when the Emperor and his minions would have given up--or when HST & Co. decided to quit with an encirclement/noose around Jap-held territory in the Pacific. (Unless you KNOW that with moral certainty, all the rest is speculation.)
OK--people working in armaments, logistics, etc., are combatants.
Of course, the US Army ALSO puts its troops midst civilians here in the USA--El Paso (I fried there), Pendleton, Annapolis, and Ft Drum come to mind, not to mention Fort Sam.
The difficulty is that a great deal of the argument rests on propaganda put forth by the US--and yes, it was propaganda.
NO, I don't think the Jap leadership, civil or military, were saints. But let's not canonize FDR or HST--or George Marshall, Best Friend of all the Commies in Europe.
Out.
But let's not canonize FDR or HST--or George Marshall, Best Friend of all the Commies in Europe.
Amen to THAT, brother!!!
Hey Petrus Radii!
Instead of me cutting and pasting, and then placing your comments in italics... I'll just number by paragraph for me responses
1. Long story short, in a case of TOTAL WAR, military expediency IS Catholic morality. Like I said on numerous occasions, Japan had a proven track record of fighting to the last man, woman or child. In the name of Christian Charity to all parties, the sooner this war ENDED, the more lives there would be saved.
2. No civilians were killed indisciminatly. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far from some Walt Disney dream-land where fawns ate grain from the hands of pretty girls. No one held guns to the heads of the civilian populace to man the machinery of war. You're thinking like an American now. Remember, Japan was a nation of Nationalist Shintoism. The Emperor was god, and Japan was the Holy Land. If your priest friend would have died as a "guest worker", that would have been a terrible thing -- Please don't compare your priest friend who was forced to labor for the Axis, to the every day Japanese who willingly labored for the Axis. Oops, I mean they labored for "god". And don't kid yourself, they most certainly would have all died for their "god" the Emperor. Did you ever consider that? Hmmm??!
3. I'm sorry that you find my opinions "offensive". To be perfectly honest, I find your cavilier attitude on millions of Allied troops and tens of millions of Japanese dying in a falsely protracted war to be "offensive". By the way, my "90%" claim is based on historical precidence of the Japanese themselves. If anything, the number would have been higher. Your claim that the Japanese were "not 'killing machines' by nature or national culture", illuminates your ignorance of the Japanese national attitude during WWII. Again, you're thinking like an American. I will agree with you that they weren't killers by nature, but they certainly were by nurture. I suggest you do some reading on what the Japanese nation had planned for the Allied if we invaded the Home Islands. I'll say it yet again... millions of Japanese men, women and children, young and old alike, were already in the planning stages of a Home Guard Army. Keep in mind that when the cream of the Japanese Flying Corps were dead, they were already recruiting 16 yr old boys to man the kamikazies... and things weren't even CLOSE to being bad yet!
4. Those bishops did what they were suppose to do. Are you saying that not fighting back is "the Catholic" thing to do? If so, Prince Charles Martel, King Jan Sobieski, and Pope St Pius V are in hell. Oh, and the "Praise The Lord And Pass The Ammunition" Chaplian in Pearl Harbor is in hell too because he didn't throw blessings up to the Japanese pilots? Are those examples of your "Catholic charity which places the salvation of souls ahead of victory in war"? I hope not! If so, we'll all be praying towards Mecca 5 times a day before you know it!!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home