David Miscavige versus Adolf Hitler

On the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I do not believe anyone thins 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 than 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. That 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 the the US Troops would suffer 500,000 dead in the invasion and the Japanese would have suffered 1,500,000 deaths, must 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

I actually have to respectfully disagree with you. The idea of the casualties is not what was discussed at the highest levels. That was the PR after the fact.

If we thought the Japanese would never surrender, then why did we claim that the Japanese would surrender as a result of the bomb? Keep in mind that the Japanese had offered to surrender before the battle of Okinawa but Truman refused.

Truman knew that the Soviets agreed at Yalta to enter the war on August
9th (three months to the day after the surrender of Germany).

The American military assessment was that when the Soviets entered the war Japan would surrender.

Truman wanted an unconditional surrender before the Soviets entered the war. He rushed the bomb tests. The Soviet role in the defeat of Germany was already being downplayed by the Truman Administration. To attribute the surrender of Japan to the Soviets declaration of war was unthinkable.

Some military and the Navy leaders said the bomb was unnecessary. But Truman, listenening to the advice of James Byrne, wanted to drop the bomb in order to intimdate Stalin.

When Stalin's people warned him about the bomb, he replied, "Atomic bombs are meant to frighten people. We are not frightened."

Japan had offered to surrender long before the bombs were ready (and they didn't know about the bombs). Truman refused to accept the surrender.

This was before Okinawa, and one can argue that the Kamikazees came into existence after the U.S. refused to accept the Japanese surrender. I don't know what is in the Japanese archives about this, but I would like to know.

The later claim about the casualties being the reason for the bomb was justified by the high number of U.S. casualties by Kamikazees at Okinawa.

It could have all been avoided if Truman had accepted the surrender. Okinawa was the battle in World War II with the highest number of American casualties.

It could have been avoided. But Truman said he wanted an unconditional surrender. The Japanese only wanted one condition--to keep their emperor. Truman said no.

He later said, after dropping two atomic bombs, that the Japanese could keep their Emperor.

One still can argue that Truman had to make a tough decision, and can argue the extenuating circumstances. But that is for the first bomb.

There is absolutely no excuse for the second bomb. No justification whatsoever. In fact, the second bomb killed more American soldiers than Japanese soldiers. (There was an American POW camp near Nagasaki as I understand it.)

What scares me about Truman is he later said that once he decided to drop the bombs he never again given it a second thought. All those people he killed and he never gave it a second thought. He was a bad man.

I have talked to Russians who with the same view of their country defend Stalin's attrocities.

In my opinion Truman was wrong and as cold blooded a killer as Stalin. Truman was simply more efficent at killing than Stalin.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Markus

Silver Meritorious Patron
David versus Adolf?

I'm quite sure they have similar personalities. Hitler killed far more people but I think David and his cult are better in the brainwashing of people.

Here is a similar thread in which we discuss if Scientology and Nazi Germany can be compared.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=12284

I thought some of you might be interested in it.

Best wishes

Markus
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
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

Well, sure, but how many times have I heard Latinos bitch and whine about white people -often on national television? I've actually been told by people that it's not racism if whites are on the receiving end. That's totally good to know!

And, you know what, re the Irish, when they first got to the US there were signs in commercial establishment windows "No Irish Need apply". They had their baptism of fire, believe me.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
A couple of comments

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

Fascism did spring up all around the world and there were strong presences in many countries, but other than the Peron regime in Argentina, I do not think that the Nazi like groups had any political power. For example, I do not believe there were any Nazi sympathizers elected to congress in the US. I am familiar with the German-American Bund. Groups like this were localized in large Eastern US cities, they were voiceferous and made a lot of noise but they never developed to the extent that they had any real political power.

As the Nazis began losing the war and their atrocities became better known to the public, the German-American Bund type of people receded into the woodwork. Even in Spain, where Hitler backed Franco against the communists, Franco did not want to openly ally with Hitler and was able to out manuever Hitler and stay out of supporting him in WWII without incuring Hitler's wrath.

I think Father Coughlin was big but I think there were better known radio commentators in the 1930's. Probably Edward R. Murrow was the best known.
Walter Winchell was not just a radio commentator but also did print jounalism and other hats but he was also very big on the radio.

I agree pretty much with your last 3 paragraphs.

The funny thing about the Nazi movement was that most people only jumped on their bandwagon when they were winning, hoping to share in the spoils of victory. Once they encountered set backs, people bailed out in droves. Almost no one but the Germans were willing to fight to the end with the Nazis.

Italy bailed out early, Spain didn't want to commit, Peron of Argentina changed sides when they started losing, Romania and Hungary bailed out on them. People mainly joined either because of hatred of the Jews or to share in the spoils of victory. When it became apparent they were losing, everyone bailed. Even the Germans quickly severed ties with Nazism as soon as the war was over. Not too many people were die hards who backed the Nazis with their dying breaths and most of those who did died in WWII.

The only thing you have said in all your posts that I really don't agree with is your negative take on America's immigration attitudes. I think America has the most welcoming attitude to immigrants of any country which has ever existed on Earth. I live it every day in the Los Angeles area. I live, work and socialize daily with people from every corner of the world. We all are like a big happy family. It is incredibly inclusive. Real bigots are few and far between.
Lkwdblds
 

AnonShaw

Patron with Honors
this_thread_needs.jpg
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
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.

Truman was grossly misled as to how much damage was actually caused by either of these bombs and is on record as saying that had he known the devastation that would have been unleased, he never would have approved their use.

Conversely, it is also noteworthy that the Japanese would not have surrendered if they had known there was no third bomb.
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
Well, sure, but how many times have I heard Latinos bitch and whine about white people -often on national television? I've actually been told by people that it's not racism if whites are on the receiving end. That's totally good to know!

And, you know what, re the Irish, when they first got to the US there were signs in commercial establishment windows "No Irish Need apply". They had their baptism of fire, believe me.

It's not discrimination! It's affirmative action...
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Re: Your comments

Truman was grossly misled as to how much damage was actually caused by either of these bombs and is on record as saying that had he known the devastation that would have been unleased, he never would have approved their use.

I have never remotely heard anything to this effect. Can you direct me and others to a source to back up this claim. The A bomb had been tested and actual bombs were exploded after Truman took power. The power of the bombs was expressed as being equivalent to so many tons of TNT. Its hard to believe the President of all people was not briefed on the power of the bombs!

Conversely, it is also noteworthy that the Japanese would not have surrendered if they had known there was no third bomb.

Yes, I agree with you on this point. From what I know, there were only 2 bombs ready to use in August of 1945 and it would have taken around 6 months to have more bombs ready. I believe that this influenced Truman's decision not to carry out a demonstration for Japanese officials. Truman played his hand like a poker player, acting as if the USA had many bombs available to detonate when they didn't.
 

Telepathetic

Gold Meritorious Patron
I actually have to respectfully disagree with you. The idea of the casualties is not what was discussed at the highest levels. That was the PR after the fact.

If we thought the Japanese would never surrender, then why did we claim that the Japanese would surrender as a result of the bomb? Keep in mind that the Japanese had offered to surrender before the battle of Okinawa but Truman refused.

Truman knew that the Soviets agreed at Yalta to enter the war on August
9th (three months to the day after the surrender of Germany).

The American military assessment was that when the Soviets entered the war Japan would surrender.

Truman wanted an unconditional surrender before the Soviets entered the war. He rushed the bomb tests. The Soviet role in the defeat of Germany was already being downplayed by the Truman Administration. To attribute the surrender of Japan to the Soviets declaration of war was unthinkable.

Some military and the Navy leaders said the bomb was unnecessary. But Truman, listenening to the advice of James Byrne, wanted to drop the bomb in order to intimdate Stalin.

When Stalin's people warned him about the bomb, he replied, "Atomic bombs are meant to frighten people. We are not frightened."

