David Miscavige versus Adolf Hitler

pollywannacracker

Patron Meritorious
Irving needs to tell this to my Grandmother who survived the Holocaust but lost the majority of her family...and see what kind of response he gets.

She's a bonofide eye-witness to the atrocities that Hitler directed.

Is DM worse than Hitler? Couldn't say given that there are too many variables that when changed, could allow DM to behave in a similar manner to Hitler.
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
Great pictures Roland. But, where is Blondie?

TP

Please fill me in on how a Punk Band that originated at CBGB's in the late 70s, most of whom's lyrics are about the mundane things that are wrong with the world--but yet there is hope; is associated with the misguided off-the-rails disaster that was the Third Reich?

There are no doubt many parallels between AH and DM: Shooting the messenger being one of the many.

From what little digging I have done, it would seem (and shoot me down in flames if you disagree) that Hitler himself was not made entirely aware of the level of the holocaust. It "appears" that the exterminations began because there were simply too many "jews" to shelter. The first poisonings were Carbon Monoxide, and the well-oiled destruction machine of Auschwitz came later--and contrary to those who perpetuate the myths that that gas was distributed via the showerheads: it was hydrogen cyanide capsules dropped through the roof vent-windows.

Later, as the "showers" and the furnaces could not keep up with the sheer numbers coming in, work-groups (RPF?) were detailed to dig huge mass graves. These groups were then herded into those graves and mown down with machine guns.

Whilst Hitler remains responsible for all actions taken under his regime, it is my gingerly tendered opinion that he has some excuse of "ignorance", a claim to which DM has absolutely no right.

Writing up this little response which was initially just meant to be a humorous one-liner, I have become more depressed than usual, and feel the urge to warn all you people out there that the "Third Reich" and "DMology" are only models for what it is intended to come.

Those who can, need to shine all their white light into the most hidden recesses of government, bureaucracy, commerce and other mechanisms that are being used to replace religious control of the populace.

At the current G20 summit, there are PAID protestors demanding a one-world currency! Nice in theory--Rockenfelder in practice.

Globalism: a bunch of rich busy-bodies who seek to ensure that the rest of us get an equal share of poverty.

Edit: I've just done the search to discover that "Blondi/Blonda" was a dog. I read the report of what was supposedly done with the remains, and it is my (this time) FIRM opinion that ashes, grindings and other remains should have been fed into a High Temperature Incinerator (as is used for contaminated medical waste) so that there was no physical trace left anywhere on the planet.
 
Last edited:

Cherished

Silver Meritorious Patron
TAJ, thank you for your sane post.

Other than that comment, I'm going to just provide some quotations from, and a link to, the judgment in the defamation case brought by David Irving against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/David_Irving_v._Penguin_Books_and_Deborah_Lipstadt

If nothing else, I suggest interested parties read His Honour's conclusions: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/David...ed_and_misrepresented_the_historical_evidence

the Defendants have selected nineteen instances where they contend that Irving has in one way or another distorted the evidence. Having considered the arguments, which I have summarised at some length, I have come to the conclusion that the criticisms advanced by the Defendants are almost invariably well-founded. For whatever reason (and I shall consider later the question of Irving’s motivation), I am satisfied that in most of the instances cited by the Defendants Irving has significantly misrepresented what the evidence, objectively examined, reveals.

13.10 Whilst it is by no means a conclusive consideration, it is right that I should bear in mind that the criticisms which the Defendants make of Irving’s historiography are supported by the evidence of historians of the greatest distinction.
The shooting of the Jews in Riga (paragraphs 5.111-122)

13.24 An objective historian is obliged to be even-handed in his approach to historical evidence: he cannot pick and choose without adequate reason. I consider that there is justification for the Defendants’ complaint that Irving was not even-handed in his treatment in Hitler’s War of the account given by General Bruns of the shooting of thousands of Jews in Riga. Irving appears readily to accept that part of Bruns’s account which refers to Altemeyer bringing him an order which prohibited mass shootings from taking place in the future. On the other hand Irving takes no account of the fact that, according to Bruns, it was only shootings “on that scale” which were not to take place in future. (A total of 5,000 Jews were shot in Riga on 30 November 1941). Nor does Irving mention that the order apparently stated that the shootings were to be carried out “more discreetly”. In other words the shooting was to continue.
The scale and systematic nature of the shooting of Jews by the Einsatzgruppen (paragraphs 6.10-59 above)

13.56 I can deal quite briefly with the extensive evidence relied on by the parties in relation to this topic. The reason I can take that course is that Irving, as the case progressed, appeared to accept much of what Longerich and Browning said in their reports and in their oral evidence. In particular Irving agreed that the evidence, principally in the form of reports by the Einsatzgruppen, appears to establish that between 500,000 and 1,500,000 people (including a large proportion of Jews) were shot by those groups and by the auxiliary Wehrmacht units seconded to assist them. My understanding is that the Defendants suggest that the true figure was higher than this. But I do not see that, in the context of this case, any useful purpose would be served by my attempting to assess whether the evidence supports a higher figure.

13.57 Irving further accepted that the evidence indicates that the programme of shooting Jews in the East was systematic, in the sense that it originated in Berlin and was organised and co-ordinated from there. Furthermore Irving conceded that the evidence bears out the contention of the Defendants that Hitler sanctioned the killings. Irving testified that, if he had given audiences the impression by what he said in Australia in 1986 that the killings on the Eastern front had taken place without the knowledge and approval of Hitler and his cronies, he had been wrong to do so. His evidence was that “certainly Hitler sanctioned the killing of the Jews on the Eastern front”...

13.58 It inexorably follows that Irving was misrepresenting the historical evidence when he told audiences in Australia, Canada and the US (as he accepted he did) that the shooting of Jews in the East was arbitrary, unauthorised and undertaken by individual groups or commanders.

13.68 When the trial started, it appeared from Irving’s written statement of case that he was adhering to the position often adopted in his speeches about Auschwitz, namely that no gas chambers were commissioned or operated at the camp and that in consequence no Jew lost his or her life in gas chambers there.

13.69 As I have already observed in paragraph 7.11 above, in the course of the trial Irving modified his position: he accepted that there was at least one gas chamber (or “cellar”) at Auschwitz, albeit used solely or mainly for the fumigation of clothing. He also accepted that gassing of Jews had taken place at the camp “on some scale”. He did not indicate on what scale. Irving firmly denied the claim advanced by van Pelt that 500,000 Jews were killed in morgue 1 of crematorium 2. The case for the Defendants on the other hand was, as I have said, that almost one million Jews were put to death in the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

13.71 I have to confess that, in common I suspect with most other people, I had supposed that the evidence of mass extermination of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compelling. I have, however, set aside this preconception when assessing the evidence adduced by the parties in these proceedings.

13.91 Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail the effect of the convergent evidence relied on by the Defendants, it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.

It seems to me that the Defendants are justified in their contention that Irving’s readiness to resile from positions he had adopted in what he has written and said about important aspects of the Holocaust demonstrates his willingness to make assertions about the Nazi era which, as he must appreciate, are irreconcilable with the available evidence. I also consider that there is force in the Defendants’ contention that Irving’s retraction of some of his concessions, made when he was confronted with the evidence relied on by the Defendants, manifests a determination to adhere to his preferred version of history, even if the evidence does not support it.

Finding as to Irving’s motivation

13.163 Having reviewed what appear to me to be the relevant considerations, I return to the issue which I defined in paragraph 13.138 above. I find myself unable to accept Irving’s contention that his falsification of the historical record is the product of innocent error or misinterpretation or incompetence on his part. When account is taken of all the considerations set out in paragraphs 13.140 to 13.161 above, it appears to me that the correct and inevitable inference must be that for the most part the falsification of the historical record was deliberate and that Irving was motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Very good points!

Thanks for this thoughtful post.

The mistake with downplaying the Holocaust or avoid discussion about it is that it whitewashes the stark truth; that it was not an aberation by a few madmen. It was a coordinated effort by an educated and cultured population.

Yes, this is an excellent point. A population which was a leader in science rocketry and aviation and which had produced many of the world's great medical and scientific breakthroughs plus many of the worlds greatest musicians and philosophers bought into the ravings of a madman and made a coordinated effort to dominate the world.

If the Nazi were simply madmen then the events of the war and attrocities would have no more significance than an earthquake. but the historical lesson is that intelligent, cultured men can lead an educated nation to unravel civilization itself.

Very well stated point!

That is the lesson we all had a taste of with our involvement in Scientology. We were good people and we were led to contribute to a bad thing.

Interesting point of view.

I think that is why these kind of discussions keep poping up on this board.

The Anabaptist Jacques

The essence of your post seems to be that good people, can be induced into contributing to an organization that ends up doing evil. Scientology set out initially to develop a science of the mind to help people and Germany was motivated because they felt they had received an unfair settlement in World War I. Both movements were led by charismatic leaders who were good public speakers, in Hitler's case a superlative public speaker. Both movements were skilled in using public relations and putting a good face on what they were doing. Both movements stated within their basic books, policies which, when applied forcefully, could lead to severe violations of human rights. Once organizations such as these build a following and evil things start occuring, it is extremely difficult to derail them from pursuing their goals and it is hard to see the truth of their evil because of their clever propoganda and indoctrination techniques.
Lkwdblds
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Thanks for this thoughtful post.

Personally, I think there is something sinister about this being a taboo subject. There is overwhelming evidence that it happened, that's for sure.

But in my opinion making it illegal to advocate otherwise is a dangerous thing to do. For one, it stops historical investigation. Secondly, it lets emotions be the guide. This is a bad combination.

The exposition I would like to see is how much widespread involvement there was in the effort. This gets little atention, although there were a few books published back in the 1990s about it. If I remember correctly, only one of the books was quality work although the others were best sellers.

As far as other countries atrocities, as bad as they were, they were done as matter of expediency, not ideology. The trouble with the Nazis is that it was ideological and racial. Stalin, on the other hand, was an equal opportunity murderer.

The difference between Hitler and Stalin is that Stalin killed to get and hold on to power, while Hitlersought power so he could kill. also, Stalin knew when to stop, whereas Hitler couldn't restrain himself.

What makes the U.S atrocities so bad is the hypocricy. Our ideology was to protect the individual. The only reason the American people got into World War II is becasue we were attacked. We would have let the world burn if we could have.

The mistake with downplaying the Holocaust or avoid discussion about it is that it whitewashes the stark truth; that it was not an aberation by a few madmen. It was a coordinated effort by an educated and cultured population.

If the Nazi were simply madmen then the events of the war and attrocities would have no more significance than an earthquake. but the historical lesson is that intelligent, cultured men can lead an educated nation to unravel civilization itself.

That is the lesson we all had a taste of with our involvement in Scientology. We were good people and we were led to contribute to a bad thing.

I think that is why these kind of discussions keep poping up on this board.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I would agree with your conclusion with one difference:

We got out of Scientology and are now on a public message board devoted to exposing it.

No one here is still lining them up and shooting them down. Few here ever did.

Those who did and are here, stopped once they saw what they were doing, and what something like Scientology can lead to.
 

Telepathetic

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks for this thoughtful post.

Personally, I think there is something sinister about this being a taboo subject. There is overwhelming evidence that it happened, that's for sure.

But in my opinion making it illegal to advocate otherwise is a dangerous thing to do. For one, it stops historical investigation. Secondly, it lets emotions be the guide. This is a bad combination.

The exposition I would like to see is how much widespread involvement there was in the effort. This gets little atention, although there were a few books published back in the 1990s about it. If I remember correctly, only one of the books was quality work although the others were best sellers.

As far as other countries atrocities, as bad as they were, they were done as matter of expediency, not ideology. The trouble with the Nazis is that it was ideological and racial. Stalin, on the other hand, was an equal opportunity murderer.

The difference between Hitler and Stalin is that Stalin killed to get and hold on to power, while Hitlersought power so he could kill. also, Stalin knew when to stop, whereas Hitler couldn't restrain himself.

What makes the U.S atrocities so bad is the hypocricy. Our ideology was to protect the individual. The only reason the American people got into World War II is becasue we were attacked. We would have let the world burn if we could have.

The mistake with downplaying the Holocaust or avoid discussion about it is that it whitewashes the stark truth; that it was not an aberation by a few madmen. It was a coordinated effort by an educated and cultured population.

If the Nazi were simply madmen then the events of the war and attrocities would have no more significance than an earthquake. but the historical lesson is that intelligent, cultured men can lead an educated nation to unravel civilization itself.

That is the lesson we all had a taste of with our involvement in Scientology. We were good people and we were led to contribute to a bad thing.

I think that is why these kind of discussions keep poping up on this board.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Thanks AJ,

I always enjoy and learn much from your posts. I don't always agree and seldom have the ammunition to defend my position...but I'll keep trying:D

So we can agree that someone honestly looking into this subject-- without of course having an agenda of his own but simply seeking answers-- should not be classified as a racists or a Nazi or jailed or fined, as was the case with Irving and the other two researchers(forgot their names) who dared to swim against the tide. I know you didn't say that exactly but you *are* a champion of free speech.

As far as the reasons, you give ,for the mass murder committed by these two animals...it is still murder. Hitler couldn't stop himself but Stalin did? I don't think I would have enjoyed living in the post WWII Soviet Union.As far as I know the gulags remained and the extermination of those ideologically opposed to the State continued. Also, many of the people from those countries which subsequently fell behind the Iron Curtain suffered greatly. Many were jailed or killed for their dissenting views.

What about the ideological mass murder of the Chinese people,those who were not communist and were land owners, how many of these died? The Tibetans?

The atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were OK. No need to remember these guys...what the hell, they were Japs, gooks!

In Spain's civil war, both sides the Republicans and Loyalist committed great atrocities but, as far as what I've witness,history and Hollywood only shows the brave men who battled the fascist, the Lincoln Brigade and such groups.

I have family members,including my grandfather, father and uncle, who fought, suffered greatly and were imprisoned by the communist. Perhaps I may have too much of an emotional connection to this subject then. I don't think I do anymore though and likewise I do not think that their experience and by extension my own is clouding my views or luring me into the opposite camp.

My point is that we have a double standard as to "whose deaths" and " whose sufferings" count the most and should not be forgotten. I say, again, give everyone equal time in the pages of history.

Fuck war and all who start it.

TP
 
Thanks AJ,

I always enjoy and learn much from your posts. I don't always agree and seldom have the ammunition to defend my position...but I'll keep trying:D

So we can agree that someone honestly looking into this subject-- without of course having an agenda of his own but simply seeking answers-- should not be classified as a racists or a Nazi or jailed or fined, as was the case with Irving and the other two researchers(forgot their names) who dared to swim against the tide. I know you didn't say that exactly but you *are* a champion of free speech.

As far as the reasons, you give ,for the mass murder committed by these two animals...it is still murder. Hitler couldn't stop himself but Stalin did? I don't think I would have enjoyed living in the post WWII Soviet Union.As far as I know the gulags remained and the extermination of those ideologically opposed to the State continued. Also, many of the people from those countries which subsequently fell behind the Iron Curtain suffered greatly. Many were jailed or killed for their dissenting views.

What about the ideological mass murder of the Chinese people,those who were not communist and were land owners, how many of these died? The Tibetans?

The atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were OK. No need to remember these guys...what the hell, they were Japs, gooks!

In Spain's civil war, both sides the Republicans and Loyalist committed great atrocities but, as far as what I've witness,history and Hollywood only shows the brave men who battled the fascist, the Lincoln Brigade and such groups.

I have family members,including my grandfather, father and uncle, who fought, suffered greatly and were imprisoned by the communist. Perhaps I may have too much of an emotional connection to this subject then. I don't think I do anymore though and likewise I do not think that their experience and by extension my own is clouding my views or luring me into the opposite camp.

My point is that we have a double standard as to "whose deaths" and " whose sufferings" count the most and should not be forgotten. I say, again, give everyone equal time in the pages of history.

Fuck war and all who start it.

TP

First of all, I agree with you totally on this. But I want to clarify my statement on Hitler and Stalin.

When I said Stalin knew when to stop I meant he wasn't compulsive about war.

He knew when to lift the Berlin blockade,

He knew when his purges were creating a counter-force and abruptly ended them (for example, with the teachers)

He knew when to curtail the purge of the Kulaks, etc.

By this I don't mean he wasn't cruel beyond all imagination. I mean that he kept his mind on his objective and he knew when to cease pressure.

Hitler, on the other hand, could stop his desire for war even when it was to his advantage. He was compulsive about war.

Stalin was compulsive about power, but he knew when his cruelty jeopardized his power and so he could stop.

Also, there is a double standard with atrocities. All I am saying is that everyone doesn't have the same mindset as Hitler or Stalin.

The United States would not have put Japanese-Americans in internment camps if we were not at war with Japan. And those internment camps were much more humane that Hitler's or Stalin's camps.

And Hitler and Stalin camps existed before they even went to war.

