• October 1935 Italian invasion of Abyssinia
• July 1936 Falangist rebellion in Spain rescued by Franco's soldiers airlifted in from Africa by Nazi and Italian planes
• July 1937 unprovoked Japanese invasion of China
• March 1938 Anschluss
• October 1938 Nazi annexation of Sudentland
• November 1938 Kristallnacht
• March 1939 German military occupation of the rest of Czeckoslovakia

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Take your pick:

• October 1935 Italian invasion of Abyssinia
• July 1936 Falangist rebellion in Spain rescued by Franco's soldiers airlifted in from Africa by Nazi and Italian planes
• July 1937 unprovoked Japanese invasion of China
• March 1938 Anschluss
• October 1938 Nazi annexation of Sudentland
• November 1938 Kristallnacht
• March 1939 German military occupation of the rest of Czeckoslovakia

---

• December 7, 1941 Unprovoked Japanese attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
the US:

December 7, 1941 Unprovoked Japanese attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
the US:

December 7, 1941 Unprovoked Japanese attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

---

No, that cannot be true. It might be the moment that the USA got involved in the shooting war on a large scale, but it can't be the moment the war became just if it ever was just before.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
the US:

December 7, 1941 Unprovoked Japanese attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

---

No, that cannot be true. It might be the moment that the USA got involved in the shooting war on a large scale, but it can't be the moment the war became just if it ever was just before.

Surely a war - or any other activity - cannot be just for one participant and unjust for another co-operating with them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
But can an atrocity committed against one country retrospectively justify what others have done previously? It would seem odd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Surely a war - or any other activity - cannot be just for one participant and unjust for another co-operating with them?

---

I'm not sure that's so. Isn't it possible that the UK had a just reason for engaging in war with the Germans in 1939 (treaty obligation to defend Poland), but that the US had no such reason?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
For as long as the allied intention was to require an unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan, it was not a just war. A just war cannot require unconditional surrender; a just war is undertaken with the intention of offering just conditions which if met will result in peace.
Also, bombing of civilian populations is unjust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken
And the corollary of that is that it must have been unjust, immoral, for German or Japanese soldiers to take part in their invasions of those countries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
For as long as the allied intention was to require an unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan, it was not a just war. A just war cannot require unconditional surrender; a just war is undertaken with the intention of offering just conditions which if met will result in peace.
Also, bombing of civilian populations is unjust.

---

Very interesting point. Normally that is correct, but I suppose one argument for it, was that Nazism was seen as so destructive, and so death-dealing to the people of Europe, and the Soviet Union, that it had to be destroyed. A peace with Germany which left the Nazis in power was intolerable, therefore, and I suppose this meant that the Allies took it upon themselves to occupy Germany and deNazify it, which of course, they failed to do, since it was impossible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
For those of us in the US:

• December 7, 1941 Unprovoked Japanese attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet
The Japanese were feeling provoked by the USA's continued brutal holding of the Philippines, which had not dignified the Americans in terms of the savage nature of the conquest and occupation.]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet
The Japanese were feeling provoked by the USA's continued brutal holding of the Philippines, which had not dignified the Americans in terms of the savage nature of the conquest and occupation.]

---

The American occupation of the Philippines left a lot to be desired, but the Japanese occupation was far more brutal.

The great majority of Filipinos welcomed the returning Americans when they recaptured the islands.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prester John:
Filipino civilian casualities during the initial conquest were hundreds of thousands by conservative estimates. I would say the main reason for their enthusiasm was the fact that the U.S. was already halfway through granting them independence when the Japanese invasion. They could look forward to eventual independence under the Americans- no such promise under the Japanese.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

.

The Japanese were feeling provoked by the USA's continued brutal holding of the Philippines, which had not dignified the Americans in terms of the savage nature of the conquest and occupation. Second, the take over of the USA of the British bases post-WW1, and common interests expressed in Asia, with Brit's holding of India etc also. The support by the Americans of the French and British colonial possessions in South East Asia, with at times, atrocious treatment of the locals.

---

quote:

---

Third, the cut-off of oil and steel exports from USA to Japan in the summer of 1941.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
For those of us in the US:

• December 7, 1941 Unprovoked Japanese attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

---

Which is the way it has always been told. But a few other things are involved and it's not that simple.

The Japanese were feeling provoked by the USA's continued brutal holding of the Philippines, which had not dignified the Americans in terms of the savage nature of the conquest and occupation. Second, the take over of the USA of the British bases post-WW1, and common interests expressed in Asia, with Brit's holding of India etc also. The support by the Americans of the French and British colonial possessions in South East Asia, with at times, atrocious treatment of the locals. Third, the cut-off of oil and steel exports from USA to Japan in the summer of 1941.

The Japanese expansion into Manchuria (China) is always used as a counterpoint and reason. There are elements of manifest destiny and Japan's knowledge of this American ideology. Takes us back to the Philippines and the overthrow and annexation of Hawaii. The Japanese were thus conscious of the USA's historical designs on a general Pacific empire (call it what you will).

The eventual, dispassionate history is yet to be written, but I think it will complicate the general USA take as expressed.

---

Whilst I agree with some of what you say, I find the implication that the Japanese had any qualms about the way "locals" were treated by the French or British to be offensive. I know local people who survived Japanese occupation in places like Singapore and Hong Kong, they still hold a great deal of animosity towards the Japanese for their cruelty and they relate stories of atrocities committed by the Japanese occupiers. Japan's treatment of occupied countries was barbaric and whilst the British are certainly not spotless in this regard the Japanese certainly did not act to invade SE Asia out of any regard for how the locals were being treated and to suggest so is an outrageously offensive historical misstatement.
 

---

Posted by Finger (# 10002) on :
 
Was it a just war? Let me put it this way. Most of you here are ignorant of a fact that German submarines were spotted in the St-Lawrence river north of Quebec city. Quebec borders New-Hamshire, Vermont and part of the New-York State. More than this, a sunken German sub was discovered just south of Quebec City. You didn't read this in your history books did you? Of course not. Still going to ask if this was a just war?
 

---

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
Look at the fascist nations aggression between 1933-39 . Hitler had a plan for the elimination of Jjews etc. Imperial Japan has been running amuck against the Chinese since 1931. All the above is aggression by a national power and thus that justiified war.
It has to be noted that none of the Allies stood up to Hitler before they were aggressed against.
As for the area bombing as war crime . I can't buy that . How you aimed bombs then is
way different from how it can be done today.
Dresden was an active railhead the German army could have moved troops east agains Soviet forces, so it's a legitimate target.
As for using the Atomic bombs , yes they were nasty but the USAAF 20th Bomber Command's
fire bombing raid caused more caualties than Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Also if the invansion's had happened losses would have been massive
and unlike Normandy there was no safe place to withdraw to. And to those who say accepting 10% casualties would have been better than using the bombs . You want to chose whose parent/wife gets the "we regret to inform you "telegram? And that is just on the US side . The Japanese were on minimal rations an d beeing urged to attack tanks with bambolo sticks. Have some sense of mercy for those people . The dead of Hiroshima & Nagasaki saved lives in the long run.
Was it a success ? Well the nuclear genie hasn't slipped out of the bottle since 1945

 

---

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
Whilst I agree with some of what you say, I find the implication that the Japanese had any qualms about the way "locals" were treated by the French or British to be offensive. I know local people who survived Japanese occupation in places like Singapore and Hong Kong, they still hold a great deal of animosity towards the Japanese for their cruelty and they relate stories of atrocities committed by the Japanese occupiers.

Japan's treatment of occupied countries was barbaric and whilst the British are certainly not spotless in this regard the Japanese certainly did not act to invade SE Asia out of any regard for how the locals were being treated and to suggest so is an outrageously offensive historical misstatement.

---

Sure. And some locals allied with the Japanese and profitted from the relationship. They were savagely treated post-war with victors' justice. Just as Romanians and some Ukrainians etc took up with the Germans in Europe. My heretical take comes from my father, who was a German national when Japan bombed Hawaii. His family had lived in Hanoi, Manilla and Singapore, and were granted British passports in 1942 in rather complicated circumstances. I had family on both sides of WW2.

My father described in detail how friends after the war talked of a sense of liberation particularly in French Indochina and Indonesia. If not for who employed my grandfather (an American-British company), they would have stayed as they were German nationals, as it was they got out of Hong Kong just before it fell, and obtained British travel documents. I will grant you that I am more familiar of the French and Dutch conduct in SE Asia than of the other countries. And it was not good at all, neither before nor after the war. The Dutch were particularly foul. No European country was in the far east for any altruistic purpose. They wanted to export the resources, enrich themselves, and they judged the locals as worthy of being servants. No clean hands. I will grant that after the war started, including Japan in China in the 1930s, and the full scale Pacific wars that some aspects of Japanese conduct were particularly foul, but I won't grant that about colonial regimes, i.e., which country was nicer than the next.

The British, French, Dutch, and Americans were interested in SE Asia because they wanted economic control of the countries to enrich their own. That was the root cause of the war wasn't it. Are there really any others? The Americans had more advanced ideas of control not necessarily requiring colonial conquest, which was more characteristic of the other countries. Once the war started in Pacific, the beast was unleashed, and the conduct then is another discussion.

I am not meaning to offend anyone's sense of received truth, but there is something to discuss. I don't believe the root causes for the Pacific war are discussed sufficiently
[/QB][/QUOTE]

[ 13. November 2012, 01:57: Message edited by: no prophet ]
 

---

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
To follow on my last post. Guess I side with
General Charles Sweeny , who commanded the instrument aircraft at Hiroshima and the strike aircraft at Nagasaki . In his biography he say's I am the man who dropped the last atomic bomb and I want to keep that distinction,.
 

---

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulBC:
As for the area bombing as war crime . I can't buy that . How you aimed bombs then is
way different from how it can be done today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
Whilst I agree with some of what you say, I find the implication that the Japanese had any qualms about the way "locals" were treated by the French or British to be offensive. I know local people who survived Japanese occupation in places like Singapore and Hong Kong, they still hold a great deal of animosity towards the Japanese for their cruelty and they relate stories of atrocities committed by the Japanese occupiers.

Japan's treatment of occupied countries was barbaric and whilst the British are certainly not spotless in this regard the Japanese certainly did not act to invade SE Asia out of any regard for how the locals were being treated and to suggest so is an outrageously offensive historical misstatement.

