The moral differences between the holocaust and bombing Japan

My daughter posts on this forum. She can answer that for herself, unlike you I've got nothing to hide. I've just pmd her. She's in China right now and it's 2.30 am where she is, so it won't be right away.

My daughter posts on this forum....

Quote:

So you won't answer the question.

You're not serious, are you? You think that was a legitimate question?

That, Izzy, was on the order of,

Has your daughter decided to turn you in to authorities for sodomizing her since she was 13?

I think Truman would have been less likely to okay the nuclear bombing of German cities (although some of the German cities were obliterated through conventional weapons) than Japanese cities...primarily because of the ethnic, cultural, and perceived physical differences.

Who the **** even thinks of something like that?

than that. The fire-bombing of Dresden was in many ways a more horrendous event than either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki attacks.

Harry "the buck stops here" Truman would, I'm quite sure, have had no qualms whatever about dropping a nuke on Frankfurt or Manheim or Bonn.

Initially, the bomb was developed to hit Germany and there was reason to suspect that Germany's own nuke program was farther along than was Japan's. Even as Overlord was being planned, it was feared that the Germans would release radioactive dust over Normandy. Processing sites for Uranium 235 were located just about 20 miles north pf Berlin, so these centrifuges were bombed in March of 1945.
It became obvious that Japan had very little access to fissionable material (U or Th) and they therefore wouldn't have the ability to produce Plutonium.. When Germany surrendered, the development of the bomb didn't slow down especially when it became obvious that a ground war and amphibious landings on the Japanese mainland could go on for several years. Japan's number just rose to the top.
Never start a war that you doubt you can win and then whine about the overwhelming force that is used to defeat you... Seems axiomatic

oralloy wrote:

JTT wrote:

Setanta wrote:

I have repeatedly pointed out that the United States used the atomic bomb because the Japanese would not surrender, and they needed to end that war, they wanted to end the madness.

That's not a lawful excuse to resort to war crimes. It is also a lie, but lies comes easy to a people who have lived horrible lies for their entire existence.

No, his statement is entirely factual.
As for legality, we did what needed to be done.

Was some LAW violated ??

If so, then WHICH law??

What is the authority for the alleged "law" ????
America is sovereign. It was sovereign then.

I'm not sure that there is one.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I think Truman would have been less likely to okay the nuclear bombing of German cities (although some of the German cities were obliterated through conventional weapons) than Japanese cities...primarily because of the ethnic, cultural, and perceived physical differences.

Oh,c'mon, Frank, you know better than that. The fire-bombing of Dresden was in many ways a more horrendous event than either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki attacks. Harry "the buck stops here" Truman would, I'm quite sure, have had no qualms whatever about dropping a nuke on Frankfurt or Manheim or Bonn. But we didn't yet have the bomb when Hitler's little empire fell apart and we could celebrate V-E Day (that's 'Victory in Europe' for you youngsters) in April.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oralloy wrote:

But if Japan was ready to surrender, they should have surrendered instead of waiting until we had nuked them twice.

Oralloy summarizes the whole issue very succinctly and successfully.

I take it that you two did not read JTT's long winded reply that explains the setting and the mind set of our leaders in charge of this war?

I do not remember all of what he shared but what he shared exposed their way of thinking.

Here is my version of it.

The best thing you could do is to read what JTT shared because I did not do it justice.

The US forced the issue so that it could use atomic bombs for political purposes.

oralloy wrote:

We should definitely have the military massacre any enemy who seeks to set off nukes in the US, before they are able to set them off.

The US military won't be able to stop them.

My point was about what might happen in the future and what could the US military do about it. They can't do anything to stop the inevitable homeland terrorist nuclear attack on the US sponsored by an anonymous foreign government who could be motivated for a whole host of reasons. In the aftermath they won't be able to find an enemy to nuke.

Oralloy summarizes the whole issue very succinctly and successfully.

I take it that you two did not read JTT's long winded reply that explains
the setting and the mind set of our leaders in charge of this war?

I do not remember all of what he shared but what he shared exposed their way of thinking.
Here is my version of it. Our society consisted of many racist white men

who did not enforce the 15th amendment for blacks until after 1960

These same old farts "that you old farts look up to, thought segregation was normal

and were still pissed about what took place a few years earlier "19th amendment"
many men thought woman should not be allowed to vote.

Was there Free speech?

What free speech?

You better not speak out against the brain washing or you might have a price to pay?

Do you all really love them good old days so much
that you can not see what a bunch of immoral apes we were.

The best thing you could do is to read what JTT
shared because I did not do it justice.

Setanta wrote:

You're just as stuffed full of **** as RL.

You hate skepticism don't you?

It goes against what you think should be the formal education of history.

I see much of what you share to be true but when people are ridiculed for questioning some of it, it makes me wonder how much of it is brain washing propaganda.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and allow JTT to formally educate you about some of the lies that you have been taught as facts?