excelsiorlef
Member
I really don't blame them.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Up: 94 year old former SS-Guard convicted for Auschwitz
- Thread starter Chariot
- Start date
- Status
I really don't blame them.
Pretty sure the first excuse is completely false.
Dixon's Jet
Banned
The USAAF was already trying to end the war by bombing Japan with conventional explosives. The notion of using a more powerful bomb to further weaken the Japanese will to fight seems to make sense in the context of the war.
Not really. Japan had no willingness to surrender prior to the dropping because they were fighting for a loss in which they could still keep many of their overseas colonies, such as Korea or Borneo. Innumerable Allied soldiers would have been killed in the event of a land invasion, and the war would have lasted much longer. There's really no way to deny this.
The bigger question, which you might be thinking of, is whether or not the decision to bomb Japan saved Japanese lives. I doubt it did, but I also doubt that a land invasion would be any less harmful to the Japanese people.
Frankfurter
Member
You should blame the lawyers, though. He didn't murder anyone (as wrong as that may sound), therefore he won't be charged with murder.
Edit: This will also delay the point when he has to go to prison.
TheRedSnifit
Member
excelsiorlef
Member
Absolutely not what he was saying.
Theonik
Member
Hey, if the Nazis had won the war we'd he arguing about how the Holocaust was necessary right now. History getting written by the victors and all that.
Agent Gibbs
Member
Oh man now they want to try a man with murder just for being present in the camp? well by that logic anyone who lived in 100 mile radius must have been an accessory lets start rounding them up!
As for Kirch's post, he was not saying that at all, he was making the point about the nukes in comparison - during the war the Germans who believed the propaganda believed that removing jews (covering those who knew of the deaths and those who thought it was deportation) would benefit German lives - It seems from the side discussion of Hiroshima/Nagasaki that its believed mercilessly wiping out hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians and laying waste to generations to come saved American lives enough to make that worth it - its a fair comparison, the national media/propaganda of acountry tells the people what to think and they lap it up rightly or wrongly
As for Kirch's post, he was not saying that at all, he was making the point about the nukes in comparison - during the war the Germans who believed the propaganda believed that removing jews (covering those who knew of the deaths and those who thought it was deportation) would benefit German lives - It seems from the side discussion of Hiroshima/Nagasaki that its believed mercilessly wiping out hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians and laying waste to generations to come saved American lives enough to make that worth it - its a fair comparison, the national media/propaganda of acountry tells the people what to think and they lap it up rightly or wrongly
TheRedSnifit
Member
There is no valid point he was making. All evidence before dropping the bomb pointed to the other options being an incredibly bloody mainland invasion that would kill more people on both sides than the nukes, and hilariously unacceptable surrender terms that would likely cause another war within a decade. The Holocaust was born out of the belief that there was one true master race, and that all other races were good for nothing but slave labor and extermination. They aren't comparable in the least, and to pretend they are is intellectually dishonest at best.
All his posts in this thread have been nothing more than attempting to play down the Holocaust. Why you would want to argue for such a thing is beyond me, but whatever.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked