70 Years Since Hiroshima
POSTED BY: Magonsdaughter
UPDATED: Saturday, August 8, 2026 10:26
VIEWED: 23968
PAGE 6 of 16
Why would I bother watching any propaganda?
You do it all the time! And THEN you bring it here like a good little droid. And because you AGREE with it you fail to recognize what it is.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_%281945%29
At the Tehran Conference in November 1943, Stalin agreed that the Soviet Union would enter the war against Japan once Nazi Germany was defeated. At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, Stalin agreed to Allied pleas to enter World War II's Pacific Theater within three months of the end of the war in Europe. On July 26, the US, UK and China made the Potsdam Declaration, an ultimatum calling for the Japanese surrender which if ignored would lead to their "prompt and utter destruction". The invasion began on August 8, 1945, precisely three months after the German surrender on May 8 (May 9, 0:43 Moscow time).
The US already knew ahead of time when Russia would attack. I'd say it was a very timely message to Russia.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Did China build thousands of H-bombs? No, the hundreds that China already has are sufficient to destroy the world.
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the USA used the atomic bombs to warn off RUSSIA. By agreement with the west, Russian forces were invading Manchuria. However, they were also storming down the Kamchatka, and had made landfall on the Kuril Islands.
The US dropped the bomb on Hiroshima three days before the Russians started invading Japanese territory. How then can the atomic bombs have been to 'stop the Russians in their tracks' when the first one was dropped before Russia even joined in the war?
It's not personal. It's just war.
Did Europe build thousands of H-bombs? No. Europe is richer than China and could pay France to build them, but France has already more than enough to destroy the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_an
d_nuclear_tests_by_country
Then why did the USA build more than 70,000 nukes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States
Can't blame the 70,000 on the Russians because America went crazy building A-bombs, and then H-bombs, long before Russia built it's first one. I happen to know the reason.
I know building America's bombs was very expensive. I dare say it is a very, very profitable business when you include missiles, Trident and Typhoon submarines. The more bombs made, the more money made. But if America only made 250 or 300 H-bombs like France or China that would interfere with business. There needs to be some justification to never stop building H-bombs. Lucky for American business, Russia exists.
Threaten Russia with nuclear holocaust (which America did very loudly and constantly starting in 1945) and Russia would build nukes for protection. For every nuke the Russians built, America built another one. As fast as Russia builds, America builds faster and the profitability goes toward infinity. Except nothing on Earth last forever.
The H-bomb profits only stop when either Russian or American government can't afford to pay. It would have been nicer if either country had stopped when it had enough H-bombs to destroy the world. But that would have been too sensible, too moderate, and too unprofitable.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You know it's propaganda w/o having seen it?
If it's Nazi propaganda, like what you posted, I won't even bother watching to see if I disagree.
Why do you reject things out of hand? Are your braynz so fragile that you can't stand to listen to something different? Your hold on reality .... your ability to figure things out on your own ... so delicate that you're afraid of something that you haven't heard before?
Sheesh, what a tool.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
In other words, the US did NOT have the ability to target Russian nuclear launch sites with high-altitude bombers: the bombers simply didn't have the accuracy.
Haha, you dimwit, when dropping nukes you don't have to be pinpoint!
Quote:
Remember this whole 'first strike' strategy was reserved for the scenario where the USSR invades Western Europe ...
Which means it's NOT a 'first strike', it's a defensive response. Jeeze - can't you understand the simplest words you use?
Sigh, try to keep up. From the article I linked to and posted from before:
"The ability to destroy all of an adversary's nuclear forces, eliminating the possibility of a retaliatory strike, is known as a first-strike capability, or nuclear primacy."
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I know why Einstein wrote his famous A-bomb letter to Roosevelt. He feared what Hitler would do with the Bomb. I know why Oppenheimer led A-bomb physicists. He feared being only a pencil neck geek. I know why Stalin built A-bombs. He feared America would bomb Russia. Americans certainly talked about it enough.
Originally posted by kpo:
Haha, you dimwit, when dropping nukes you don't have to be pinpoint!
Sigh, try to keep up. From the article I linked to and posted from before . . .
It's not personal. It's just war.
I know why internet commentators are thin skinned: they fear not being taken seriously.
I even know why General Curtis LeMay bombed Hiroshima. He was building a personal empire that he ruled for 20 years after Hiroshima. He said “There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn't bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders.”
Curtis LeMay also said “Native annalists may look sadly back from the future on that period when we had the atomic bomb and the Russians didn't. Or when the Russians had acquired (through connivance and treachery of Westerns with warped minds) the atomic bomb - and yet still didn't have any stockpile of the weapons. That was the era when we might have destroyed Russia completely and not even skinned our elbows doing it.” https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay
LeMay delivered the first SAC Emergency War Plan in March 1949 which called for dropping 133 atomic bombs on 70 cities in the USSR within 30 days. Air power strategists called this type of preemptive strike, "killing a nation."[26] However, the Harmon committee, released their unanimous report two months later stating such an attack would not end a war with the Soviets and their industry would quickly recover. This committee had been specifically created by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to study the effects of a massive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, within weeks, an ad hoc Joint Chiefs committee recommended tripling America's nuclear arsenal, and Chief of Staff Vandenberg called for enough bombs to attack 220 targets, up from the previous 70
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Strategic_Air_Command
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:You know it's propaganda w/o having seen it?
If it's Nazi propaganda, like what you posted, I won't even bother watching to see if I disagree.
Why do you reject things out of hand? Are your braynz so fragile that you can't stand to listen to something different? Your hold on reality .... your ability to figure things out on your own ... so delicate that you're afraid of something that you haven't heard before?
Sheesh, what a tool.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
What amazes and worries me is that you CAN'T see that it's propaganda. Yes I twigged that it was propaganda pretty quickly, with the cover photo of charred bodies, the provocative use of the word 'Holocaust', the emotive music, the one-sided hyperbolic narrative, etc. So after about a minute I stopped watching and did some research and found the 'Hellstorm' website the video came from, and watched a couple of minutes of another video, which I posted here. This video basically praised Hitler and the Nazis, blamed the Jews for starting the war, etc. The usual Nazi bullshit. That you would post videos from such a source, and then stand by it, is a new low for you Sig.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Killing Japs didn't bother me very much at that time. I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal. Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier.
General Curtis LeMay on the morality of his firebombing campaign www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/peopleevents/pandeAMEX61.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
What amazes and worries me is that you CAN'T see that it's propaganda. Yes I twigged that it was propaganda pretty quickly, with the cover photo of charred bodies, the provocative use of the word 'Holocaust', the emotive music, the one-sided hyperbolic narrative, etc.
Were any of the picture fake? Was what they said untrue?
Wasn't it the case that some people hiding in basements were liquefied into a greasy film a few feet thick? Didn't other people just glow and then vaporize? Weren't people swept into the firestorms by the hurricane-force winds? Weren't civilians specifically targeted, using tactics, times, and sequences designed for maximum kill?
What parts were inaccurate?
If there were a film about Vietnam ... say, Hearts and Minds ... which showed all of the things that the videographers COULDN'T show on night-time TV ... would you say THAT was propaganda too?
If there was a film about Jews in concentration camps detailing all of the horrors there, is THAT propaganda too?
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/nazi-concentration-camps/
If there was a video about the "Russian invasion of Ukraine", which focused on the weeping women and dead children, would you call THAT propaganda? (Sorry, no link. No video available)
I pointed to the video BECAUSE it was emotive. People might "know" the "facts" ... so many hundred thousand dead, so many women and children ... so many buildings destroyed ... but not FEEL what it really means. And that's your problem:
If information - even historically factual, archival information - arouses emotions in you that you reject .... not because it's inaccurate or inhumane but because it arouses uncomfortable feelings ... then you reject the entire narrative as "propaganda".
You filter "truth" and "propaganda" not on the basis of whether or not it's accurate, reflective of reality, factual, or truthful, but on whether or not it makes you feel comfortable or not. That's the point that KIKI was trying to make: You're so propagandized, you don't even realize that you're propagandized. Hardly the kind of person that I'd trust to judge whether or not something is "propaganda".
Here's a thought: Try screening the information that you get on whether or not it is FACTUAL, not on the basis of whether or not it's congenial to your POV. YES, you'll come across information that is biased by selection, but at least YOU won't be the one biasing your data.
And that's the point: You can't make good decisions without good data, and you can't get good data if you're busy screening most of it out because you don't "like" it. The world isn't Facebook. Reality doesn't bend to what you "like" or "don't like"
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
What parts were inaccurate?
You're going to stand by the accuracy of your Nazi film are you? That's fine. I'm not even going to watch it. But I am going to repeat my challenge to you to back up your claims with something other than propaganda films.
Quote:
You filter "truth" and "propaganda" not on the basis of whether or not it's accurate, reflective of reality, factual, or truthful, but on whether or not it makes you feel comfortable or not.
You're right, I don't feel comfortable watching neo-Nazi propaganda, much less spreading it on the internet as 'the truth'. Again, that's the difference between me and you.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME