Both intensily controvertial moments from World War II,
The fire bombings of Dresden,
The nuclear bombs dropped over both Hiroshima AND Nagasaki.....
were these bombings necessary to win the war???....
Lets' hear it!!
The fire bombings of Dresden,
The nuclear bombs dropped over both Hiroshima AND Nagasaki.....
were these bombings necessary to win the war???....
Lets' hear it!!
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 3:52 PMI'm not trying to drift the subject, but I feel it's only fair to point out that Tokyo was also fire-bombed, as were other cities in Japan, too. Japan was already in a very bad way before the nukes.
Thus, I don't believe that the nukes were necessary to beat Japan. I believe that they were a warning to the Soviets, and that might count for even more than is let on in many a history book. If we had engaged the Soviet Union in a major way, things would obviously have turned out completely differently. The Soviets did a fair amount of "show" to keep the US from advancing too far, also.
So, I don't know if they were necessary or not, but whenever I think about the nukes, I feel gross and I hope that we never use them on a populace again. In my opinion, they are much better as a scare tactic than an actual weapon to be detonated.
Lastly, I don't really think that the US was any morally better than the other sides in the war... the US had concentration camps, so did the UK, not just Germany; even Canada had concentration camps. It's a shameful part of history all around, in my opinion. -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 4:02 PM>>the US had concentration camps, so did the UK, not just Germany; even Canada had concentration camps
Equating detention camps for Japanese-Americans and enemy aliens to the planned extermination of 6 million Jews reflects a certain moral blindness, I believe.
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 4:06 PM{ I don't really think that the US was any morally better than the other sides in the war... the US had concentration camps, so did the UK, not just Germany; even Canada had concentration camps. }
Morally, and putting on our ' historical context ' glasses.
Would you compare the way Nazis treated their prisoners the same as how the Allies treated their prisoners?
-
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 4:18 PM<Would you compare the way Nazis treated their prisoners the same as how the Allies treated their prisoners?>
How could I? The US did not massively exterminate Japanese-Americans. The UK's camps were for labor. The only thing I was comparing is that almost all sides involved detained supposed "enemies," even when many of those people were not in any way enemies. I cannot ignore that the Allies had camps, and neither should anyone else. How that makes me "morally blind" is beyond me. I'd also like to note that the US has a lot of concentration camps set up at this very moment, some of them able to hold more than a million people. How "moral" of US. -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 4:31 PMNazi concentration camps were not created for detaining enemies. They were created for the purpose of MURDERING the ' lesser ' races: Slavs, Jews, blacks and Gypsies.
While some folks may question the morality of detaining people that are suspected of wanting to harm us in 'detention ' camps., it is indeed necessary.
While regretable, and now in hindsight, seen as morally repugnant , the Japanese-Americans that were kept in camps by the US during WWII was done for security reasons and not for any evil intentions...such as Stalins Gulags....and Hitlers MANY , MANY concentration camps .
{ the US has a lot of concentration camps set up at this very moment, some of them able to hold more than a million people...}
Camps that hold a million people?!?!?! Holy Cow....now I know where all my tax dollars are going.... -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 4:34 PMGuess what companies are involved? Hint, hint, same as made the ones in Germany. -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 4:40 PMOh-oh....Ex-nay on the H-Word here buddy....no anti-Bush propaganda allowed..... -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 4:43 PM< I don't really think that the US was any morally better than the other sides in the war >
Now....tell me which history books have we read where we determined this opinion?....
And ...for the purposes of not poluting ourselves with other subject matter....let's just keep this about WWII
-
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 4:47 PM<And ...for the purposes of not poluting ourselves with other subject matter....let's just keep this about WWII>
Fine, I'm done. Have a blast. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 5:09 PMGo figure....
the EEEEEvil USA has a constitution that protects him with free speech....
and he's not carried off to that million-man concentration camp he speaks of...........
Another example of our fine public school system....
-
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 5:25 PMHow sad that an uninformed { misinformed} propagandist can sabotage a perfectly good post.
Who said this?
Arguing with the uneducated & the uninformed is like wrestling a pig: Not only does it get everyone dirty but the pig likes it.
OH WELL:
GOOD NIGHT
-
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 5:49 PM<How sad that an uninformed { misinformed} propagandist can sabotage a perfectly good post.
Who said this?
Arguing with the uneducated & the uninformed is like wrestling a pig: Not only does it get everyone dirty but the pig likes it.
OH WELL:
GOOD NIGHT>
Was that really necessary? I never tried to equate the level of immorality in each side's camps. I'm not even propagandizing for any side in the matter. I'm saying all sides did bad things. I even said that I *can't* compare Germany's treatment of prisoners with the Allies' treatment of their prisoners. What exactly is pissing you off here? That I informed you that there are bunches of concentration camps waiting to be filled in the US, which were built by the makers of Germany's extermination camps? That I don't find the US to be the sole shining example of morality?
I'm not trying to sabotage conversation. Your insults would do that much quicker than anything I've said here if I cared what you thought about "me," or whatever you think "I" am through a quick peek at my profile or responses here.
It was *your* assumption that my posts were anti-Bush rhetoric, you brought up the H-word, when I was thinking of the FEMA-word, and when in reality the camps many of the camps here in the US were built during Clinton's Presidency, not solely the Bushes'.
Good night, indeed. -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 5:55 PM>> I never tried to equate the level of immorality in each side's camps.
Here's what you said:
>>I don't really think that the US was any morally better than the other sides in the war... the US had concentration camps, so did the UK, not just Germany
I see clear moral differences, you said you didn't. -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 6:05 PMTwo different issues, Forrest, that you're trying to conflate in my posts. Camps, and overall conduct in the war. The US's camps were NOT anywhere near as bad as Germany's. But the US destroyed Japan through conventional bombing runs, firebombings, and nukes, and many, many Japanese civilians died in the process, not just soldiers. Maybe you see a difference there, but I don't, and it's not due to moral blindness. I am also one of those people that believe that the US allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, and I cannot bring myself to be "O.K." with that, either. I'm also not O.K. with how long the US did business with Germany if what the Nazis were doing was so appalling to the US.
The $buck$ is not so almighty that we can allow our morals to fly out the window to make room for the profit pouring in, and later on claim that we are morally superior to those with whom we were doing business with the whole time. -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 6:27 PM>>you're trying to conflate in my posts. Camps, and overall conduct in the war
Here's what you said:
>> I don't really think that the US was any morally better than the other sides in the war... the US had concentration camps, so did the UK, not just Germany
That was all from the same post; I didn't "conflate" anything.
-
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Thu, April 12, 2007 - 6:56 AMYes, I did say that, but I never said US/UK/Canadian camps were as bad as Germany's. In fact, I already answered the quote you keep bringing up with "I never tried to equate the level of immorality in each side's camps," which is in fact true. Germany's were worse. Their point was to either kill prisoners with gas or work them to death.
I'm saying that I don't feel the US was morally better than the other sides in the war. We nuked, we firebombed, conventional bombed, our media was dishonest, and we had camps for prisoners, many of whom were not in any way enemies, no matter if our camps were designed to kill or not. -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Thu, April 12, 2007 - 12:26 PM>>We nuked, we firebombed, conventional bombed, our media was dishonest, and we had camps for prisoners, many of whom were not in any way enemies, no matter if our camps were designed to kill or not.
And this makes us as bad as the Nazis? -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Thu, April 12, 2007 - 12:37 PMwere you speaking to me forrest?
i'm on your side
i've read a bit more of what the nazis did and were capable of outside of just running extermination camps...and not just during WWII
these folks were unbelievable....
Originally, the Russian civilians received them as saviors...until they saw that they were being summarily executed for simply being 'slavs'
I in no way judge to harshly what we did as combatants during WWII.
-
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Thu, April 12, 2007 - 12:44 PM>>were you speaking to me forrest?
No.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 4:45 PMMeh, free speech will still be around for a little bit longer.
www.google.com/search
It appears that the Alaskan camp can actually hold 2 million people.
And I feel that the F-word is just as bad as the H-word.... FEMA scares the shit out of me.
-
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 4:41 PMI wonder who will get the contract for keeping track of prisoners this time around? IBM again? Mac? Sun? Maybe SGI? www.sgi.com/features/2007/lrz.html -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 4:44 PMoh wow...did THIS get off track........
perhaps this should be continued under the 'conspiracy tribes' ... -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Sun, April 15, 2007 - 12:04 PMHA HA HA LOL
Perhaps, :-)
Randy
...........>
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Thu, April 12, 2007 - 2:38 AMmr. stic
u are thinking the way of jews. the main topic is using the nuke in japan is "just"? -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Thu, April 12, 2007 - 6:59 AM<mr. stic
u are thinking the way of jews.>
Oh, really?
<the main topic is using the nuke in japan is "just"?>
The question was whether or not the nuclear bombings were necessary to win the war. I already gave my answer to that. How about you give an answer?
-
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, June 13, 2007 - 10:12 AM>So, I don't know if they were necessary or not, but whenever I think about the nukes, I feel gross and I hope that we never use them on a populace again. In my opinion, they are much better as a scare tactic than an actual weapon to be detonated.<
I don't see why dying in chemical incendiary fires is worse than dying in a nuclear detonation. Dead is dead, burned is burned.
>Lastly, I don't really think that the US was any morally better than the other sides in the war... the US had concentration camps, so did the UK, not just Germany; even Canada had concentration camps. It's a shameful part of history all around, in my opinion. <
I think you are ignoring the major difference between the Western Allied and the Nazi concentration camps -- namely, the vast majority of those imprisoned in Western Allied camps survived. I also find it more than a little odd that you left the Soviets off that list, since (like the Nazis) they had concentration camps that worked in part as death camps. -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, June 13, 2007 - 1:34 PM<I don't see why dying in chemical incendiary fires is worse than dying in a nuclear detonation. Dead is dead, burned is burned.>
I mostly agree. However the lasting radiation from nukes can be much worse than some chemical attacks. I consider the Depleted Uranium usage nowadays to be just as bad as nuclear detonation because it poisons the land for millions of years. The White Phosphorus used in Fallujah and allegedly in other places in Iraq is also no better. It's a cold, callous way of killing people. Yet it's still "just killing people," and usually I don't see any difference between that and murder, especially with civilians involved. If the US spread more goodwill than there would be less people to fight. -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, June 13, 2007 - 4:26 PM"Depleted uranium" is what's left after you take the U235 out to make "enriched uranium". "Enriched uranium" is certainly very dangerous, "depleted uranium" much less so.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
>>The White Phosphorus used in Fallujah . . .
I saw the pictures of the "white phosphorus victims" from Fallujah. They looked like corpses that had been left in the desert until they were black and horribly shriveled (it doesn't take long). None bore the distinctive marks of white phosphorus.
White phosphorus is a frightening weapon to use against troops in the open: Typically, the "air burst" of a shell scatters burning WP particles over a large area. These cannot be extinguished by water, and tend to burn their way into the skin and flesh of anyone they land on. (I once saw the deep scars of white phosphorus on a very old Japanese gentleman who was only a child when we dropped the stuff on his town in 1945; the psychological scars were apparently as deep as the physical ones.) We're talking about a measle-like scattering of small burns rather than charring a large area of skin.
Used against troops in a built-up area (such as Fallujah) it is not likely to have any such effect, since they can easily take cover and will quickly do so. In this case, the effect lies in the thick cloud of irritating (though non-lethal) smoke and the likelihood of setting flammable structures on fire. This is used more to flush out enemy troops than to cause them direct damage.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus
-
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, June 13, 2007 - 4:57 PMI thought the military had admitted to using white phosphorus in Fallujah and other places in Iraq.
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, June 13, 2007 - 5:00 PMDepleted Uranium is still bad stuff, even if it's not as bad as Enriched Uranium, and as far as I know, there is no widespread cleanup of DU by our military in Iraq. The spent ammo is left sitting around radiating. -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, June 13, 2007 - 5:13 PMSo far as I know, there has been no health study of the long-term effects of exposure to depleted uranium. Studies of uranium miners show an increased incidence of cancer.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
The chief danger is not the radiation from DU weapons and armor which are just sitting around, the main problem would be inhaling the dust from exploding munitions. Of course, the exploding munitions themselves would do much more severe damage than the lingering after-effects of DU.
-
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, June 13, 2007 - 5:52 PMFor once, I agree with Forrest.
