90 year old Nazi guard to stand trial

Originally posted by FMF
Because the state shouldn't put people to death.

Plus that, he may be one helluva asset to the progressive movement.

Originally posted by sh76

No, because I believe that it was either justified or borderline justified. It was a military mission with a clear military goal: destroy this enemy city to force it to capitulate. The A-Bombs arguably saved half a million lives by rendering an invasion of Japan unnecessary. Some people believe the A-bomb was not justified. Fine. Reasonable people can differ. But, it's not the same as murdering specific innocent individuals in a death camp.

It was a military mission?
Bombing Hiroshima and killing more than 60.000 civilians in one go was a military mission?

Let me rephrase that: Burning 60.000 women and children alive, because YOU think it may save soldier's lifes... is a military mission?

That pretty much stretches the term "military mission" to the max. I can think of many a death that could fall under that term!

Originally posted by shavixmir
It was a military mission?
Bombing Hiroshima and killing more than 60.000 civilians in one go was a military mission?

Let me rephrase that: Burning 60.000 women and children alive, because YOU think it may save soldier's lifes... is a military mission?

That pretty much stretches the term "military mission" to the max. I can think of many a death that could fall under that term!

I'm on your side on this deal. We are expected to believe there was no way to save lives short of blowing the hell out of sillivilians. A demonstration would have been sufficient. Or how about this for an Idea. Give them the demonstration and tell them they won the war and walk the hell away. No lets burn folks and cause genetic mutations in generations to come, that is better.

Originally posted by shavixmir
It was a military mission?
Bombing Hiroshima and killing more than 60.000 civilians in one go was a military mission?

Let me rephrase that: Burning 60.000 women and children alive, because YOU think it may save soldier's lifes... is a military mission?

That pretty much stretches the term "military mission" to the max. I can think of many a death that could fall under that term!

I wonder if that somehow affected the decision to not prosecute the top germ warfare man in Japan in exchange for his research material. Later it was discovered to be junk science. He was a real murderer.

Originally posted by joe beyser
I'm on your side on this deal. We are expected to believe there was no way to save lives short of blowing the hell out of sillivilians. A demonstration would have been sufficient. Or how about this for an Idea. Give them the demonstration and tell them they won the war and walk the hell away. No lets burn folks and cause genetic mutations in generations to come, that is better.

Okay; first, the idea that a demo would have been sufficient is belied by the fact that even Hiroshima alone wasn't sufficient. It took Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the bluff of many more to bring the Empire to its knees. The US had 2 working bombs. If it wastes one of them on a bluff that's not called, it's lost. If the Japanese didn't surrender after Hiroshima, why would it surrender after a demo on some deserted island?

Name me one country who was actively involved in WWII that did NOT target civilians? The British, maybe, who helped burn Hamburg and Dresden to the ground? The Nazis, who burned London with their V-2s for no military purpose whatsoever? Maybe the Russians who raped and pillaged all of eastern Europe and Germany as the West looked on and smiled. The Japanese, whose rape of Nanking would have made Heinrich Himmler blush?

Walk away from the war without finishing it? Great idea. the Japanese would have re-built their army and navy with their respite and continued the war right on.

To borrow again from the great Herman Wouk, when you are in a war, your goal is: "to end it, to win it, and to save lives in the long run."

An invasion of the Japanese islands would have probably cost a million or more lives, between US and Japanese. As Okinawa and Leyte Gulf showed, the Japanese were not interested in surrendering for any reason other than having to. The Japanese were still a dangerous enemy and the war had to be brought to a conclusion.

Originally posted by sh76

Still, he was already put on trial and (eventually) acquitted in Israel. It would bother me a little if he were convicted of those same charges in a different forum. .

An interesting point that draws little attention.
Do you have a link with background to that ??

Originally posted by Scheel
An interesting point that draws little attention.
Do you have a link with background to that ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Demjanjuk#Trial_in_Israel

Originally posted by sh76
Okay; first, the idea that a demo would have been sufficient is belied by the fact that even Hiroshima alone wasn't sufficient. It took Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the bluff of many more to bring the Empire to its knees. The US had 2 working bombs. If it wastes one of them on a bluff that's not called, it's lost. If the Japanese didn't surrender after Hiroshima, . The Japanese were still a dangerous enemy and the war had to be brought to a conclusion.

You are right on the money with what I learned in American History wars class. The guy that got the Japanese into the whole thing was beaten. All the Japs allies were gone. The Japs were in defensive mode. The Japs had a mindset to fight to the last man if necessary to defend their country.

The emperor had a lot on his plate in them days. We didn't give enough time for the first bomb to sink in. Imagine if before the first nuke was detonated that the emperor was given a message from the US, along with another clean set of underwear, that we were finished with the war and as far as we were concerned they win. They would not have even needed a demonstration to have been glad the whole thing was now over. They are intelligent people and knew they were going to lose for sure, now that Germany had lost. Put yourself in their shoes and see how good that looks compaired with loosing. We could have given them a demonstration after things cooled off and they saw us pulling back. If they for some reason got retarded and attacked us again, we could have picked one of the islands they reoccupied and leveled it. The next notice the emperor would have gotten would be the next time it will be Tokyo.

I have seen documentary films of the pres and some Jap military men that make the official story plausible. Who can say what who was told to say and for what reason. I just think the Japanese are way more intelligent than what history is crediting them.

There were far more options than attack the main Island conventionally or with nukes. Could it be that they did not give enough time between nukes to make it look as though 2 were necessary?