Japan In Wwii

[Era Might]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='01 April 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1270176201' post='2085309']
Sometimes when there are no good options, the least bad option is the one you have to take. Doing nothing is rarely allowed.
[/quote]
Refusing to take part in evil is not doing nothing. It is, in fact, one of the greatest things you can do in life. It is, in fact, one of the things you must do in life. And refusing to take part in evil is followed by choosing to take part in what is just.

[quote]It is no longer a simple, ingenuous and dangerous utopia. It is the new Law of mankind which goes forward, and which arms Peace with a formidable principle: "You are all brethren" (Mt 23:8). If the consciousness of universal brotherhood truly penetrates into the hearts of men, will they still need to arm themselves to the point of becoming blind and fanatic killers of their brethren who in themselves are innocent, and of perpetrating, as a contribution to Peace, butchery of untold magnitude, as at Hiroshima on 6 August 1945? And in fact has not our own time had an example of what can be done by a weak man, Gandhi - armed only with the principle of non-violence - to vindicate for a Nation of hundreds of millions of human beings the freedom and dignity of a new People?

--Pope Paul VI

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/messages/peace/documents/hf_p-vi_mes_19751018_ix-world-day-for-peace_en.html[/quote]

Edited April 2, 2010 by Era Might

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='01 April 2010 - 11:49 PM' timestamp='1270176554' post='2085310']
Refusing to take part in evil is not doing nothing. It is, in fact, one of the greatest things you can do in life. It is, in fact, one of the things you must do in life. And refusing to take part in evil is followed by choosing to take part in what is just.
[/quote]
it's not always as clear cut as that, I hope you'll allow.

[dominicansoul]

Urakami Cathedral, the largest Roman Catholic church in Japan, was built in the city of Nagasaki, and consecrated to the Virgin Mary. The bomb detonated directly above this cathedral. I'm sure the Lord was definitely not pleased...

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='01 April 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1270177390' post='2085319']
Urakami Cathedral, the largest Roman Catholic church in Japan, was built in the city of Nagasaki, and consecrated to the Virgin Mary. The bomb detonated directly above this cathedral. I'm sure the Lord was definitely not pleased...
[/quote]
[quote name='vee8' date='01 April 2010 - 11:12 AM' timestamp='1270134720' post='2084785']
In his book [url="http://www.amazon.com/Bells-Nagasaki-Japans-Modern-Writers/dp/4770018452/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1"]The Bells of Nagasaki[/url] Dr Takashi Nagai, a Catholic who was in Nagasaki, in a concrete university building at the time the bomb fell says something I thought was very interesting. I can look up the exact quote later but from what I remember he says that he believes God allowed that bomb to detonate over Nagasaki the most Catholic city in Japan, over the cathedral dedicated to Our Lady, during Mass, as a sacrifice of reparation.
...

More later...
[/quote]
Just pointing out an alternative viewpoint, I don't know if you saw that or not.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='01 April 2010 - 11:05 PM' timestamp='1270177507' post='2085320']
Just pointing out an alternative viewpoint, I don't know if you saw that or not.
[/quote]
just 'cos God allowed the evil does not mean he was pleased with it...

the reparation came from evil...it's just God making goodness come out of evil...He may have been pleased in the reparation, but I highly doubt God relishes human suffering...

[Era Might]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='01 April 2010 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1270176989' post='2085314']
it's not always as clear cut as that, I hope you'll allow.
[/quote]
No, not always. For example, people sometimes resort to selling drugs or engaging in prostitution in order to feed their families. I can sympathize with the misery and agony that goes into those decisions...nevertheless, it has to be recognized that those are wrong decisions.

There are all kinds of historical situations where I can sympathize with many of the people involved, even though I disagree with their actions. This is true of World War II, but it's also true of other situations. I'm sure I could sympathize with many Japanese and Germans who fought in the war. But ultimately, the Truth has the final word. All of our lives must be evaluated on how well we lived up to the Truth.

We can look at people's lives with pity, but that cannot change the Truth. This applies to each of our lives. And this is why we beg God for mercy, because we see the disconnect between so many of our decisions and the Truth.

