Enola Gay, heroism or insanity? - Page 3




 
--
 
May 29th, 2015  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
So what, you can use his views to counter his interpretation of the facts but not the facts themselves, just because Hitler told you there was 24 hours in a day doesn't make it wrong.

If Japan made those attempts to bring an end to the war then you have to question the use of the bomb.

One of the mistakes people make is that they look at the messenger to decide the validity of the message.

i do not believe any word from a neo nazi who claims that the attack on Dresden was a holocaust :there was only one holocaust: the one from the nazis,the holocaust Weber and Barnes are denying and defending .
May 29th, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
i do not believe any word from a neo nazi who claims that the attack on Dresden was a holocaust :there was only one holocaust: the one from the nazis,the holocaust Weber and Barnes are denying and defending .
Well that is an incredibly closed mind, now while I may not share his views on many things I believe that to simply regard everything they say as wrong just because of who said it is pretty poor science.

In my view you listen to their point, verify what they say and then make up my own mind as to the veracity of the data to do anything less lowers the standard of your knowledge on the subject.

So in this case prove him wrong or accept what he say on this issue you don't have to agree with anything else and you can still hate all his other opinions, even the biggest a-holes on earth are right sometimes.
May 30th, 2015  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Well that is an incredibly closed mind, now while I may not share his views on many things I believe that to simply regard everything they say as wrong just because of who said it is pretty poor science.

In my view you listen to their point and verify what they say and then make up my own mind as to the veracity of the data to do anything less lowers the standard of your knowledge on the subject.

So in this case prove him wrong or accept what he say on this issue you don't have to agree with anything else and you can still hate all his other opinions, even the biggest a-holes on earth are right sometimes.

To ad a tad to that message, let's not forget the Ukrainian mass genocide of the 20's and 30's.

The Armenian Genocide, Pol Pot's Genocide as well as the Congo's "Free State".


But most of these people are not ethnic White Jewish. So not many people care it seems at least in the mainstream outlets.

I hold deep and serious sorrow for the victims of the Nazis however let's not loose context when talking about the broad crime of genocide as a whole.
--
May 30th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
To ad a tad to that message, let's not forget the Ukrainian mass genocide of the 20's and 30's.

The Armenian Genocide, Pol Pot's Genocide as well as the Congo's "Free State".


But most of these people are not ethnic White Jewish. So not many people care it seems at least in the mainstream outlets.

I hold deep and serious sorrow for the victims of the Nazis however let's not loose context when talking about the broad crime of genocide as a whole.
The Nazi's were responsible for at least 25 million murders of which 99.5 % occurred in less than 6 years time making them histories most prolific killers. They also stated a war of conquest and slavery that took ~ 60 million lives another record that will likely hold up over the test of time.
May 30th, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
The Nazi's were responsible for at least 25 million murders of which 99.5 % occurred in less than 6 years time making them histories most prolific killers. They also stated a war of conquest and slavery that took ~ 60 million lives another record that will likely hold up over the test of time.
But once again the argument becomes about magnitude, would you feel better about the Nazi's if they had "only" killed 5 million instead of 25 million or would 600,000 dead Jews have been less of a crime than 6 million?

No I don't think you would because at some point numerically in our minds it ceases to be about how many were killed and becomes about the process of killing and the factors and processes that lead perfectly normal people to carry out or turn a blind eye to these acts.

The reality is I no longer care about the specific numbers of Russians that died or how many Jews perished because the shear volume of victims is too large to comprehend and it is the same for the Armenian, Rwandan Cambodian genocides or Mao and Stalin's slaughters the magnitude of the crime far outweighs the number of dead.

And I somewhat agree with Yossarian's comments because in many ways we lessen the crimes of the Nazi's by focusing on 6 million Jewish murders and ignore the millions of other minorities that were slaughtered by these goose stepping lunatics and the other ideological lunatics that came before and since.
May 30th, 2015  
lljadw
 
Japan had all the time to surrender : more than 3 years ,starting with 9 december .But what happened: after more than 3 years of war,knowing that they had lost the war, they proposed to surrender under certain conditions
May 30th, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
Japan had all the time to surrender : more than 3 years ,starting with 9 december .But what happened: after more than 3 years of war,knowing that they had lost the war, they proposed to surrender under certain conditions
And in the end they did surrender under certain conditions but that is not what we are trying to find out here what we are trying to determine is whether the war was prolonged by Japanese intransigence to accept surrender or whether it was prolonged by Allied intransigence on accepting a conditional surrender.

We often look at how many troops the atomic bomb saved by removing the need for an invasion but if a surrender had been possible in 1944 how many allied troops would that have saved?
May 30th, 2015  
lljadw
 
And Weber has given no proof at all for his claims ,only an article from a journalist .

At Potsdam (july 1945) the Allies demanded (again) the unconditional surrender of Japan and warned her for the consequences if she refused to do it .Japan refused to surrender and a month later the US used the bomb .

The only responsible was Japan : why did she not capitulate immediately after Potsdam ?

The only thing the allies would accept was a declaration of Japan that she was capitulating, not a proposal that she would give up under certain conditions .

The whole story from Weber is an invention : if it was true,the Republicans would have used it against the Democrats: they did not : thus: it did not exist .

I have not to prove that Weber was lying, he has to prove that what he is saying is true .
May 30th, 2015  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
And in the end they did surrender under certain conditions but that is not what we are trying to find out here what we are trying to determine is whether the war was prolonged by Japanese intransigence to accept surrender or whether it was prolonged by Allied intransigence on accepting a conditional surrender.

We often look at how many troops the atomic bomb saved by removing the need for an invasion but if a surrender had been possible in 1944 how many allied troops would that have saved?

The allied policy was from the very beginning that the war should end only by an unconditional surrender from Japan : negociations were out of the question .

Saying that the war was prolonged by Allied intransigence on accepting an unconditional surrender is implying that one should negociate with Japan and with Hitler :that was out of the question :.

A surrender was possible in 1944 for Japan and Germany, it was possible in 1943, in 1942, in 1941 : no one prevented them from surrendering . No one .
May 30th, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
The allied policy was from the very beginning that the war should end only by an unconditional surrender from Japan : negociations were out of the question .

Saying that the war was prolonged by Allied intransigence on accepting an unconditional surrender is implying that one should negociate with Japan and with Hitler :that was out of the question :.

A surrender was possible in 1944 for Japan and Germany, it was possible in 1943, in 1942, in 1941 : no one prevented them from surrendering . No one .
Yet we did in the end accept Japans surrender with conditions so the idea that a conditional surrender was out of the question is not born out by historical fact.

So the point remains would Japan have accepted the same conditions earlier had genuine attempts been made to approach them and how many lives would have been saved if they were.

The reality is we have no way of knowing what might have been but we can determine whether negotiation was possible and who torpedoed them.
 


Similar Topics
Enola Gay!
Married gay couples win equal tax benefits nationwide
Gay rights advocate seeks to overturn gay Boy Scouts ban
Millions of Chinese wives wed to gay men: expert
Canada 'can permit gay marriage'