None of it is good, all of it is horible and a disgrace, but it is not all the same thing.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
The point is that, while there are numerous parallels between Naziism and Scientology it's seldom a good *tactical* choice to harp on them. Not because the parallels aren't striking but because they will be seen as hyperbolic and will inevitably be distracting. (like here)

As to similarities between David Miscavige and Hitler, well, if Goebbels or Himmler had taken over after Hitler's demise, they would have been more Miscavigesque.

Zinj
 
The essence of your post seems to be that good people, can be induced into contributing to an organization that ends up doing evil. Scientology set out initially to develop a science of the mind to help people and Germany was motivated because they felt they had received an unfair settlement in World War I. Both movements were led by charismatic leaders who were good public speakers, in Hitler's case a superlative public speaker. Both movements were skilled in using public relations and putting a good face on what they were doing. Both movements stated within their basic books, policies which, when applied forcefully, could lead to severe violations of human rights. Once organizations such as these build a following and evil things start occuring, it is extremely difficult to derail them from pursuing their goals and it is hard to see the truth of their evil because of their clever propoganda and indoctrination techniques.
Lkwdblds

Except that the Nazi propaganda techniques were far superior to Scientology's.

Scientology's PR only works on Scientologists. Nazi propaganda worked on a whole nation.

Nobody on this board believes Scientolgy's PR, but I've noticed there are more than a few on this board who still accept some parts of the Nazi's PR.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

supafreak

Patron Meritorious
I'd like to see the original of this vid to see what Hitler is really saying. Does anyone know the name of the film?

Have just found it. "Hitlers downfall".

It's actually just called Downfall. Not an easy movie to watch, because the actor playing Hitler does such a convincing job. It is a really good movie, though.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
More good points

Except that the Nazi propaganda techniques were far superior to Scientology's.

They had the evil Joeseph Goebbles as their propaganda chief. As evil as he was, he was probably one of the best PR men who ever lived.

Scientology's PR only works on Scientologists. Nazi propaganda worked on a whole nation.

What you say is true but you could also say that Nazi propaganda did not work much on a world-wide basis. Outside of Japan, Italy and parts of the Arab world, their doctrine of racial superiority and the myth of the Aryan "superman" fell on deaf ears. The people of most countries throughout the world despised the Nazis while Scientology's propaganda seems to draw converts from all parts of the globe except in Islamic countries of course.

Nobody on this board believes Scientolgy's PR, but I've noticed there are more than a few on this board who still accept some parts of the Nazi's PR.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Isn't it incredible that some parts of the Nazi's PR is still accepted? I can see skin heads and Ku Klux Klan members accepting Nazi propaganda but why would anyone one else still support such and offbeat and descredited practice as Nazism?
Lkwdblds
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Its a recent make of an old movie from the 1950's

I'd like to see the original of this vid to see what Hitler is really saying. Does anyone know the name of the film?

Have just found it. "Hitlers downfall".

There was a movie made in 1956 called, "The last 10 days". It had to do with the last 10 days of Hitler's life in the bunker in Berlin. I saw it at the time as a teen ager. This clip is from a remake of the that movie. It seems to me that it was a made for TV movie and was on around 2006 or 2007. Maybe instead of being called "The last 10 days". the title was changed to "Hitler's downfall" for the TV version.

In essence, what is going on is a military briefing with Hitler and his top generals in the bunker just a short time before WWII is ending. Berlin is under seige from the Soviet army and everyone but Hitler knows Germany is defeated and the war will be over very shortly. Hitler remains defiant and still believes in victory. A couple of days earlier at a similar meeting, Hitler had a bright idea and noticed on the big map they were all looking at that there was an "Army Group Steiner" which was supposed to be forming and when fully armed and at full strength, Steiner was in a perfect position to launch a surprise attack on the Soviet position from the flank which Hitler believed would destroy the Soviets and cause them to abandom the attack on Berlin. Hitler gave the order that everything they had should be poured into supporting Steiner and Steiner should be oredered to attack in about 2 days. In this clip, Hitler checks up with eager and hopeful anticipation as to how Steiner's attack is going. His general's tell him that Stiener's army doesn't really exist anymore, it is fragmented and breaking up and is no longer a coordinated unit capable of attacking anything.