I don't see what basis there is for a civilization if we cannot at least acknowledge that dropping atomic bombs on a nation is an abominable act.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Era Might

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='02 April 2010 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1270177901' post='2085324']
No, not always. For example, people sometimes resort to selling drugs or engaging in prostitution in order to feed their families. I can sympathize with the misery and agony that goes into those decisions...nevertheless, it has to be recognized that those are wrong decisions.

There are all kinds of historical situations where I can sympathize with many of the people involved, even though I disagree with their actions. This is true of World War II, but it's also true of other situations. I'm sure I could sympathize with many Japanese and Germans who fought in the war. But ultimately, the Truth has the final word. All of our lives must be evaluated on how well we lived up to the Truth.

Looking at people's lives with pity cannot change the Truth. This is true about each of our lives. And this is why we beg God for mercy, because we see the disconnect between so many of our decisions and the Truth.

I don't see what basis there is for a civilization if we cannot at least acknowledge that dropping atomic bombs on a nation is an abominable act.
[/quote]

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='01 April 2010 - 01:57 AM' timestamp='1270101470' post='2084680']
...

the fact that the Allies..... supposedly the good guys in this whole thing,

...
[/quote]
Canadiens...

[CatherineM]

If I'm called to not judge my neighbors, here and now, living in this time, why would I think I could stand in judgment of the actions of people who lived and died before I was born.

[Nihil Obstat]

Toledo, you set up a false dichotomy earlier. This is one that tends to be reinforced by historians, in my experience. The choice was not between invasion and atomic bombs. Those maybe were the only options if we wanted to end the war quickly. Why not just set up a tight blockade, and bomb their military installations to pieces? Decimate them militarily, and blockade until they've had enough.

Sure, it would be expensive, but if you're going to use expense as an argument, then essentially you're trying to put a price on Japanese lives. Obviously not possible from a Catholic position. You can argue about the time, but what is the inherent value in ending the war quickly? Public support? Political clout? Sure, the public in general was sick of the war. Is that an excuse to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians?


In any case, all that aside, I cannot support the utilitarian mindset that dropped those two bombs. It is absolutely not an option for me.

[Nihil Obstat]

Better to lose a war morally than to win one with evil.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='02 April 2010 - 01:07 AM' timestamp='1270181248' post='2085354']
Better to lose a war morally than to win one with evil.
[/quote]
tell that to the Chinese and Filipinos.

As to your other points: countries have finite resources with which to wage war. A blockade of Japan was not a realistic option. I am not an expert on the war by any means, but it is inconceivable that we could have successfully blockaded Japan without terrible casualties on both sides. They were spread out and the danger to our soldiers and sailors would have been enormous. They still had a navy, planes, soldiers on other islands and mainland China. I still dispute that the action of dropping those bombs was evil, any more than starving the entire nation of Japan would have been as you seem to think was a better option.
You say destroy their military installations as if we had satellites and smart bombs. Think about the technological limitations. Even today, intelligence is just guesswork.

"Sir, we bombed that temple we thought was a staging area for the Japs. Turned out to be a religious festival."

That would have happened over, and over, and over. There's no guarantee the Japanese would have surrendered until we smashed their skulls in. Again, look at Okinawa and the insane violence there.

Two bombs killed many thousands and destroyed the enemy's will to fight. Prolonged conflict would have seen a million dead before that psychological break. Let's not forget that the Soviets were on their way to "help." The army that had just got through tearing the throat out of Nazi Germany turned around and marched right into China. Imagine the Communists partitioning Japan like they did Germany and Eastern Europe and bringing their miserable philosophy to bear on the Japanese.

Two atom bombs to avoid all that? It's a win-win for everyone.

It's not just about numbers and utility, it's about the long view. Ending the war quickly was the best thing for all involved.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='01 April 2010 - 11:37 PM' timestamp='1270183053' post='2085377']
tell that to the Chinese and Filipinos.