I have used bricks of depleted uranium as paperweights at one of my old jobs. It makes decent radiation sheilding as well, and, I personally was less afraid of it than the lead (since the lead was a lot softer and more easily chemically bound with things which could make me sick).
The DU hysteria is just one of those dumb left wing things, like being afraid of power lines and cell phone radiation.
-Lupo
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Thu, June 21, 2007 - 7:59 PM -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Fri, June 22, 2007 - 12:06 PMYeah, that PROOVES that the laws of chemistry and physics are false; some newspaper in Seattle said otherwise!
Idiot.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Fri, June 22, 2007 - 4:17 PMWhy would I even try to prove that chemistry and physics are bunk? That was not my point, nor my intention, nor did the article I linked to try to assert that. All I'm saying is that you two are most likely wrong in your assertion that DU isn't a big deal. Many, many Iraqi scientists and others around the world disagree with the US military on DU. They say it's bad stuff, unlike the US who is most likely trying to cover their ass. If they were honest about how bad it is, they would lose one of their favorite new toys. -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Fri, June 22, 2007 - 4:56 PM"Many, many Iraqi scientists and others around the world disagree with the US military on DU."
Many many Iraqi scientists and others around the world think jews drink palestinian baby blood. That doesn't mean this is true.
DU is about as harmful as lead. No serious scientist says otherwise. If you believe anything else, you're a fucking moron with a political axe to grind. The military actually is inadvertantly using a harmful chemical in and outside of combat zones, but because you're a moron, you've never heard of it (nor am I going to tell you about it). You're obsessed with imaginary bugaboos which denote 'evil radiation,' even though you're too stupid to realize what the 'depleted' word stands for. DU, moron, is used because it is NOT radioactive; it's used because it's dense. Sort of like the matter between your ears. Now, as I said, there are harmful chemicals being used by the military. It's common knowledge. We even know about its ill effects on americans. Yet, bubble headed wretches like yourself never talk about it. Why is that? Because people like you don't care about the truth; you only care about dramatic moral posturing. And it's a lot easier to posture with a word like "uranium" than a word which you can't fit on a bumper sticker.
-Lupo
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Fri, June 22, 2007 - 4:21 PMhistory-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/photos/f14a82ec-2c5b-42fd-8beb-718caa1fa110
Lupo, you must be correct that this isn't from DU. It's from Uncle Fucking, right? All these recent extremely deformed babies in Iraq are due to inbreeding.
DU is great stuff! -
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Fri, June 22, 2007 - 4:59 PM"Lupo, you must be correct that this isn't from DU. It's from Uncle Fucking, right?"
You actually think a picture of a dead baby is a scientific argument, don't you, moron?
-Lupo, who wishes being that dumb were painful
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, June 13, 2007 - 6:24 PMThanks for the clear explanation of White Phosphorus. I really didn't know what the stuff was (other than my exciting experiences in High School Chemistry in which I remember some such metal burning white hot under the hood!!!!).
-
-
-
-
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 3:58 PMDifferent cases, different answers:
I don't know of any historian who defends the bombing of Dresden. It was condemned by Churchill himself not long after the fact:
www.philosophyblog.com.au/useri...34.jpg
Hiroshima: I don't think there is any doubt that it shortened the war. There has been a great deal of debate as to how much it shortened the war, whether the Japanese would have surrendered anyway, and to what degree it was done to intimidate the Soviet Union. There is no definite answer to these questions.
Looking closely at the details of the actual surrender: Rebellious Japanese soldiers occupying the imperial palace, these being frustrated by a blackout due to a timely American air raid, the surrender statement being smuggled out in a laundry basket . . . the phrase "by the skin of our teeth" comes to mind . . .
Asking how the war would have ended without Hiroshima is like asking how would have started without Pearl Harbor . . . would the United States have gone to war anyway? We'll never know . . .
-
Re: DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI
Thu, April 12, 2007 - 4:13 AMWell as I recall, one of the main reasons for nuking Japan was to end the war as quickly as possible. Estimates suggested that if Japan was anything like Iwo Jima, the USA would lose 1 MILLION men, and the Japanes might have to be exterminated as a nation. The nukes gave the Japanese a