---

Sure. And some locals allied with the Japanese and profitted from the relationship. They were savagely treated post-war with victors' justice. Just as Romanians and some Ukrainians etc took up with the Germans in Europe. My heretical take comes from my father, who was a German national when Japan bombed Hawaii. His family had lived in Hanoi, Manilla and Singapore, and were granted British passports in 1942 in rather complicated circumstances. I had family on both sides of WW2.

My father described in detail how friends after the war talked of a sense of liberation particularly in French Indochina and Indonesia. If not for who employed my grandfather (an American-British company), they would have stayed as they were German nationals, as it was they got out of Hong Kong just before it fell, and obtained British travel documents. I will grant you that I am more familiar of the French and Dutch conduct in SE Asia than of the other countries. And it was not good at all, neither before nor after the war. The Dutch were particularly foul. No European country was in the far east for any altruistic purpose. They wanted to export the resources, enrich themselves, and they judged the locals as worthy of being servants. No clean hands. I will grant that after the war started, including Japan in China in the 1930s, and the full scale Pacific wars that some aspects of Japanese conduct were particularly foul, but I won't grant that about colonial regimes, i.e., which country was nicer than the next.

The British, French, Dutch, and Americans were interested in SE Asia because they wanted economic control of the countries to enrich their own. That was the root cause of the war wasn't it. Are there really any others? The Americans had more advanced ideas of control not necessarily requiring colonial conquest, which was more characteristic of the other countries. Once the war started in Pacific, the beast was unleashed, and the conduct then is another discussion.

I am not meaning to offend anyone's sense of received truth, but there is something to discuss. I don't believe the root causes for the Pacific war are discussed sufficiently

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Does that justify Hiroshime and Nagasaki? Ultimately it does.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I think you have to look at the European and Pacific wars separately. The Pacific war was essentially a clash between empires over spheres of influence. What Japan was doing was no worse than what Britain, France and the US had done before them--dreadful as it was.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
The British were still running concentration camps to starve and torture 1.5 million Kenyans who belonged to the wrong tribe in the late 50s.

But I don't think that means they did wrong in preventing Hitler from gassing more Jews.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Here is the conclusion to a 2011 history of WWII by British military historian Max Hastings:

“It is impossible to dignify the struggle as an unalloyed contest between good and evil, nor rationally to celebrate an experience, and even an outcome, which imposed much misery upon so many. Allied victory did not bring universal peace, prosperity, justice or freedom; it brought merely a portion of those things to some fraction of those who had taken part. All that seems certain is that Allied victory saved the world from a much worse fate that would have followed the triumph of Germany and Japan. With this knowledge, seekers after virtue and truth must be content”.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Compared to most wars, though, WWII was something to be proud of. The valiant efforts of the Allied powers saved the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
We didn't save the Jews from the Holocaust

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
we didn't save Germany from an oppressive government since after the war ended the soviets took over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
We certainly didn't save the world from mass death, destruction, massacres, and economic and social collapse, since the war itself brought all that - and on a larger scale than ever before.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
"wanted more influence" is rather a euphemistic way of describing the annexing of Europe under military rule.

---

quote:

---

Or how about when he started laying out plans for the systematic genocide of Jews ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
"wanted more influence" is rather a euphemistic way of describing the annexing of Europe under military rule.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And Japan was trying to annex most of East Asia under military rule.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Take your pick:

• October 1935 Italian invasion of Abyssinia
• July 1936 Falangist rebellion in Spain rescued by Franco's soldiers airlifted in from Africa by Nazi and Italian planes
• July 1937 unprovoked Japanese invasion of China
• March 1938 Anschluss
• October 1938 Nazi annexation of Sudentland
• November 1938 Kristallnacht
• March 1939 German military occupation of the rest of Czeckoslovakia

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Why? Because the allies contented themselves with empires in Africa, South America, and Asia but Germany wanted an empire in Europe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Here is the conclusion to a 2011 history of WWII by British military historian Max Hastings:

“It is impossible to dignify the struggle as an unalloyed contest between good and evil, nor rationally to celebrate an experience, and even an outcome, which imposed much misery upon so many. Allied victory did not bring universal peace, prosperity, justice or freedom; it brought merely a portion of those things to some fraction of those who had taken part. All that seems certain is that Allied victory saved the world from a much worse fate that would have followed the triumph of Germany and Japan. With this knowledge, seekers after virtue and truth must be content”.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Why? Because the allies contented themselves with empires in Africa, South America, and Asia but Germany wanted an empire in Europe?

---

As bad as colonialism was (and I'm certainly no fan) I don't think it compares with Nazi Germany. Taking over other countries is bad wherever they are. Taking them over and subjecting the populations to terror, extermination and eugenics is worse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
It raises a question I confess I'd never really thought much about: the distinction between just war theory as it applies to states (when is it just for a nation to go to war?) and to individuals (when is it just for an individual to participate in war?) I had never really considered those as separate questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Finger:
Was it a just war? Let me put it this way. Most of you here are ignorant of a fact that German submarines were spotted in the St-Lawrence river north of Quebec city. Quebec borders New-Hamshire, Vermont and part of the New-York State. More than this, a sunken German sub was discovered just south of Quebec City. You didn't read this in your history books did you? Of course not. Still going to ask if this was a just war?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
How is Germany's invasion of Poland any different than Japan's invasion of China?

---

quote:

---

However, the Allies weren't fighting the Nazis over the Final Solution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by *Leon*:
I was under the impression that a war had to be winnable to be just; it is unjust to go into a no-hope situation that would achieve a just aim were you to succeed, since you could cause less hardship and the same end result by just capitulating without a fight.

By that definition, the war in Europe arguably became just at Pearl harbour. Without the American involvement it was far from clear that Britain could win.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Take your pick:

• October 1935 Italian invasion of Abyssinia
• July 1936 Falangist rebellion in Spain rescued by Franco's soldiers airlifted in from Africa by Nazi and Italian planes
• July 1937 unprovoked Japanese invasion of China
• March 1938 Anschluss
• October 1938 Nazi annexation of Sudentland
• November 1938 Kristallnacht
• March 1939 German military occupation of the rest of Czeckoslovakia

---

Roll it back further: Japanese invasion of Manchuria from September 1931 (if you have the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, why can't I have the Mukden Incident?).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Japanese DID subject their subjects to terror, slavery, mass murder and medical experimentation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
As bad as colonialism was (and I'm certainly no fan) I don't think it compares with Nazi Germany. Taking over other countries is bad wherever they are..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
And when the reality did sink in at home, in Britain and France anyway, the people rejected slavery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
And at its worse, with chattel slavery in plantations and mines, European colonialism was as bad as anything people have ever done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
No, the Germans were never going to win. They were astonishingly lucky - and skilful, and brave - to get as far as they did. Even after German conquests in Europe in 1940 they were still just about outnumbered and outgunned by their opponents, and the Allies already had massive economic and industrial support from the USA which helped a great deal. And then Germany invaded Russia. From that moment on they were almost certain to lose, and lose badly.

The attack on the Soviet Union was stalled in the late autumn of 1941. The first large Russian counter-offensives began before Pearl Harbour. The question then wasn't whether or not Germany would lose, but how long it would take.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I'd be very wary of any view of morality that held that some actions could be morally correct (as opposed to legal) for states, but not for individuals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:


There was nothing in colonial rule in the 20th century that compared to Hitler's final solution, to eugenics, or the level of brutality that fascism applied.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is easy to discuss this topic with detachment, because probably none of us were alive during WWII, and precious few of us have experienced military combat.

...

While it is an interesting, leisurely post facto exercise to attempt to decide the war’s justice, and try to line it up against lists of criteria such as Aquinas’s, in practice the best anyone can do at the time when faced with the option of war is make an assessment of what is the lesser of two evils.

Here is the conclusion to a 2011 history of WWII by British military historian Max Hastings:

“It is impossible to dignify the struggle as an unalloyed contest between good and evil, nor rationally to celebrate an experience, and even an outcome, which imposed much misery upon so many. Allied victory did not bring universal peace, prosperity, justice or freedom; it brought merely a portion of those things to some fraction of those who had taken part. All that seems certain is that Allied victory saved the world from a much worse fate that would have followed the triumph of Germany and Japan. With this knowledge, seekers after virtue and truth must be content”.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
An interesting false dichotomy mdijon. Funny how we turn from the third way isn't it? I have for over 50 years.

The third non-evil way of Jesus does not involve standing idly by.

As I said my pacifist chemistry teacher risked his life more than the average combatant in bomb disposal. What a hero. Doubly so.

My NATURAL instinct is to be in awe of Britain's military, I deeply regret not having served myself. I've been an armchair warrior - like you I suspect and if not please say - all my conscious life. I am a free man because of the sacrifice of better men than I.

Jesus expects GREATER sacrifice. And it will be called upon in our lifetimes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
A just war cannot require unconditional surrender; a just war is undertaken with the intention of offering just conditions which if met will result in peace.

The Allies made that mistake Nov 11th 1918 , don't think they were in a hurry to repeat that mistake second time around.


Also, bombing of civilian populations is unjust.

---

quote:

---

the systematic killing of, or a program of action intended to destroy, a whole national or ethnic group

---

Wholesale slaughter has been going on ever since people climbed down from the trees. In OT times there were episodes when every man, woman, and child living in certain places was killed. This is not the same as checking out people's ancestry and deciding who should live and who should die on that basis.

The word genocide was not coined until after World War 2, when it was necessary to name this new kind of atrocity.

Moo
 

---

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
The one thing I have come to realize after looking at military history is . That war should never be the 1st solution we look at.
If matters so deterioate that it is thye only means to end suffering , then do it full force and be ready to hold out a helpingh hand & pocketbook to rebuild afterwards, a la Marshall plan.
But never go into a war for some of the reasons we have seen since 9/11 . Some the reasoning was extremely & made al of us more enemies than we needed bad
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
When did Jesus look at it? Where was it on His list of contingencies?

The reasons WE, Christendom, go to war are BECAUSE of Christendom. Which is why we're naturally hated.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
Upthread someone said that no one posting here was alive during WW2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
In reading the lists compiled on this thread and considering the history I recall of how many killed by whom, I think the Soviet Union wins, followed by Germany.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Even Hitler was a holder of a WWI Iron Cross, which the Germans did not award for nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
Upthread someone said that no one posting here was alive during WW2.

---

I did qualify it with a "probably".

Thanks for your interesting post.

The Waffen SS were incredibly ruthless, but also incredibly brave, and a number shot themselves at the end of the war.

One of the embarrassing facts about WWII is that the West's enemies (especially the Japanese) while espousing repulsive ideologies, were on the whole, braver than the Allies.

Even Hitler was a holder of a WWI Iron Cross, which the Germans did not award for nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
It raises a question I confess I'd never really thought much about: the distinction between just war theory as it applies to states (when is it just for a nation to go to war?) and to individuals (when is it just for an individual to participate in war?) I had never really considered those as separate questions.

---

I'd be very wary of any view of morality that held that some actions could be morally correct (as opposed to legal) for states, but not for individuals.

You could only logically hold that position if you either believed that an action can be right for a group of people but not an individual (which seems very dodgy to me and also lets corporations and so on do what they like) or else that nation states are some special kind of moral actor with rights and duties of their own that are different from those of the people they rule over or represent. And that seems worse - that's selling the pass to the Fascists, that's part of what we were fighting against.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

The Waffen SS were incredibly ruthless, but also incredibly brave, and a number shot themselves at the end of the war.

One of the embarrassing facts about WWII is that the West's enemies (especially the Japanese) while espousing repulsive ideologies, were on the whole, braver than the Allies.

[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
Dispatch runners at headquarters, however, were quite safe and also enjoyed much better food and sleeping arrangements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The reasons WE, Christendom, go to war are BECAUSE of Christendom. Which is why we're naturally hated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
I don't even view the Japanese as brave so much as brainwashed and terrified of disgrace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
A just war cannot require unconditional surrender; a just war is undertaken with the intention of offering just conditions which if met will result in peace.

---

The Allies made that mistake Nov 11th 1918 , don't think they were in a hurry to repeat that mistake second time around.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Also, bombing of civilian populations is unjust.

---

Maybe it is . However when it comes to indiscriminate aerial bombing it could be said that what Zeppelins started in Great Yarmouth January 1915, Lancaster bombers finished 30 years later in Dresden.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Evangeline, I know ALL that and more and have argued vehemently for it and more. I was a total Clausewitzian.

Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

Name it.

South Africa because it was anti-communist.

I am SO ashamed.

And you will say that's why I've flipped. In part I'm sure.

quetzalcoatl claimed that insurrection against colonial oppression is justified.

Jesus DENIES that. By His life and DEATH refutes that. Utterly. We have that example.

Christianity - following Jesus - has NEVER BEEN APPLIED in the history of warfare to ANY noticeable degree ANYWHERE. As in all our social endeavours.

Our first and last and only chance is coming.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Ian Kershaw, Hitler's most recent serious biographer, writes of this issue:

"..the attempts of his political enemies in the early 1930s to belittle the dangers involved in the duties of the dispatch runner and decry Hitler's war service, accusing him of shirking and cowardice, were misplaced....the dangers faced by dispatch runners during battles, carrying messages to the front through the firing line, were real enough. The losses among dispatch runners were relatively high....Hitler was a committed, rather than simply conscientous and dutiful, soldier, and did not lack physical courage".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It changes NOTHING.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
WWJD?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
(And in any case I think consensus is that the UK population bombing had little effect on the German war effort compared to US bombing targeted at military-related infrastructure.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The novelist John Masters, who served under Slim in Burma, wrote in his The Road Past Mandalay:

"They are the bravest people I have ever met. In our armies, any of them, nearly every Japanese would have had a Congressional Medal or a Victoria Cross. It is the fashion to dismiss their courage as fanaticism, but this only begs the question.They believed in something, and they were willing to die for it, for any smallest detail which would help to achieve it. What else is bravery?"

---

quote:

---

The mass suicide-by-enemy of the Japanese troops as well, fighting to be killed, rather than fighting to win, at the end of battles when victory was hopeless - was not an action of bravery - it was pure cowardice, born of fear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Many Japanese soldiers did surrender though. After the fall of Japan some even fought for the British in Vietnam. A bit of the war that history books rarely go into great detail on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What did He do as a citizen of a multiply oppressed, occupied, brutalized state ?

What did He do when confronted with consensual, culturally legally constituted and sanctioned violence ?

By the congregation at Nazareth?
By the Pharisees about to execute the woman caught in adultery?
By the militia that came for Him in Gethsemane?
Before the Sanhedrin, Herod, Pilate?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
OK, OK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
When it happens again, what do WE do?

What are we to do NOW? Over Syria, Iran, Afghanistan?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Two wrongs don't make...
(And in any case I think consensus is that the UK population bombing had little effect on the German war effort compared to US bombing targeted at military-related infrastructure.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
The death rate among dispatch runners assigned to headquarters was quite low; among those in the trenches, it was quite high.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:[
I think this is mistaken.

---

quote:

---

As a dispatch runner for regimental HQ, Hitler's main task was to take messages to the headquarters of the regiment's battalions. The job to take messages to the trenches was generally left to dispatch runners of battalions and of companies. This is not to say that he never made it to a trench but this was not normally his job.
{snip}
There are good reasons to doubt even the proposition that the award of the Iron Crosses suggests extraordinary bravery on Hitler's part compared to the rest of the List Regiment. While certainly an award for bravery, the Iron Cross being awarded to Hitler does not necessarily prove that he was more courageous than most men in the front line. Often the award of an Iron Cross signified how well connected soldiers were to regimental headquarters than serving as an absolute measure of a soldier's bravery. In other words, Iron Crosses tended to go either directly to officers, such as the commander of RD 6's military police unit, Georg Arneth, or to those soldiers who were familiar with the officers who had the privilege to nominate soldiers for awards. It was thus little surprise that the sixty recipients of Iron Crosses on 2 December included the four dispatch runners of regimental HQ. At the same time, Father Norbert (who himself had been awarded an Iron Cross in mid-November which he proudly wore attached to his monk's habit) had recorded in the aftermath of the baptism of fire of RD 6 the disappointment that many soldiers felt at not having been honored. In short, the mere fact that Hitler was assigned to regimental headquarters, rather than his commitment and dedication, increased his chances of receiving an Iron Cross. That combat soldiers were less likely to receive Iron Crosses than men behind the front was even posited by Fridolin Solleder in the official 1932 regimental history:

quote:

---

In fairness to the comrades who stood in the first line of fire year long without anything except wounds to show as decoration, we have to say that the healthy belief of our Bavarian Crown Prince--that Iron Crosses should above all be awarded to combat troops--unfortunately was not acted upon. Among combat troops themselves, in which so few ranks could ever be decorated, it was only natural that there were hardly any left for the plain front-line soldiers.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday
Does Weber quote any detailed citation which accompanied the award of the decoration to Hitler?

---

quote:

---

I've known Hitler since our deployment [Ausmasch] with the Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment 16 and was with him in the Bethlehem-Ferme in mid-November 1914, likewise during combat ordinance. I knew Hitler as a good soldier and an impeccable comrade. I never observed Hitler trying to shirk his duties or holding back from danger. I was within the division from deployment to the return home, and I never heard anything unfavorable about Hitler even later on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
But as has been said earlier in this thread civilians are a legitimate target in warfare, sadly it has been so since Biblical times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
That's like saying that, because people have been committing murder since Biblical times, murder is legitimate.

The Bible makes it clear, from the Cain and Abel story, that God does not regard murder as legitimate . Yet further on in Scripture we read of God instructing killing of civilians for the greater cause of the Israelites.

The reason war screws the mind is that it does make murder legitimate , we call it killing . Killing with rules, killing with the aim of an over-all outcome.
--------------------------------------------
Targeting civilians is literally not legitimate: there is a law against it (the Fourth Geneva Convention if I understand correctly).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
My question is at what point, if ever, did it become just.

---

quote:

---

Also, when did it become just for each nation to join the Allies?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
My question is at what point, if ever, did it become just.

---

It became just the moment the winners declared it just.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Many Japanese soldiers did surrender though. After the fall of Japan some even fought for the British in Vietnam. A bit of the war that history books rarely go into great detail on.

---

They surrendered after it became clear that the soldiers' willingness to lay down their lives would not automatically result in a Japanese victory.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Flippant and cynical, but there were plenty of people who thought it was just from before the start.

---

quote:

---

I know people whose parents deliberatly emigrated from the USA to Britain in the 1930s to be in the war they knew was coming.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
The 2nd World War would have met one of the tests for a just war from the moment Germany invaded Czechoslovakia at the latest. At that point, it didn't meet one of the others, which is that one must have a reasonable prospect of winning

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Flippant and cynical, but there were plenty of people who thought it was just from before the start. I know people whose parents deliberatly emigrated from the USA to Britain in the 1930s to be in the war they knew was coming.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There were folks on both sides before it all started that thought they were the good guys and that God was on their side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Japanese High Command did order retreats and carried out evacuations in the face of Allied assaults in the New Guinea and Guadalcanal Campaigns in 1942 and '43. It wasn't until these campaigns were lost that "no retreat, fight to the death, no surrender" became general policy from then on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
And 5,000 Irishmen who swapped their neutral Irish uniforms for British uniforms, and returned not to hero's welcomes but to lifetimes of vindictive black-listing and poverty.

---

quote:

---

The Giants and Trolls win. Let us die on the right side, with Father Odin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There were folks on both sides before it all started that thought they were the good guys and that God was on their side.

---

That's like saying that the KKK and MLK are morally equivalent because both thought they had God on their side, and that we only have our particular view of history because civil rights won out in the end.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Then think of those Irishmen that "deserted" to fight with the Allieds and risked not only life and limb but reputation and honour for what they thought was right.

And they would have been right even if they had lost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
If there was some sort of European MLK during the time in question, who was it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
They may have been right. If they had lost you would have probably been taught a different history and be condemning them, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
If there was some sort of European MLK during the time in question, who was it?

---

My guess is that it wasn't the one gassing 6 million Jews, annexing Europe and torturing various "undesirable" citizens in twisted medical experiments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] They may have been right. If they had lost you would have probably been taught a different history and be condemning them, though.

---

Well the Irish mainstream society certainly condemned them for some decades before coming round.

---

quote:

---

If I had lived under Nazi rule I certainly would have been taught differently. The fact that propaganda is taught doesn't mean that we don't have critical faculties though. In our societies freedom of speech means that we have access to a range of differently slanted historical accounts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As in the case of Hitler, we will go to any lengths to explain away the apparent courage of those whom we dislike, or with whom we disagree, while accepting at face value, and without analysis or searches for ulterior motives, the apparent courage of those of whom we approve.

A more recent example of this problem was the furore that erupted when the late Susan Sontag pointed out the unwelcome truth that the 9/11 hijackers were very brave men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
OK MLK might be setting the bar a bit high. But I don't think the harshness of making the pips squeak questions the idea that there was clearly a "right side" in WW2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

Bravery by a wicked person or in the cause of wickedness, does not make wickedness less wicked, compensate somehow for wickedness or reduce its evil quotient by even the minutest portion of a percentage point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
OK MLK might be setting the bar a bit high. But I don't think the harshness of making the pips squeak questions the idea that there was clearly a "right side" in WW2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The more one contributed to the harshness of Versailles, the lesser the legitimate claim to rightness in the next 27 years, istm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
My problem knowing what to do on the basis of it when faced with a terrible evil that ought to be opposed.

Economic harshness isn't in itself a sufficient justification for gassing Jews and torturing gypsies. And in any case, recognising one's culpability in creating the economic conditions that led to the situation doesn't to my mind help in the decision of whether to go to war against an aggressive and evil expanding empire.

---

quote:

---

Regarding your comments on the Irish, affability isn't always a great guide to a moral compass on an individual basis, and societies are usually more pluralistic mixes of individuals than ones surface impression might indicate.

I think the Irish are probably like the rest of us - a mixed bag of people prone to doing terrible things when egged on by opinion leaders and/or authority. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
...the invention of Guinness...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] ...the invention of Guinness...

---

Ahem. Porter is an English style of beer. In fact a London style of beer. Probably invented in the early 18th century.

---

quote:

---

Only copied in Ireland later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
If the Allies, especially the French, had promoted a just peace in 1918 I doubt we would be asking about the justness of a WW2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
If the Allies, especially the French, had promoted a just peace in 1918 I doubt we would be asking about the justness of a WW2.

---

If I knock you to the ground and kick you and beat you, it gives you a reason to get mad, it gives you a reason to start a fight. It does not give you an excuse to shoot the neighbour's baby.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
It doesn't make the earlier screwing OK, but neither does it make the baby-shooting OK either... and nor does it mean that the earlier-screwer acts unjustly if he/she intervenes with force to prevent the baby-shooter from being a baby shooter.

(To change the terms in line with the recent example but essentially the same argument I posted earlier).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
But I think the Allies learned the lesson by not having a harsh Versailles-type deal thrust on the Germans a second time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Did I mention the Irish make great beer?

---

They learned it from the English.

Who learned it from the Germans.

Who got the idea from the Czecks.

Beer is Protestant Drink.

On the other hand our cider is all our own idea. (Even if the word "cider" originated in Hebrew)
 

---

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :
 
To take the first suggested date for being 'just', 1919, the historian Margaret Macmillan in her recent study of the Treaty of Versailles, 'Peacemakers', argues that the amount of Reparations Germany had to pay was not actually that much. She also says, after chronicling the follies of the Peacemakers, that all things considered the peacemakers didn't do a bad job, and the statesmen who presided over world affairs between 1919 and 1939 should take a good deal of the blame for the outbreak of World War Two. That argument would suggest that Britain and France should have stopped Germany occupying the Rhineland in 1936: in theory it shouldn't have been difficult for 30 French divisions to send 3 German battalions scuttling back across the Rhine, and certainly from the point of view of casualties it would have fulfilled the conditions of a Just War (although, no doubt, saving up trouble for the future).

I could go on. But a little voice, probably my own giving advice to GCSE History students, is reminding me 'Read the question carefully'. What I have just provided is my twopennyworth relating to the general topic area. But the angle of the question is when did it become a just war?

What looks at first sight like a very open question is in fact a closed one, because in considering what actually brought about hostilities between Britain and Germany in 1939 you may need to go back long before the First World War to the way that a very powerful German nation came together in the 1860's or to the failure of British and German negotiators to stop an Anglo-German naval race in the early 1900's. So the 'when' part of the question is very difficult.

It's the 'Just War' part of the question that poses the real difficulties and begs too many other questions. The Just War idea began to be codified in the Middle Ages in societies that thought, incorrectly I think, that they were christian. Before that, in the so-called Dark Ages, a more realistic christian idea was that war was sometimes the lesser of two evils. Earlier still, the first christians wanted nothing to do with war, bishops were always calling on christian soldiers to resign, and many early famous christian Saints did resign and were martyred because of it.

Our Lord seems to have been quite clear on the subject of war: his kingdom had nothing to do with the kingdoms of this world. For some reason we have found it difficult to take this teaching seriously: I must confess my military history shelf is overflowing and I have one or two thin volumes on peacemaking.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cedd007:
Our Lord seems to have been quite clear on the subject of war: his kingdom had nothing to do with the kingdoms of this world. For some reason we have found it difficult to take this teaching seriously: I must confess my military history shelf is overflowing and I have one or two thin volumes on peacemaking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cedd007:
Our Lord seems to have been quite clear on the subject of war: his kingdom had nothing to do with the kingdoms of this world. For some reason we have found it difficult to take this teaching seriously: I must confess my military history shelf is overflowing and I have one or two thin volumes on peacemaking.

---

So why did he teach us to pray "Thy kingdom come...on earth as in heaven?'

Surely, peacemaking is a key part of discipleship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Did I mention the Irish make great beer?

---

They learned it from the English.

Who learned it from the Germans.

Who got the idea from the Czecks.

Beer is Protestant Drink.

---

Hadn't realized the Mesopotamians and ancient Egyptians were protestant. Hmmmm, learn something new everyday.
 

---

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
[tangent]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Did I mention the Irish make great beer?

---

They learned it from the English.

Who learned it from the Germans.

Who got the idea from the Czecks.

Beer is Protestant Drink.

---

Hadn't realized the Mesopotamians and ancient Egyptians were protestant. Hmmmm, learn something new everyday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Did I mention the Irish make great beer?

---

They learned it from the English.

Who learned it from the Germans.

Who got the idea from the Czecks.

Beer is Protestant Drink.

---

Hadn't realized the Mesopotamians and ancient Egyptians were protestant. Hmmmm, learn something new everyday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
When in doubt, have beer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Did I mention the Irish make great beer?

---

They learned it from the English.

Who learned it from the Germans.

Who got the idea from the Czecks.

Beer is Protestant Drink.

---

Hadn't realized the Mesopotamians and ancient Egyptians were protestant. Hmmmm, learn something new everyday.

---

I appreciate you and Ken beginning a list of people who made the early attempts at something it would take the Irish to get right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
[tangent] Is beer reliable in Asia?

[/tangent]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

Beer is Protestant Drink.

---

Hadn't realized the Mesopotamians and ancient Egyptians were protestant. Hmmmm, learn something new everyday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

Did the war become just when Germany violated the Treaty of Versailles or was the Treaty of Versailles unjust in itself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
But I think the Allies learned the lesson by not having a harsh Versailles-type deal thrust on the Germans a second time.

---

What? We were much harder on Germany the second time! <Massive snip>
Personally I think most of that was a good thing. They deserved it, and Germany and Europe came out of it better in the end and the Nazis got comprehensively fucked over. But you can't say it wasn't harsh or brutal. It was.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
But I think the Allies learned the lesson by not having a harsh Versailles-type deal thrust on the Germans a second time.

---

What? We were much harder on Germany the second time! <Massive snip>
Personally I think most of that was a good thing. They deserved it, and Germany and Europe came out of it better in the end and the Nazis got comprehensively fucked over. But you can't say it wasn't harsh or brutal. It was.

---

Perhaps the second time many Germans felt they (the country) deserved the treatment?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Now I like my beer, but it definitely isn't what WWII was about ...

---

Maybe. You raise an interesting question: Did the average soldier/sailor/marine/airman spend more time in combat than he spent drinking beer?
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Allah won't be pushing any button rolyn. Only Christians can do that.
 

---

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
No worries there then Martin . We Christians are not likely to get any consensus as to who actually gets to push the button.

Interesting point Mere Nick . During WW1, the inactivity of trench-life meant British soldiers who came home intact weighed a good deal more than when they left.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Christians have been the only ones to use nuclear weapons so far. I suspect they'll be the last.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Christians have been the only ones to use nuclear weapons so far.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken
During the famine winter of 1945/46 Allied military forces actively prevented food aid going to most Germans - it was diverted to non-Germans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makepiece:
The problem with Versailles was that it did the latter and created a vacuum for someone like Hitler to fill.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... Did the average soldier/sailor/marine/airman spend more time in combat than he spent drinking beer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

Christendom gave us nukes and (we) used them on its (our) enemies without a WORD being said.

Not a word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Now I like my beer, but it definitely isn't what WWII was about ...

---

Maybe. You raise an interesting question: Did the average soldier/sailor/marine/airman spend more time in combat than he spent drinking beer?

---

quote:

---

Interesting point Mere Nick . During WW1, the inactivity of trench-life meant British soldiers who came home intact weighed a good deal more than when they left.

---

My Grandfather fought on the western front in WWI, he was shot twice, saw his mates heads get blown off -quite literally- and waded through blood and guts. He wasn't lounging about drinking beer

Leave the servicemen out of your sniping people.

Agree Rolyn, the Japanese were determined not to surrender. one H bomb wasn't enough to convince them for heavens sake. They were warned to surrender of face complete annihilation on July 26 1945 and peace terms outlined. On August 6 the first bomb was dropped, the second on August 9.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think some historians, esp. Hasegawa, argue that it was the Soviet invasion that really convinced the Japanese leadership to surrender. Mass civilian deaths would not convince them, since the Tokyo fire bombings had killed (acc. to some estimates), a million people, and destroyed 3 million homes. 60 Japanese cities had been substantially destroyed, but the Japanese military still did not want to surrender, but the Soviet declaration of war (9 August 1945), tipped the balance. I don't know if the amateur can really decide between such revisionist theories.
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Now I like my beer, but it definitely isn't what WWII was about ...

---

Maybe. You raise an interesting question: Did the average soldier/sailor/marine/airman spend more time in combat than he spent drinking beer?

---

That's an insult to the average soldier/sailor/marine. 14 million allied servicemen died in WWII-more than enough combat was endured.

Due to English incompetency many Australian soldiers (English too) were sent to Singapore too late and never saw combat; they suffered inhumane treatment and in some cases enslavement in POW camps and if they survived they suffered ongoing health problems as a result of the deprivations. It was more than enough.

quote:

---

Interesting point Mere Nick . During WW1, the inactivity of trench-life meant British soldiers who came home intact weighed a good deal more than when they left.

---

My Grandfather fought on the western front in WWI, he was shot twice, saw his mates heads get blown off -quite literally- and waded through blood and guts. He wasn't lounging about drinking beer

Leave the servicemen out of your sniping people.

Agree Rolyn, the Japanese were determined not to surrender. one H bomb wasn't enough to convince them for heavens sake. They were warned to surrender of face complete annihilation on July 26 1945 and peace terms outlined. On August 6 the first bomb was dropped, the second on August 9.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
My Grandfather fought on the western front in WWI, he was shot twice, saw his mates heads get blown off -quite literally- and waded through blood and guts. He wasn't lounging about drinking beer

Leave the servicemen out of your sniping people.

---

Point taken . The lounging around thing looked like a light-hearted mini-debate which I guess is the kind of relief most of us seek, even when debating the ghastly business of warfare , let alone experiencing it.

Respect to your Grandfather . I've looked into enough history of life on the Western Front to know it wasn't a picnic.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
So, Christendom could have, should have fought WW2 better? Nicer?

Just like Jesus would have done ... ?



[ 25. November 2012, 18:39: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
In fact I was surprised to learn the Japanese High Command was still holding out even after the Nagasaki attack . It wasn't until a 3rd H-bomb was destined for another city that they finally saw sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's 'A' bomb and there WASN'T a third one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar
Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was preferable to an invasion which would have killed even more people. However, the Allies had Japan contained. What reason did the United States have for needing to end the war so quickly that justified dropping Little Boy on Hiroshima? Why not just starve them out the way invading armies had done for thousands of years?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So it's the Christian thing to do ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So it's the Christian thing to do ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I think that nuking them was more humane than starving them. Many of those who were killed by the bombs died immediately; everyone who starves to death suffers for days.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Post-attack casualties Film footage taken in Hiroshima in March 1946 showing victims with severe burns According to the US Department of Energy the immediate effects of the blast killed approximately 70,000 people in Hiroshima.[74] Estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945 from burns, radiation and related disease, the effects of which were aggravated by lack of medical resources, range from 90,000 to 166,000.[1][75] Some estimates state up to 200,000 had died by 1950, due to cancer and other long-term effects.[76] Another study states that from 1950 to 2000, 46% of leukemia deaths and 11% of solid cancer deaths among bomb survivors were due to radiation from the bombs, the statistical excess being estimated to 200 leukemia and 1700 solid cancers.[77] At least eleven known prisoners of war died from the bombing.[78]

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
In the express image of the Father, Jesus was a radical pacifist. He didn't HAVE to preach it with words. His words complement his ACTIONS.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So, what would Jesus have done mate? Starved them or nuked them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I think that nuking them was more humane than starving them. Many of those who were killed by the bombs died immediately; everyone who starves to death suffers for days.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So would He starve them or nuke them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
You sod. That got a SOL.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
It is a universal truth about religion. The first thing that must go out with the trash are the principles of the founder. Jesus has always hated who I hate. He wants them dead.

---

Especially all those nasty conservatives, right no prophet?
 

---

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
It is a universal truth about religion. The first thing that must go out with the trash are the principles of the founder. Jesus has always hated who I hate. He wants them dead.

---

Especially all those nasty conservatives, right no prophet?

---

The only way is the in the middle. Pox to the right. Pox to the left. Jesus was a moderate.
 

---

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
It is a universal truth about religion. The first thing that must go out with the trash are the principles of the founder. Jesus has always hated who I hate. He wants them dead.

---

Especially all those nasty conservatives, right no prophet?

---

The only way is the in the middle. Pox to the right. Pox to the left. Jesus was a moderate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink
I think accepting the offer of surrender would have been more humane than both. Also, possibly anything other than a nuclear explosion would mean people weren't dying half a century later:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink
I think accepting the offer of surrender would have been more humane than both. Also, possibly anything other than a nuclear explosion would mean people weren't dying half a century later:

---

AIUI the Japanese surrender offer stipulated that the Japanese would disarm themselves and no outsiders would be allowed in to make sure that it was done. It also stipulated that Japan would continue to occupy the former European colonies in Asia and would be the government that would grant them independence. This latter stipulation fit in with the idea that Japan's only motive in invading these countries was to liberate them from the Europeans.

There is another very important point that needs to be made. All the war-related decisions had to be approved by the War Minister, who had to be an army officer on active duty. If the top army generals did not like something the War Minister did, they could put him on inactive duty and appoint someone else. In effect, the country was ruled by a handful of army officers who believed that the strength and glory of Japan rested entirely on its military prowess. There were no signs that these men knew anything about literature, art, or music.

As I have said in an earlier post, the military rulers were willing to starve the entire civilian population if that was the only way they could get enough food to feed the military. Since all the glory of Japan rested in the military, this made perfect sense to them.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
no prophet, I AM doing the WWJD thing.

Again, which way would He have suffered the little children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - that most Christian of Japanese cities ?

When shall we start His mission ? 1941 ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
But we cannot possibly know the WWJD thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As in the Styx, I apologise for any offense caused Beeswax Altar. None was intended, on the contrary. Hopefully other Brits may confirm that 'You sod.' is the sort of thing one says when one is made to laugh against one's will.

---

FWIW, I can confirm this. I took SOL to be "snort out loud". I haven't seen the Styx thread. Maybe I don't want to...
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
... but I just did.
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Oh dear, Think, you got caught in the headlights of an IHR article.

The Institute for Historical Review is a known Holocaust-denial organization and outlet for radical right-wing revisionism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Jesus lived in a world where the Nazis had won, had been in ascendancy for two hundred years. Their genocides were past. Although their worst was yet to come: the Jewish War. As He prophesied. His way subverted them even though it suffered subversion itself from the second century. A lesson for us all. A subversion we're still suffering.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And now I'm questioning that, I'm so glad to see others having the courage of that conviction coming out of the woodwork.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
deano, your humility knows no depths, I'm exposing the absurdity of false dichotomies my dear chap.

I KNOW Jesus would do neither. And so do you. And so does EVERYONE here.

Neither would He or any of His servants assassinate Caesar.

How can you not know this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As fine a false dichotomy as I ever did see. Well done. You've excelled yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
If you're going to refer to a Wikipedia articles, at least pick a good one which is based on fact rather than opinion. Note the little gold star in the top-right corner of the page, and the absence of a neutrality dispute tag.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I hadn't quite realised the scale of the firebombing - and that would meet my definition of a war crime too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
deano, your humility knows no depths, I'm exposing the absurdity of false dichotomies my dear chap.

I KNOW Jesus would do neither. And so do you. And so does EVERYONE here.

Neither would He or any of His servants assassinate Caesar.

How can you not know this?

---

Just to clarify, are you stating that a Christian MUST be a pacifist willing to undergo martyrdom to prevent wars?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
I'm just wondering who is going to tell all those soldiers, sailor and airmen who thought they were Christians and who fought in Normandy, Bastogne, Arnhem, Burma, India, Iwo Jima etc, that, sorry boys, but you aren't Christians.

Of course, I'm sure that they thought that, by serving and sacrificing, they were taking up their crosses. But if you want to tell them that they are not Christians, go ahead.

Look up CESSAC, drop them an email and don't forget to include your name and address.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I hadn't quite realised the scale of the firebombing - and that would meet my definition of a war crime too.

---

What is your definition of a war crime?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I hadn't quite realised the scale of the firebombing - and that would meet my definition of a war crime too.

---

What is your definition of a war crime?

---

Intentionally killing non-combatants would qualify for starters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
If you're going to refer to a Wikipedia articles, at least pick a good one which is based on fact rather than opinion. Note the little gold star in the top-right corner of the page, and the absence of a neutrality dispute tag.

---

OK - but I still think the account given there does not dropping the first bomb let alone the second. It reads as: "ignore any overtures and get the commies to stall"

I hadn't quite realised the scale of the firebombing - and that would meet my definition of a war crime too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And, the giant cheeseburger, the Japanese 'invasion' of the Philippines caused how many casualties compared with the American 'liberation' a generation before?

---

quote:

---

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I would agree UK area bombing was a war crime.

---

quote:

---

I suspect there wasn't a law against the holocaust at the time- doesn't stop it being an atrocity.

---

quote:

---

I had a relative who dated a bomber pilot during the war. She told me that some pilots originally refused, and were basically told do it or be shot. And fair few dumped their payloads before they got to densely populated areas. But I don't how accurate that account is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Numbers are an irrelevance.

I make no apologies for that statement. It matters nothing how many die on which side in a particular battle, providing that the RIGHT side wins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I would agree UK area bombing was a war crime.

---

You mean "would be a war crime if it happened today" or "should have been a war crime in my opinion."

quote:

---

I suspect there wasn't a law against the holocaust at the time- doesn't stop it being an atrocity.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Re the deano-Martin spat, I think that what pushed Martin's buttons was (and I accept that Martin-reading is an imprecise art, even at the best of times) his perception that it seemed like other posters were rationalising such great moral evils as the mass killing of civilians, no matter who was responsible, rather than accepting that these were things that happened in war, and may even have been "necessary", but should be seen as things for which the appropriate response is repentance, acknowleging that they are great moral evils, and determining that, by our corporate ammendment of life, they should not happen again.

What do we (as Christians) do when confronted with an unavoidable choice between two or more great moral evils? To be human is to choose, so we choose, recognising with humility that we may choose wrongly, but never lightly.

FWIW, I don't think Martin was trying to second guess, from a position of non-involvement, the rightness or wrongness of the choices made by individual Chritians, rather acknowledging that in a sin-ravaged world where wars can happen, we are all potentially faced by such choices, sinned against and sinning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Jolly Jape - what did Jesus choose ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
As far as numbers of deaths are concerned, my point was that in wars people die, and more than that, people are expected to die. It is factored it. It is part of doing business. That is the nature of the military and cold as it seems, the numbers of those who die is balanced against the results of the battle. It is a calculation that all soldiers were and are aware of, and officers are taught how to calculate it. But in a war, the price of victory in battles is paid in blood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
I make no apologies for that statement. It matters nothing how many die on which side in a particular battle, providing that the RIGHT side wins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And, the giant cheeseburger, the Japanese 'invasion' of the Philippines caused how many casualties compared with the American 'liberation' a generation before?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Isn’t this a dead horse yet, because it would seem to have no end in sight?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
You don't understand AT ALL deano. You can't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And I think it means following Justin Bieber from city to city and sitting through every last second of every concert the boy does. My interpretation is as likely as yours. Not that either of them make sense given the context but exegesis smexegesis let's just make this shit up as we go along.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
That is the nature of the military and cold as it seems, the numbers of those who die is balanced against the results of the battle. It is a calculation that all soldiers were and are aware of, and officers are taught how to calculate it.

---

quote:

---

Being shot for failing to obey orders was nothing unique to Bomber Command flight crew (which I think were all volunteers)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
That is the nature of the military and cold as it seems, the numbers of those who die is balanced against the results of the battle. It is a calculation that all soldiers were and are aware of, and officers are taught how to calculate it.

---

That's as may be when the soldiers are volunteers. When they're conscripts the morality changes somewhat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Oh! Are conscripts still Christians then? you are only excommunicated if you volunteer for the armed forces?

---

quote:

---

The morality of war doesn't change on iota. It's all immoral, but you still have to determine the attrition rate for the bridge you have to take, the village, the Normandy beachhead. It doesn't matter to the officer if they are volunteers or conscripts, they are still his men, and he will still be sick to the stomach to lose any, but that is how war does its dirty, nasty, immoral transactions.

---

quote:

---

Or do you think its more moral to lose a few volunteers than conscripts? If they volunteered then they get what they deserve eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Being shot for failing to obey orders was nothing unique to Bomber Command flight crew (which I think were all volunteers)

---

Maybe in the Australian air force, but not in the RAF. Not by 1945 anyway.

---

1. That British crews in Bomber Command were not volunteers by the end of the war (quite possible, my knowledge is mainly to do with the Royal Australian Air Force), or
2. that British officers commanding Bomber Command squadrons would not have used the threat (however unrealistic) of being shot as way to jolt a potential deserter back to reality if it was a British unit, but would have if it were a Royal Australian Air Force unit, or
3. both?

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Being shot for failing to obey orders was nothing unique to Bomber Command flight crew (which I think were all volunteers)

---

Maybe in the Australian air force, but not in the RAF. Not by 1945 anyway.

---

Your editing of my post makes things confusing there. Are you saying...

1. That British crews in Bomber Command were not volunteers by the end of the war (quite possible, my knowledge is mainly to do with the Royal Australian Air Force), or
2. that British officers commanding Bomber Command squadrons would not have used the threat (however unrealistic) of being shot as way to jolt a potential deserter back to reality if it was a British unit, but would have if it were a Royal Australian Air Force unit, or
3. both?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, that's the problem. The moment you start counting the cost in unwilling human lives, you've become a monster. And I don't give a fuck which monster you happen to be fighting against, that's still wrong.

I don't believe that war is necessarily an absolute moral evil, but I do believe that conscription is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
No Martin, I clearly said it was for clarification. If you felt my understanding of your position was wrong why did you noty just explain it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
You understand just fine deano.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Deano, you clarified nothing, you ran away with the foundationalist, bipolar, false dichotomy fairies mate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

The remarks about aircrew being threatened with being shot if they did not carry out missions might be more applicable to the US bomber forces, as the Americans bombed by day which was, until fighter escorts were available for the whole trip, was even more hazardous and demanding of collective discipline.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
What kind of moral code is it that, by its principles, would have allowed the Nazi's free-reign?

What conclusions could one draw about the holder of such a moral code?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink
I have never understood why the allies felt they couldn't wait more than three days for the message to sink in before dropping another one.

More to the point, Japan had already offered to surrender - but to the Russians. The allies were not prepared to accept that so they dropped an H bomb. I think it was a war crime.

---

quote:

---

Extremely significant new insights on the end of the Pacific War emerged with the release of radio intelligence information beginning in the late 1970s. This evidence provided, for the first time, a complete picture of the diplomatic intercepts. Moreover, the military intercepts unmasked a radical new portrait of American decision making in the summer of 1945.

Each day a team of editors distilled the tremendous output of intercepted Japanese coded communications into the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary and the "Magic" Far East Summary for a select band of senior American policy makers, starting with the President. The "Magic" Diplomatic Summary demonstrated that the squad of Japanese diplomats in Europe attempting to become peace entrepreneurs lacked any authority from Tokyo for their efforts. It also confirmed that the sole authorized Japanese diplomatic venture aimed not at surrender, but at securing Soviet offices to mediate an end to the war. This enterprise ran from Foreign Minister Togo in Tokyo to Ambassador Naotake Sato in Moscow. In the most significant interchange, Togo answered Sato's insistent demands for concrete terms to present to the Soviets with the statement that Japan was not looking for "anything like an unconditional surrender." Sato then lectured Togo that the best terms Japan could obtain were unconditional surrender, modified only to permit the continuation of the imperial institution--exactly the package that later critics argued would have obtained Japan's surrender without the atomic bombs. But in the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary of July 22, American policy makers read that Togo had rejected this package in the name of the cabinet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
The Second World War was started by mismanagement and pride. Most British people believed that the Danzig Corridor in Poland was rightfully Germany’s and if it had been given back early in the 1930’s, Hitler would never have invaded Poland. Again, most British public opinion thought that the Rhineland occupation was inevitable at some point and the French were wrong to oppose it.

So the war was by no means inevitable BECAUSE of Versailles, but the lack of willingness to renegotiate it made it so. To me, that stops the war from being “Just” at that point. We were reaping the rewards of what we had sown. However, given that Germany then went beyond its pre-war demands and took territory it had no historical claims on, and began the systematic slaughter of Jews, gypsies, communists, and the handicapped, then the war did become “Just”.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
That attempt only exists in your inner narrative. Not on this thread. And not in my narrative for oooh at least 15 years.

I'm glad you didn't run away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
It was not a situation of 'here are the Nazis, ensconced and ready to genocidally control Europe and the world', the issues with Nazi Germany required attention far before the war began in Sept 1939. Minimal military posturing would have stopped Hitler when he marched in and remilitarised the Rhineland in 1936, annexed Austria in 1938, and also in 1938 when the French and British simply gave him Czechoslovakia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Apology accepted deano.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, that's the problem. The moment you start counting the cost in unwilling human lives, you've become a monster. And I don't give a fuck which monster you happen to be fighting against, that's still wrong.

I don't believe that war is necessarily an absolute moral evil, but I do believe that conscription is.

---

Faux-naive showboating like that is disgraceful.

---

quote:

---

By your principles, you would have allowed the Nazi's to do whatever they wanted, relying on volunteers to defeat them, as conscription would be against your moral code.

---

quote:

---

How did that work out in the Spanish Civil War?

---

quote:

---

What kind of moral code is it that, by its principles, would have allowed the Nazi's free-reign?

---

quote:

---

What conclusions could one draw about the holder of such a moral code?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
A consistent one deano. I couldn't care less whether you believe me or not. But in to the metanarrative as I am, I wonder why you would question mine? Your distortion of it that is.

My overnight success has taken over 50 years: that's how 'easy' it's been. I keep reading you see. And the Spirit of Truth smote my cult from the top down 17 years ago. That helped a tad.

Don't worry, you won't. Read that is. Nothing new. Like the YECists who count coup here. They hit and run away.

Whatever you do do NOT read Rob Bell and Brian McLaren and any in the emerging church. Not because you'll change for the better.

It'll make you much worse. Which is hard to believe I know. Even though you live in paradise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
J.K. Rowling isn't a pacifist. Her worldview as presented in the Harry Potter novels is closer to deano's than Martin's. The wizarding establishment spends two novels trying to pretend Voldemort hasn't returned and no fighting needs to be done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I've finally located some hard information on this. The following is from Richard Frank's "Ending the Pacific War"* pp.237-238

quote:

---

<snip> The "Magic" Diplomatic Summary demonstrated that the squad of Japanese diplomats in Europe attempting to become peace entrepreneurs lacked any authority from Tokyo for their efforts. <snip> It also confirmed that the sole authorized Japanese diplomatic venture aimed not at surrender, but at securing Soviet offices to mediate an end to the war.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I've finally located some hard information on this. The following is from Richard Frank's "Ending the Pacific War"* pp.237-238

quote:

---

<snip> The "Magic" Diplomatic Summary demonstrated that the squad of Japanese diplomats in Europe attempting to become peace entrepreneurs lacked any authority from Tokyo for their efforts. <snip> It also confirmed that the sole authorized Japanese diplomatic venture aimed not at surrender, but at securing Soviet offices to mediate an end to the war.

---

---

And I think the allies should have engaged with the process of "securing soviet offices to mediate an end to the war".

Non of which explains why a second nuclear bomb had to be dropped within a week of the first, or the need to firebomb civilian cities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Deano - I don't thinking waiting less than a week for an outcome in any way proves whether a single bomb would have resulted in surrender or not. They couldn't have waited a month ? Perhaps the military leadership would have split, perhaps the emperor might have insisted, perhaps the rank and file soldiers would have mutinied, perhaps the population would have rebelled. We'll never know, because they didn't wait.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Yes they were worried about their political influence after the war. Come to that the war would probably have been a lot shorter if the UK had taken an alliance with the soviets when it was offered before the outbreak of WWII, instead of not wanting anything to do with them cos they were communists.

But, we want to be really powerful after the war is not a moral reason for committing war crimes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I've not seen deano express homophobia or Christian Zionism yet.

He's not quite the full Tea party.

Yet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Yes they were worried about their political influence after the war. Come to that the war would probably have been a lot shorter if the UK had taken an alliance with the soviets when it was offered before the outbreak of WWII, instead of not wanting anything to do with them cos they were communists.

