Author Topic: Were The Japanese warned about Fat Man and Little Boy? (Read 2105 times)

KevinW · « **on:** July 25, 2010, 01:12:31 PM »

Commentary

Quite a stir has been raised my recent commentary (from this Catholic's perspective) on the upcoming anniversary of the atomic bombings of Japan. I've been accused by some of advocating indiscriminate killing, to murder, to racism.

I'll counter the hysterical with the historical.

Many of those of my own Faith who disagree with me have cited 2314 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as to why they believe I'm in error.

To wit: 2314 "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."110 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.

The key word here is "indiscriminate". As I will prove in this commentary, Hiroshima and Nagasaki simply weren't indiscriminately destroyed cities, but valid military targets.

Read more...

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** July 25, 2010, 01:54:24 PM »

It's irrelevant whether or not the Japanese were warned.

You need to consider the evil of what you're endorsing. You haven't explained why the means atomic weapons are proportionate to the ends of gaining unconditional surrender.

Japan could have been defeated easily without the demand for unconditional surrender.

You haven't addressed that.

As for arguing the destruction isn't indiscriminate, that is also ridiculous.

innocenza · « **Reply #2 on:** July 25, 2010, 04:10:05 PM »

FWIW:

I used to be a neighbor of a gentleman in his 70s who was a survivor of Iwo Jima. According to him, the Japanese at that time were ready to surrender, but whoever was the President (I'm hazy whether FDR was already gone or not), refused to accept their surrender. The game plan was, that the Soviets had to get in the War on the side of the Allies, and this had not yet happened. This veteran was quite an intelligent and politically aware individual. and I saw/see no difficulty in taking what he said as fact.

It is true that when I was talking about this matter to another veteran, of similar age, who was a survivor of Normandy, there was no way he would give it credence. But then, he would not give any credence to the reality of FDR's foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, either. Would have profoundly upset him to believe our leaders would do such a thing to their own people. What a babe in the woods!

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** July 25, 2010, 04:24:38 PM »

Quote from: innocenza

FWIW:

I used to be a neighbor of a gentleman in his 70s who was a survivor of Iwo Jima. According to him, the Japanese at that time were ready to surrender, but whoever was the President (I'm hazy whether FDR was already gone or not), refused to accept their surrender. The game plan was, that the Soviets had to get in the War on the side of the Allies, and this had not yet happened. This veteran was quite an intelligent and politically aware individual. and I saw/see no difficulty in taking what he said as fact.

It is true that when I was talking about this matter to another veteran, of similar age, who was a survivor of Normandy, there was no way he would give it credence. But then, he would not give any credence to the reality of FDR's foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, either. Would have profoundly upset him to believe our leaders would do such a thing to their own people. What a babe in the woods!

I recommend the works of Catholic historian Anthony Kubek. One such book How the Far East was Lost

innocenza · « **Reply #4 on:** July 25, 2010, 04:29:01 PM »

Thanks for the recommendation, Telesphorus. I will definitely pursue it.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** July 25, 2010, 04:46:17 PM »

Quote from: innocenza

Thanks for the recommendation, Telesphorus. I will definitely pursue it.

It does bother me though that the last chapter is full of references to Hegel.

roscoe · « **Reply #6 on:** July 25, 2010, 05:00:34 PM »

My understanding is that the Japanese were ready to surrender b4 the bombs. Hirohito had requested the Pope to act as mediator in settling the world crisis.

KevinW · « **Reply #7 on:** July 25, 2010, 08:37:36 PM »

If Japan was "ready to surrender", then why didn't they? And why did it take two bombs to get the point across? You think they'd get the message after #1 hit.

BTW, did anyone evn bother reading the citable historical references I posted?

Sorry guys, Japan is to blame. Both H & N were valid military targets. Japan made them that way.

KevinW · « **Reply #8 on:** July 25, 2010, 08:38:54 PM »

Quote from: innocenza

FWIW:

I used to be a neighbor of a gentleman in his 70s who was a survivor of Iwo Jima. According to him, the Japanese at that time were ready to surrender, but whoever was the President (I'm hazy whether FDR was already gone or not), refused to accept their surrender. The game plan was, that the Soviets had to get in the War on the side of the Allies, and this had not yet happened. This veteran was quite an intelligent and politically aware individual. and I saw/see no difficulty in taking what he said as fact.

It is true that when I was talking about this matter to another veteran, of similar age, who was a survivor of Normandy, there was no way he would give it credence. But then, he would not give any credence to the reality of FDR's foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, either. Would have profoundly upset him to believe our leaders would do such a thing to their own people. What a babe in the woods!

OK, just want to make sure I understand you correctly... one guy who was a WWII vet is your source of all knowledge and information on the Second World War?

roscoe · « **Reply #9 on:** July 25, 2010, 08:58:00 PM »

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the targets of the Judaic bomb because they were the sites of the Japanese Catholic martyrs.

roscoe · « **Reply #10 on:** July 25, 2010, 09:11:15 PM »

This topic has been here b4 and there are multiple sources. Some one will show up with them.

innocenza · « **Reply #11 on:** July 26, 2010, 07:29:17 AM »

Kevin --

I wouldn't place any confidence whatever in any mainstream sources of WWII or other history, including anything taught in the university.

spouse of Jesus · « **Reply #12 on:** July 26, 2010, 02:23:27 PM »

Is there more obligation to love your Countrymen than to love other catholics? It is said that many many people in Hiroshima and Nagazaki were catholics. So don't you think it is wiser to side with them than with a prot Countryman?