Japan had offered to surrender long before the bombs were ready (and they didn't know about the bombs). Truman refused to accept the surrender.

This was before Okinawa, and one can argue that the Kamikazees came into existence after the U.S. refused to accept the Japanese surrender. I don't know what is in the Japanese archives about this, but I would like to know.

The later claim about the casualties being the reason for the bomb was justified by the high number of U.S. casualties by Kamikazees at Okinawa.

It could have all been avoided if Truman had accepted the surrender. Okinawa was the battle in World War II with the highest number of American casualties.

It could have been avoided. But Truman said he wanted an unconditional surrender. The Japanese only wanted one condition--to keep their emperor. Truman said no.

He later said, after dropping two atomic bombs, that the Japanese could keep their Emperor.

One still can argue that Truman had to make a tough decision, and can argue the extenuating circumstances. But that is for the first bomb.

There is absolutely no excuse for the second bomb. No justification whatsoever. In fact, the second bomb killed more American soldiers than Japanese soldiers. (There was an American POW camp near Nagasaki as I understand it.)

What scares me about Truman is he later said that once he decided to drop the bombs he never again given it a second thought. All those people he killed and he never gave it a second thought. He was a bad man.

I have talked to Russians who with the same view of their country defend Stalin's attrocities.

In my opinion Truman was wrong and as cold blooded a killer as Stalin. Truman was simply more efficent at killing than Stalin.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Thanks you for answering for me. I could have never come with all that data! I agree:thumbsup:

Oh, by the way, I loved the video:lol: :lol: :lol:

TP
 
Truman was grossly misled as to how much damage was actually caused by either of these bombs and is on record as saying that had he known the devastation that would have been unleased, he never would have approved their use.

Conversely, it is also noteworthy that the Japanese would not have surrendered if they had known there was no third bomb.

Who said the Japanese surrendered because of the Atom bombs? This is an unproved assumption.

The Japanese wanted to surrender in July but Truman refused.

Actually, Truman asked Stalin to tell the Japanese he refused. After the bombs were dropped, then he accepted their surrender.

Also, where did Truman say that if he knew the destructive power of the bombs he never would have used them? I think perhaps, you may be confusing this with his statement about their thouights before the first test, "Had we known what the bomb would do we'd never had wanted the Bear in the picture."

Truman had been briefed on the bombs destructive power after the first test.

Stimson read General Groves detailed report to Truman. It took an hour.

When Churchill read the report the next day, he said to Stimson "This atomic bomb is the Second Coming in Wrath."

Truman knew its destuctive capacity before they were dropped.

He repeatedly had said that after he made the decision to drop the bombs he never gave it a second thought.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Anabaptist Jacque - You are certainly entitled to your own opinions on things including President Truman. To me, the main job of the U.S. president is to provide security for the United States of America and its citizens. In the days of World War II, there was nothing like a World Government and a President's main duty was to his country and its citizens. If the president was of good moral character, he woule try and minimize the death and carnage of enemy combatants as a very secondary priority.

The simplicity of the situation was that estimates of the time predicted over 5 hundred thousand U.S. servicemen would be killed in an attempt to invade Japan and totally defeat it and get rid of its leaders. We "only" lost a little over 400,000 soldiers total in all of WWII. This one last battle would have caused more American deaths than all other battles of the war combined. Truman chose to put saving American lives as his number 1 priority and ignored all the other arguments. By dropping the bombs, not one American live was lost and if further bombs had to be dropped until Japan surrendered, it there would still be zero American lives lost. That was the path he choose and he save hundreds of thousands of American lives. Thats the essence of Truman's decision and all the other arguing about this and that is very interesting to speculate about but does not directly face the issue we are discussing.

A side effect of the Japanese surrendering after just two bombs was that over a million Japanese lives were also saved. How much Truman cared about that I do not know but it enables people to believe that the bombing was not as bad as it looks because lives were saved on both sides. I think feeling that Truman was a bad man for dropping the bombs and not showing much outward concern about it afterwards is a valid viewpoint for one to take and believing Truman's actions were wise because the war was brought to a quick end and in the overall balance, lives were saved. Both sides have legitimate points which make sense.