Hitler takes in this news and then blurts out that he has been betrayed and his orders are never followed and that he is surrounded by traitors and finally, for the first time. he loses his nerve and admits that the war is lost. That is pretty much the gist of what is being said.
Lkwdblds
 
Isn't it incredible that some parts of the Nazi's PR is still accepted? I can see skin heads and Ku Klux Klan members accepting Nazi propaganda but why would anyone one else still support such and offbeat and descredited practice as Nazism?
Lkwdblds

They don't know its Nazism.

Writers like Eustace Mullins and and the John Birch Society put an American twist to the same ideas and ideals.

Fascism spread all over the wrold in the 1930s, including the United States. It caught on in South America and was popular in the U.S. too.

The most popular radio commentator of the 1930s was Father Coughlin and he was very pro-Hitler, even commenting regularly that Hitler should invade England to save the British and America from the Jews.

Look on Youtube for details about the German-American Bund.

Fascism plays right into Americans' anti-immigrant attitudes.

Goebbels was the master of creating conspiracies. Before the Nazis took power they accused the German government of being behind many bad developments. This is the same mentality you see with the 9/11 conspriracy people.

Also, the origins of all this New World Order bullshit started with Nazi propaganda.

Americans are ripe for this mentality. You can see there are some on this board who eat it up.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Is pro-borders anti-immigrant? Even if you have a million *legal* immigrants a year?

Zinj

No, that's not what I mean and I think you know that. I am talking about the attitude toward foreigners, especially Latinos. I don't hear people complaining about the Irish who have many undocumented workers here. I've never heard one peep.
I am talking about the attitude, not the government policies which most people object to anyway.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Thanks AJ,


The atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were OK. No need to remember these guys...what the hell, they were Japs, gooks!

My point is that we have a double standard as to "whose deaths" and " whose sufferings" count the most and should not be forgotten. I say, again, give everyone equal time in the pages of history.

Fuck war and all who start it.

I agree but once someone starts it, someone has to finish it and hopefully finish it causing the minimum of death and destruction and doing so can be worthwhile and noble task. Those who defeated Hitler after he started his war were heroes as far as I am concerned.

TP

On the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I do not believe anyone thinks this was OK. The people who died there deserve to be remembered and are remembered by some. The dropping of the bomb is not just a black and white case of good versus evil. A valid case can be made for dropping the bomb and can also be made for not dropping it.

The thing which President Truman and the U.S. government had to deal with was how to bring the war to a rapid close with the minimum loss of lives. Of course, in war, Truman was primarily concerned with American lives and only secondarily concerned with Japanese lives but I am sure he wanted to minimize Japanese deaths as well.

Germany and Italy had been defeated and Japan stood alone against the might of the U.S.A. and England and their allies and the Soviet Union, who had been neutral as regards Japan was now about to enter the war against Japan. Just imagine, a war weary and drained Japanese nation fighting the USA, USSR and England all combined. The Japanese doctrine of Bushido, I believe it is called, forbid surrender. I don't know about you, but I would not want to see the whole Japanese nation and culture totally wiped off the map. They are a great people and quite spiritual and have contributed very heavily to Earth's culture and heritage.

An invasion of the the Japanese homeland by US Forces would have been a total bloodbath for both sides and the Japanese would not have surrendered. Estimates were that the US Troops would suffer 500,000 dead in the invasion and the Japanese would have suffered 1,500,000 deaths, most of whom would have been civilians. After our troops had permanently landed, more deaths would have occurred in a bloodbath of gorilla fighting which may have lasted for years.

The dropping of the bombs killed about 85,000 each plus more radiation related deaths and ilnesses. This is a horrible event on planet Earth, something to really be passionately sorry about. Yet, it is not pure evil and hypocrisy as some think. Millions of Japanese lives plus a half million American lives were saved and perhaps the entire Japanese culture and nation was saved by these bombings.

One thing I think Truman could have and should have done is to notify the Japanese government of the new A bomb weapon which we had and to arrange a demonstration bombing on an uninhabited island where Japanese leaders could see the massive destructive power of the A bomb. If they still refused to surrender, then Truman had done all he could to alert them and he would have been absolved of mass murder but he chose not to do this. Truman was the guy who said, "The buck stops here'" He made his decision and never looked back. It is not so much the actual dropping of the bomb which he must be held to account for but a case can be made for holding him to account for not demonstrating the power of the bomb to the Japanese before using it.
Lkwdblds
 
Top