Posted on 03/02/2010 10:03:59 AM PST by Mobile Vulgus
When it debuted the left instantly hailed it as an anti-war masterpiece. The book "The Last Train from Hiroshima," a popular history of the WWII A-Bomb drops on Japan, quickly accumulated much acclaim. This was "gleaming" wartime history according to The New York Times. It was so poignant and solemn that moviemaker James Camereon was said to be considering making a movie based on the book. It wasn't long, though, before major questions about the veracity of the tale were raised.
The author of the book, Charles Pellegrino, used the experiences of at least three participants in the bombings at important junctures in the book. He reported the experiences of one of the U.S. airmen that was aboard the Enola Gay as well as two European Jesuit priests that were living in Hiroshima during the bombing.
But now comes the admission from the author that two of these three people don't even exist, and a third lied about his service on the Enloa Gay casting doubt on Pellegrino's whole endeavor...
Read the rest at Publiusforum.com...
What - no day passes available?
“Fake but accurate.” It’s a liberal way of life.
More ‘just war’ bs.
More ‘just war’ bs.
.... curious, xone, could you elaborate what you mean? Are you saying no war is just or right?
After the bombing , a little later they just left the gates unguarded and everyone walked out. He is of the firm opinion that if there had been an invasion he and all his buddies would have been killed.
If not for Hiroshima, a lot of Americans would have died. And probably more Japanese than died even in the blast.
You originally scoffed at the notion that murder could be committed during war. I was responding to that.
Who was a civilian in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? That’s a distinct question.
Looks like I have more to add to my chapter in “48 Liberal Lies” on Hiroshima.
Hardly, I was taking offense to your blanket breezy assertion that all the participants in the bombing of those targets and by extension any similar ones were and are guilty of 1st degree murder.
The attempt to lay guilt where none exists is typical of the left and so the rise of 'just war' theory only serves to minimize the resolve and maximize the angst of those serving today.
It is a cowardly exercise to engage in today, but those men and women in harm's way can at least be counseled. Your shameless attack on the military of WWII is frankly no different than John 'vietnam' Kerry's equating Viet Nam vets with Genghis Khan's horde.
Separating civilians from military objectives is the responsibility of the one who controls them. In this way the Japs were no different than Saddam.
A lot more Japanese.
You mean like the bombings of Warsaw and Rotterdam were 'mistakes'?
• A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
• A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
• The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
A strong proponent, the not lamented and now late Howard Zinn, re-writer of American history. Sound high and mighty fine; look at the last paragraph, no frag weapons. Why, because they are indiscriminate. This is pointy headed academics or worse.
In the beginning, yes. He thought the British would be more scared of the Bolsheviks, and would be willing to make a deal with Hitler, where Hitler would have his colonies in the East, if it eradicated the Soviet threat, and he would stake no claims on any British colonies. Basically, England and Germany would rule the world together. Of course when he realized that British would not have it, that respect turned to anger. Ribbentrop, especially wound up being the biggest British hater of all, when earlier he was a great admirer.
OK, so are you saying our participation in WWII was not just?
“Just War theory” has been around since Augustine, at the latest. It’s hardly a plot hatched by the Left.
Of course not, neither are the bomber crews guilty of murder.
It has been co-opted by the left, look at the upgrades to it. Lot of fragmentation weapons in Augustine's era? In the thread I referenced, the additional reading list is populated by lefties. Historical revisionism has always been a tool of the left. Sorry you fell for it and felt the need to blacken the names of men called to fight in the toughest life or death struggle in the 20th century. Well done.
No, it wasn't.
Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all bombings of military targets as per international law at the time.
Anyone who tells you differently is peddling a lie.
Murder is always wrong, by defintion. However, you have not proven that the aerial bombings that we are discussing constitute murder.
On a related point, I'd argue on the basis of Scripture that telling a malicious lie is always wrong. Wouldn't you agree?
HALF
Yea the first half and the second half! ;-0
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.