That the bombings brought a quick end to the war at the cost of not even one American life and also saved over one million Japanese lives is a FACT. That is the way things happened. It doesn't make Truman a kind man but it is a FACT and it seems to me that you are trying to pretend that this fact is not a fact and has no place in the overall debate
Lkwdblds
 
Anabaptist Jacque - You are certainly entitled to your own opinions on things including President Truman. To me, the main job of the U.S. president is to provide security for the United States of America and its citizens. In the days of World War II, there was nothing like a World Government and a President's main duty was to his country and its citizens. If the president was of good moral character, he woule try and minimize the death and carnage of enemy combatants as a very secondary priority.

The simplicity of the situation was that estimates of the time predicted over 5 hundred thousand U.S. servicemen would be killed in an attempt to invade Japan and totally defeat it and get rid of its leaders. We "only" lost a little over 400,000 soldiers total in all of WWII. This one last battle would have caused more American deaths than all other battles of the war combined. Truman chose to put saving American lives as his number 1 priority and ignored all the other arguments. By dropping the bombs, not one American live was lost and if further bombs had to be dropped until Japan surrendered, it there would still be zero American lives lost. That was the path he choose and he save hundreds of thousands of American lives. Thats the essence of Truman's decision and all the other arguing about this and that is very interesting to speculate about but does not directly face the issue we are discussing.

A side effect of the Japanese surrendering after just two bombs was that over a million Japanese lives were also saved. How much Truman cared about that I do not know but it enables people to believe that the bombing was not as bad as it looks because lives were saved on both sides. I think feeling that Truman was a bad man for dropping the bombs and not showing much outward concern about it afterwards is a valid viewpoint for one to take and believing Truman's actions were wise because the war was brought to a quick end and in the overall balance, lives were saved. Both sides have legitimate points which make sense.

That the bombings brought a quick end to the war at the cost of not even one American life and also saved over one million Japanese lives is a FACT. That is the way things happened. It doesn't make Truman a kind man but it is a FACT and it seems to me that you are trying to pretend that this fact is not a fact and has no place in the overall debate
Lkwdblds

Sorry, but you are wrong. Your bolded statement is an opinion and not a fact. You are giving PR statements as facts and conclusions, when they are just PR statements.

What you are saying is not all there was to it.

The Navy and military leaders, including MacArthur, did not recommend dropping the bomb (MacArthur agreed eventually only if it was not used on civilians) and the Navy did not even recommend invading the island.

The U.S. military were fairly certain that the Japanese would surrender when the Soviets declared war, which they did do. Because of this they did not feel it was necessary to invade the island, just blockade it until the Soviets declared war.

The Japanese wanted to surrender. There was no need to invade the Japanese islands and no need to drop the bombs. Truman could have simply accepted the surrender. Why didn't he accept their surrender? That is the important historical question.

And you are still assuming, which is an opinion also, that the Japanese surrendered because of the bombs even though the U.S. military were fairly certain that the Japanese would surrender when the Soviets declared war, which is what occured.

The decision to drop the bombs was a political decision and the casualty estimates were the political cover for the decision. That is my opinion.

That the Japanese wanted to surrender before the bombs were drop is a fact, and that Truman did not accept their surrender is also a fact.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Last edited:

Blue Spirit

Silver Meritorious Patron
A Conceptual Irony

Would it not be an interesting Irony to see TC wake up to DM's SP condition

and then carry out his last movie for real ?
 

Telepathetic

Gold Meritorious Patron
Would it not be an interesting Irony to see TC wake up to DM's SP condition

and then carry out his last movie for real ?

Maybe not exactly as it occurred in the movie or as in the real historical event...what I mean is...he did, after all, fail to carry out the... you know what.:D :wink2:

TP
 
Top