But, we want to be really powerful after the war is not a moral reason for committing war crimes.

---

Well I suppose if you view communism as a good thing then you could come to that conclusion. Fortunately the British leders of the day saw it for what it was; a horrific, cruel, subjugating tyranny. So we kept away from them, and made sure to minimise their influence after the war. And rightly so.

Here's something that will really yank your chain... the second bomb was of a different design, and they also wanted to validate that it would work!

The US/UK authorities also deemed it a useful demonstration to the Soviets about what they could expect should they continue the war in an attempt to expand communism.

Top be honest DT, you are simply devaluing the true meaning of "war crimes" when you throw it around with such abandon. You apply it historically to something you were not involved in, nor had any knowledge of what it was really like.

When the left mentions "war crimes" these days, I apply a considerable discount to it, on the basis that it probably isn't. I pity those victims of a true war crime who will be ignored because the left has devalued the term to the point where it no longer interests people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I don't thinking waiting less than a week for an outcome in any way proves whether a single bomb would have resulted in surrender or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
I have since though come to believe that the combined Hiroshima and Nagasaki strikes did do the job which otherwise would have been done by the blood of US Marines .
If it's ever possible to measure death and suffering then there's every chance that a land invasion of Japan, followed by a slow block by block operation against fanatics, would have totalled more suffering than 2 Atom-bombs.

Two days and two nights was long enough to offer a surrender . Any longer and the Hiroshima attack would have been used as a propaganda weapon against the US .
One rule of war is that if you've got you enemy on the back-foot you keep the heat on , you don't take it off.

Japan was crazy to ever take on the States.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I don't believe in "my country right or wrong"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
I am also doubtful about the distinction over civilians and soldiers, between combatants and non-combatants in a war like the Second World War. Everyone was a combatant! You didn't have to carry a rifle, simply being an orderly in a hospital in Britain meant that you were engaged in the war effort. However indirectly, everyone in all countries were engaged in activities that furthered the war effort - yes even pacifists and Quakers.

In which case, everyone is a legitimate target to a degree. Whether they really are attacked is down to a simple - if hard to stomach - cost/benefit calculation. I am very glad that I didn't have to make those calculations and decisions, but I respect those who did and will not second-guess them from the ease and comfort of the 21st Century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
[QUOTE]Of course you're right. Babies pooping in their diapers are every bit fighting for truth, freedom and right as is the tank commander or the soldier with a bayonet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
deano,
I'm not your pet.

I'm never willing to include innocent children in the costs of anything. Never. It may be hard to consider if you don't have children yourself. Kill me, spare them. And it is that personal. And it must be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:


The allied side never deliberately harmed children. Never.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

I don't believe in "my country right or wrong" - the UK has the dubious honour of being the inventor of concentration camps during the Boer war, that doesn't mean I have to agree they were a good idea. Nor do I believe it was acceptable by the standards of the day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Recognising this is an emotive subject, nevertheless it's getting a bit too personal for Purgatory, Shipmates.

You know the C3 rule. Take pissed-offness to Hell, feel free to criticise the contents of posts, but don't take pot-shots at the posters.

No names this time, just a little nudge, having due regard for the strongly held views this thread is bound to evoke.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fool on the hill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:


The allied side never deliberately harmed children. Never.

---

This is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever seen posted on any debate forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
It's not a big claim and I don't need to cite any more evidence of allied action, intention or orders to know that it's, um, wrong to state that allies never harmed children when bombs were dropped on populations that harmed children .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
And I think the allies should have engaged with the process of "securing soviet offices to mediate an end to the war".

---

quote:

---

This enterprise ran from Foreign Minister Togo in Tokyo to Ambassador Naotake Sato in Moscow. In the most significant interchange, Togo answered Sato's insistent demands for concrete terms to present to the Soviets with the statement that Japan was not looking for "anything like an unconditional surrender." Sato then lectured Togo that the best terms Japan could obtain were unconditional surrender, modified only to permit the continuation of the imperial institution--exactly the package that later critics argued would have obtained Japan's surrender without the atomic bombs. But in the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary of July 22, American policy makers read that Togo had rejected this package in the name of the cabinet.

---

quote:

---

Non of which explains why a second nuclear bomb had to be dropped within a week of the first...

---

This was done to convince the Japanese that they should not expect more concessions. As I said in an earlier post, the Japanese at one point suggested that they disarm themselves with no outsiders allowed in the country to see that it was done. They also wanted to try accused war criminals according to Japanese law. They also wanted to continue occupying the former European colonies and granting them independence rather than have the Europeans do it. (The people in those countries would have been horrified at the idea; they didn't like the European and American colonizers, but the Japanese were much more brutal.)
 

---

Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
No there isn't. Bombs were intentionally dropped. A population was known to exist. Children are part of a population. It's not rocket science.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Ah, the axis of evil. Hey Fool
 

---

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
No there isn't. Bombs were intentionally dropped. A population was known to exist. Children are part of a population. It's not rocket science.

---

Whatever...
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I haven't checked back, maybe this has been discussed earlier, but in any case it may be worth repeating at this point.

There's a serious issue in there. There has been a very great deal of soul-searching about the morality of aerial bombing when the effects are matched against the just war criteria.

From the Wiki article, you find this.

quote:

---

Jus in bello

Once war has begun, just war theory (Jus in bello) also directs how combatants are to act or should act:

Distinction

Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military targets and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against civilians. Moreover, combatants are not permitted to target with violence enemy combatants who have surrendered or who have been captured or who are injured and not presenting an immediate lethal threat.

Proportionality

Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality).

Military necessity

Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A kind of disproportionate proportionality at best. It was necessary to win, to stop it. I'm pretty sure Truman was presented with projected allied casualty figures for a continuation of conventional (i.e. no A bombs) wars and the figures were horrific. Who really knows for sure what the alternatives would have looked like?

I'm a gentle, kindly man like my dad. What would I have done in Truman's place in July 1945? All I know is that I don't feel I have the right to second-guess him. Glad it wasn't me sitting there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QB] I haven't checked back, maybe this has been discussed earlier, but in any case it may be worth repeating at this point.

There's a serious issue in there. There has been a very great deal of soul-searching about the morality of aerial bombing when the effects are matched against the just war criteria.

From the Wiki article, you find this.

[QUOTE]Jus in bello

Once war has begun, just war theory (Jus in bello) also directs how combatants are to act or should act:

Distinction

Proportionality

Military necessity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
For example, take the politically correct war the West is currently engaged in. This could, over-night, become very politically incorrect if suicide nukes started going off in Western cities.

---

quote:

---

If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Can somebody tell me please what (politically correct) war we are engaged in that answers that description? I can't think of one.

I can think of two we have somehow got mixed up in at the moment, but can't see how either of them can be justified.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas 62
Not does it take into account the extraordinary brutality which civilians of occupied lands or POWs had received, and were continuing to receive, at Japanese hands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

The allied side never deliberately harmed children. Never. They were killed and hurt by allied action, there is no doubt about that, but at no time in the war did any allied military or political leadership ever say "Attack this place. It has no military value, but it does contain many children."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
It is perfectly reasonable to infer intent on the part of the Allies to kill children as they knew that this not just reasonably foreseeable but inevitable as a consequence of obliteration bombing, in the same way that if I get behind the wheel of my car having drunk a bottle of whisky, it is reasonably foreseeable that I might kill someone. In neither case does the perpetrator necessarily have the desire to kill, but they are no less responsible for the deaths and can be said to have intended them.

---

quote:

---

"OK, boys- today, we're going to kill some children. I want to see those bombs right on the slide and the merry-go-round. Go get the damned crumb-munchers!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Both answers are to a degree correct IMO, hence why I said that one scenario was not as morally bad as the other but in both (IMO) there is intent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink in Hell:
People keep saying that, or "I am not going to second guess ..."

Have you not come across the idea that if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This is the problem with total war, isn't it? It becomes contagious, so gradually both sides move towards it, justifying it for themselves by pointing to the other side. For example, we can torture people, because they do, but of course, 'they' then argue, look they are torturing our brave fedayeen, so let's give 'em hell, if we capture them. And so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Children died because of the ultimate act of God.
Matthew is quoting Jeremiah. In Jeremiah, the Assyrians visited the wrath of God upon the children of Israel just as surely as the Lancaster bombers visited the wrath of the British Empire on Dresden and the B-29's visited the wrath of the United States on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Jesus being born was the moral equivalent of Thomas Wilson Ferebee releasing Little Boy eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Children died because of the ultimate act of God.
Matthew is quoting Jeremiah. In Jeremiah, the Assyrians visited the wrath of God upon the children of Israel just as surely as the Lancaster bombers visited the wrath of the British Empire on Dresden and the B-29's visited the wrath of the United States on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

---

When God gets cross he kills you and your kids?

OK, and I've still got to try to love this God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
[QUOTE]Martin's line of reasoning

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But talking about the acts of God is a special case. We can say that it was part of God's plan for Judas to betray Jesus. That does not make it a moral act for Judas to betray Jesus. We can say that God in some sense "permits" an atrocity to happen. That does not make the atrocity a morally good act. Even if we accept (which I find difficult) that the Assyrians were in some sense representing a judgement from God, this does not mean that the Assyrians were doing the right thing.

---

Point is God sacrifices lives even the lives of children to accomplish God's purpose. The Bible in both testaments gives governments authority not given to individuals. Good governments can and must wage just wars in defense of their people. God allows even orders the Israelites to prosecute just wars in a manner that would be clearly illegal under modern rules of war. These biblical examples provide the only evidence Christians have of how a government obeying God would wage war.

Looking to the teachings of Jesus for answers on if or how governments should wage war is comparing apples to oranges. The teachings of Jesus mainly deal with personal interactions not international conflict. Look at how the NT describes the second coming of Christ. Based on the clearest reading of scripture, the second coming will not be a pleasant event for everybody. Even Jesus on two occasions uses the imagery of a ruler dispatching his army to kill people.