As to your other points: countries have finite resources with which to wage war. A blockade of Japan was not a realistic option. I am not an expert on the war by any means, but it is inconceivable that we could have successfully blockaded Japan without terrible casualties on both sides. They were spread out and the danger to our soldiers and sailors would have been enormous. They still had a navy, planes, soldiers on other islands and mainland China. I still dispute that the action of dropping those bombs was evil, any more than starving the entire nation of Japan would have been as you seem to think was a better option.
You say destroy their military installations as if we had satellites and smart bombs. Think about the technological limitations. Even today, intelligence is just guesswork.

"Sir, we bombed that temple we thought was a staging area for the Japs. Turned out to be a religious festival."

That would have happened over, and over, and over. There's no guarantee the Japanese would have surrendered until we smashed their skulls in. Again, look at Okinawa and the insane violence there.

Two bombs killed many thousands and destroyed the enemy's will to fight. Prolonged conflict would have seen a million dead before that psychological break. Let's not forget that the Soviets were on their way to "help." The army that had just got through tearing the throat out of Nazi Germany turned around and marched right into China. Imagine the Communists partitioning Japan like they did Germany and Eastern Europe and bringing their miserable philosophy to bear on the Japanese.

Two atom bombs to avoid all that? It's a win-win for everyone.

It's not just about numbers and utility, it's about the long view. Ending the war quickly was the best thing for all involved.
[/quote]
There's a difference in principle here. The atomic bombs targeted civilians. This is wrong in every single circumstance, fullstop. I won't pretend to know much about wars and diplomacy, but what I do know is that civilians cannot be targeted. That's pretty basic.
Maybe my alternative ideas were poor. I can accept that. However, decimating Nagasaki and Hiroshima cannot be justified by a Catholic. The good end (ending the war) cannot justify the evil means (targeting civilians). That's Catholic morality 101.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='02 April 2010 - 12:37 AM' timestamp='1270183053' post='2085377']
tell that to the Chinese and Filipinos.

As to your other points: countries have finite resources with which to wage war. A blockade of Japan was not a realistic option. I am not an expert on the war by any means, but it is inconceivable that we could have successfully blockaded Japan without terrible casualties on both sides. They were spread out and the danger to our soldiers and sailors would have been enormous. They still had a navy, planes, soldiers on other islands and mainland China. I still dispute that the action of dropping those bombs was evil, any more than starving the entire nation of Japan would have been as you seem to think was a better option.
You say destroy their military installations as if we had satellites and smart bombs. Think about the technological limitations. Even today, intelligence is just guesswork.

"Sir, we bombed that temple we thought was a staging area for the Japs. Turned out to be a religious festival."

That would have happened over, and over, and over. There's no guarantee the Japanese would have surrendered until we smashed their skulls in. Again, look at Okinawa and the insane violence there.

Two bombs killed many thousands and destroyed the enemy's will to fight. Prolonged conflict would have seen a million dead before that psychological break. Let's not forget that the Soviets were on their way to "help." The army that had just got through tearing the throat out of Nazi Germany turned around and marched right into China. Imagine the Communists partitioning Japan like they did Germany and Eastern Europe and bringing their miserable philosophy to bear on the Japanese.

Two atom bombs to avoid all that? It's a win-win for everyone.

It's not just about numbers and utility, it's about the long view. Ending the war quickly was the best thing for all involved.
[/quote]

still doesn't justify bombing heavy civilian populations... they coulda bombed military installations...they coulda bombed entire islands...they didn't need to go after the only Christian population in Japan....

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='02 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1270184790' post='2085392']
still doesn't justify bombing heavy civilian populations... they coulda bombed military installations...they coulda bombed entire islands...they didn't need to go after the only Christian population in Japan....
[/quote]
(It would have been just as wrong if 100% of them were Taoist.)

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='02 April 2010 - 01:24 AM' timestamp='1270185883' post='2085398']
(It would have been just as wrong if 100% of them were Taoist.)
[/quote]
i agree...but did you know that only 1 % of the Japanese population at the time were Christian? And they were all concentrated in the areas of hiroshima and nagasaki....

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='02 April 2010 - 12:26 AM' timestamp='1270185984' post='2085401']
i agree...but did you know that only 1 % of the Japanese population at the time were Christian? And they were all concentrated in the areas of hiroshima and nagasaki....
[/quote]
Yea, it really is odd. Although personally, I'd rather believe that Christians were specifically targeted if that was the only logical position left to take. I prefer, maybe just for my own sanity, to assume that for some reason, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were attractive places for Christians to be, and that is somehow related to them also being attractive targets to be devastated.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='02 April 2010 - 01:58 AM' timestamp='1270184328' post='2085389']
There's a difference in principle here. The atomic bombs targeted civilians. This is wrong in every single circumstance, fullstop. I won't pretend to know much about wars and diplomacy, but what I do know is that civilians cannot be targeted. That's pretty basic.
Maybe my alternative ideas were poor. I can accept that. However, decimating Nagasaki and Hiroshima cannot be justified by a Catholic. The good end (ending the war) cannot justify the evil means (targeting civilians). That's Catholic morality 101.
[/quote]
If you have two choices, you make the one causing the least damage. Every man, woman, and child were trained to resist and kill,they did not consider themselves "civilians" as we would use the term now, millions more people on both sides would have died.
"Some historians see ancient Japanese warrior traditions as a major factor in the resistance in the Japanese military to the idea of surrender. According to one Air Force account,

"The Japanese code of bushido—"the way of the warrior"—was deeply ingrained. The concept of Yamato-damashii equipped each soldier with a strict code: never be captured, never break down, and never surrender. Surrender was dishonorable. Each soldier was trained to fight to the death and was expected to die before suffering dishonor. Defeated Japanese leaders preferred to take their own lives in the painful samurai ritual of seppuku (called hara kiri in the West.). Warriors who surrendered were not deemed worthy of regard or respect."[12]

Japanese militarism was aggravated by the Great Depression, and had resulted in countless assassinations of reformers attempting to check military power, among them Takahashi Korekiyo, Saitō Makoto, and Inukai Tsuyoshi. This created an environment in which opposition to war was a much riskier endeavor.[32]

According to historian Richard B. Frank,

"The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender."[33]
our favorite wiki.

Nagaski was picked because it was the shipbuilding port for the Imperial Navy. Hiroshima was the headquarters of one of the armies, a key military port, and a depot for supplies. The idea that it was picked because there were christians there is simple conspiracy theory croutons.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='02 April 2010 - 07:21 AM' timestamp='1270207270' post='2085476']
If you have two choices, you make the one causing the least damage. Every man, woman, and child were trained to resist and kill,they did not consider themselves "civilians" as we would use the term now, millions more people on both sides would have died.
"Some historians see ancient Japanese warrior traditions as a major factor in the resistance in the Japanese military to the idea of surrender. According to one Air Force account,

"The Japanese code of bushido—"the way of the warrior"—was deeply ingrained. The concept of Yamato-damashii equipped each soldier with a strict code: never be captured, never break down, and never surrender. Surrender was dishonorable. Each soldier was trained to fight to the death and was expected to die before suffering dishonor. Defeated Japanese leaders preferred to take their own lives in the painful samurai ritual of seppuku (called hara kiri in the West.). Warriors who surrendered were not deemed worthy of regard or respect."[12]

Japanese militarism was aggravated by the Great Depression, and had resulted in countless assassinations of reformers attempting to check military power, among them Takahashi Korekiyo, Saitō Makoto, and Inukai Tsuyoshi. This created an environment in which opposition to war was a much riskier endeavor.[32]

According to historian Richard B. Frank,

"The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender."[33]
our favorite wiki.

Nagaski was picked because it was the shipbuilding port for the Imperial Navy. Hiroshima was the headquarters of one of the armies, a key military port, and a depot for supplies. The idea that it was picked because there were christians there is simple conspiracy theory croutons.
[/quote]

I think natives of Nagasaki and Hiroshima would disagree...unless you believe devout Christians also had this mentality of dying for the "divine" emperor and their homeland...these people were victims...not aggressors!

..i believe there were more important military targets out there other than these two cities... and yes, i wouldn't doubt the masons in our government (including our president at the time..) would take into consideration dropping the bomb over a Roman Catholic Cathedral...somewhat appealing...

[dominicansoul]

Did you know Truman was Grand Master? Did you know that he had a full Masonic service when he died? He was one of the few presidents who remained very active in his masonic service while serving as president...