Even if we accept that waging wars are sinful, it doesn't mean that not waging them can't also be a sin. I'm Lutheran enough to argue that part of living in a fallen world is sometimes choosing between the lesser of two evils. Sometimes history only leaves sinful options.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Argue that all you like on your own recognisance mate. Show me Jesus doing it.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
That's been part of their business since governments have existed including the ones established by God in Scripture. Nothing in the NT suggests otherwise. In fact, taken as a whole the NT suggests the same thing about government's authority to wage war.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Give me Jesus' example of choosing between the lesser of two evils.

And by using culturally relevant parables He was justifying WHAT (if anything) exactly ?

And WHAT exactly is the purpose of apocalyptic?

You are a scholar in these matters, no ?

You've read widely on these genres ?

Can you recommend any writers who justify warmongering from Jesus' parables and a somewhat dispensationalist, chilialist interpretation of apocalyptic ?

Or is this just wot you fink ?

Been there.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Well, I have more theological education than either Rob Bell or Brian McClaren so...

Why would Jesus compare the Kingdom of God to something inherently evil?

No one needs to make an argument in favor of just war theory based on the parables because there is ample evidence for it in the rest of scripture. One only needs to do so when debating just war with those who ignore the rest of the Bible. Since such a view was declared heretical 2,000 years ago, a case likely hasn't been made. However, it's hard to argue the Gospels are against something used to describe the Kingdom of God especially when you have the rest of scripture and Jesus says damn all to contradict it.

I'm familiar with apocalyptic literature. This isn't a question about how to interpret apocalyptic literature. Once again, it's simply about the imagery. And all possible justification for just war theory does not come from apocalyptic literature.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
No you don't.

Er, to make a point ?

It would be inherently evil to rip your own eye out to stop lusting.


Nothing in scripture justifies Jesus' followers making war.

NOTHING.

When we do it, we do it on our own.


How then doth heresy prosper ?


Everything Jesus says and DID contradicts it. NOTHING in His use of metaphor, simile, litotes, hyperbole, sarcasm licenses anyone to make war.


All you have to do is tilt your head, you'll see it.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Yes, I do.

What point? That the Kingdom of God was evil?

Or, is that Jesus telling us to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Begging the question

Fundamentalists turned liberals who don't bother to study church history?

No, it doesn't. Yes, it does.

Once you come to your senses, you'll agree with me.

This is pointless but mildly entertaining.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Mate, our dispositions will polarize even further.

Until you, like me, are granted repentance.

As I learned here long ago, it's NOTHING to do with intellect, only disposition.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Yes, Martin, I can only pray that one day God allows me to be as holy as thou.
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
You two, Beeswax Altar & Martin, if you want to get personal - take it to hell.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Ma'am.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
You're a good man Martin. I love you. Really I do.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Beeswax Alter, that is TOTALLY ... disarming of you. Blessed are the peacemakers indeed. That is me defeated. I'm afraid you've made a friend of me. You have done EXACTLY what Brian McLaren teaches and I utterly endorse and ... failed to do with you.

And you are of course totally WRONG. I am NOT a good man. And although I AM a raving compulsive self-righteous egotist (sick with self loathing - God is fair), it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

That an ambulatory receptacle of mental, experiential, emotional excrement (a walking shit bag) can't be the utterly undeserving and UNWANTING (it was SO much easier when I was a hawk) recipient of the uncompromising grace of God in Christ's stark example of utterly repudiating violence as a response to the abuse of power. As a starting point.

So what do we do now ? It's your move Sir. Friend.

And deano's. I'll have to apologise to him on the hell thread devoted to him.

Sigh.
 

---

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
Don't bother. Just give soldiers their faith back please.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
deano, soldiers have to step in because Christianity fails. It fails them by not showing them personally that there is another, better, yet MORE noble way.

I have had the honour of knowing five soldiers well, some too well, four I would count as close, personal, long term friends. Very close. Some too close. And yes I a have been security cleared. I have known many others and without exception have the highest regard for them.

Including the two who make the historians fools and/or liars.

They all did well what Christianity could not. Would not.

The enemy is tamed Christianity, not soldiers.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Martin it seems to me that on the one hand you are defining "Christian" in anabaptist, "professing" terms (individual commitment, pacifism, not part of any earthly kingdom, etc.) and on the other hand defining "Christian" in "confessing" terms (a "Christian nation") when you say that "Christians" are responsible for all wars since Constantine.

You want Christians to behave within worldly kingdoms as though these were the Kingdom of God.

I think Jesus was a vehicle for the Kingdom of God in a unique way. I'm not saying we shouldn't try and follow his example, but if we just try and copy/paste it without thought onto geopolitical kingdoms we are likely to end up in millenialism/dominionism, which frankly I find just as scary as the dispensationalism you say you have abandoned.

As an aside, here in France I have never heard more serious, responsible, ethical, agonising and Christianly-informed debate about war than in the nation's top officer training academy.
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
Martin,

Accepting for now the premise that when we as individuals or groups are attacked, the truly Christian response is to turn the other cheek, what about the case when third parties are attacked ?

Waiving one's own right to self-defence is one thing. Failure to act in defence of someone else is another.

In imagining what Jesus would do, turning His face away doesn't seem right. But neither does picking up a sword.

But when you've looked for a third way and not found one, those seem to be the bottom-line choices.

Best wishes,

Russ
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Hi Eutychus, Russ.

Christianity subverted the Roman empire too effectively and became the Roman empire. East and West. So the empire won. We must shake the empire's dust from our feet. Untame ourselves and get back to subverting it. The fact that decent, civilized men agonize over Devil's alternatives is overwhelmingly sublimely humanly beautiful. Tempting or what. We stood at the top of the temple and accepted a long time ago.

Jesus gave us only ONE example of how to avoid that. Sacrifice. Without coercion - and NO clearing the temple twice, is NO comparison - without violence. That means getting between the violent and the oppressed, absorbing, shaming violence. That means - literally - laying our lives down.

That's as Christians, followers of Christ, AS Christ, FIRST.

If we're soldiers, police of the empire FIRST then it's more complicated, it's compromised. We're living by the sword.

And NO that is NOT forbidden. It's MORE complex, MORE real, MORE nuanced, MORE up to us to work it out, to TRULY agonize over.

At this moment, Christians are significant by their invisibility in Northern Ireland, in Syria. As they were concerning Libya, Iraq, Rwanda, Bosnia ALL conflicts that our civilized leaders have wrung their hands over. So good men of the empire have to kill and be killed.

Christians are invisible in the empire generally. In its buying, selling, its bread and circuses. In its consumption - with all the overtones of tuberculosis, cancer - to sustain itself.

And yeah I've been at the sharp end and will be again and will always call the cops although that's always too late. And until they come I will have to partially ineffectually interpose in the violence and get caught in the crossfire, distract violence from the weak to myself. There is no other way.

And yeah, if a guy pulls a knife, I will pick up a chair. Two weeks ago a volunteer, a five foot nothing young woman handed me a wrench that she'd just taken off a very close friend who has served six years for murder. Awesome.

This is what Jesus wants and does.

From, by, in US, individuals on up ... down in to the empire.

Caesar is NOT lord.

[ 08. December 2012, 10:20: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If we're soldiers, police of the empire FIRST then it's more complicated, it's compromised. We're living by the sword.

---

You've done it again: you're mixing up how to run kingdoms with the Kingdom.

I don't think a nation state, which is "of this world", can be fully pacifist.

Even if we admit Jesus as a proponent of non-violence, he is advocating that for the Kingdom, not any earthly kingdom.

We may agree with Jesus that the nations and kingdoms are all a drop in a bucket, will be blown away like chaff, and so on, but the fact is that for now, we collectively are still stuck in nation states.

We can implement non-violence on an individual level (as you relate) and on an organisational level (like MLK), but if you want to opt out of the nation state altogether I think you are heading for your Essene holy huddle. We are called to be in but not of; doing so will sometimes require us to choose the lesser of two evils.

The way those choices play out is down to individual conscience which I personally see as one of the great triumphs of grace. We are allowed to differ!

(I'm reminded of the Christian couple I knew who, many years ago, were both at a Greenham Common demo - he as a copper and she as a protestor).
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
No I haven't.

He is advocating for ALL. Now. Just as then.

As long as we capitulate to the empire, the reich, the beast there is no Kingdom come.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think you're missing the "not yet" bit.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
I reject it. I put no limit on the Kingdom NOW, for ALL of us, NOW. I have no idea what a government is. Something, a myth, a fantasy to hide behind. An excuse.

And by the way Eutychus,
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I reject it. I put no limit on the Kingdom NOW, for ALL of us, NOW.

---

Well I do, and that limit is our fallen nature, which doesn't evaporate on conversion and won't go away altogether until all things are made new. (Which presumably has a lot to do with why there will always be wars and rumours of wars until the end). We underestimate our own fallen nature at our peril and especially so when we try and occupy the moral high ground.

Oh and I'll see your and raise you a
 

---

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
posted by Euty:

quote:

---

I don't think a nation state, which is "of this world", can be fully pacifist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I reject it. I put no limit on the Kingdom NOW, for ALL of us, NOW. I have no idea what a government is. Something, a myth, a fantasy to hide behind. An excuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Euty:

quote:

---

I don't think a nation state, which is "of this world", can be fully pacifist.

---

Article 9 comes pretty close. At one stage Ireland came very close to a similar arrangement to article 9 in light of the horrors of the Easter Rising and the ensuing civil war, but instead went for a type of fudged neutrality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
We already have learned that death and life are the same thing.

---

They are?

quote:

---

We must also learn that about the kingdoms of god and of the world.

---

What, that they are the same thing?

quote:

---

it is not about creating heaven on earth, it is about being fully human on earth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
We already have learned that death and life are the same thing.

---

They are?

---

quote:

---

We must also learn that about the kingdoms of god and of the world.What, that they are the same thing?

quote:

---

it is not about creating heaven on earth, it is about being fully human on earth.

---

I think that embracing our humanity means a) coming to terms with our individual and collective fallenness b) allowing for the fact that being endowed with their own consciences, other humans may legitimately attempt to follow Jesus in the light of a) by means other than those we see as right for us.

There's plenty to be recommended in non-violence and pacifist thinking, but it's a poor show if its proponents fail to have any respect for Christians who have chosen other approaches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
No, you cannot follow Jesus legitimately into a war, nor into anything like it, though you can follow Jesus even if you're in a war.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Just watched episode four of Band of Brothers which covers the Anglo-US failure to relieve Arnhem.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0