70 Years Since Hiroshima
POSTED BY: Magonsdaughter
UPDATED: Saturday, August 8, 2026 10:26
VIEWED: 23968
PAGE 13 of 16
Quote:
Nukes aren't the magical solution to foreign policy problems.
There's no such thing as a magical solution to foreign policy problems, just a series of tools that suit different situations. Nukes worked well in 1945, and many would argue were also a critical deterrent against Soviet aggression in the early years of the Cold War.
Quote:
The disadvantages of nuking Japan were that Truman made public the super-secret weapon and launched a very expensive nuclear arms race. Neither were to America's advantage.
Not super secret at all but in fact infiltrated by Soviet spies, working on behalf of a Soviet nuclear programme that was already underway. And as I've pointed out the expensive arms race helped cripple the stagnant Soviet economy, topple the Soviet regime, freeing half a continent - which seems to me like great value for money.
Quote:
You can't truthfully use the excuse of nukes saving American lives from an invasion of Japan (but you can if you want to use demagoguery) because the Navy admirals were opposed
Admirals don't decide the strategy of the war, that comes from above. US leaders had committed to demanding full surrender of the Japanese government, and a naval blockade wouldn't have been enough. Also I don't think demagoguery means what you think it means. I've corrected half your post but I'm going to leave it there kiddo.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
There was, as far as I can tell, very little (if any) untruth in the video. All of the facts lined up.
How does that make it propaganda??
The fact that it comes from a neo-Nazi website is not enough for you?
Propaganda mixes facts, opinionated and unsubstantiated claims, omission of key details that would contradict the 'message', and outright fiction. So pointing out that the video is to a large extent factual is not enough, you need to say 'the video was impartial' and 'it told all sides of the story'. Not even you can claim that for this video. When the video claims that the Allied bombing campaign's whole strategy was to kill as many German men, women and children as possible that's not a 'fact'. You might enthusiastically agree with it, but it's still not a fact. It's an opinion that has little basis in fact - and this video's whole message rests on it.
As for 'outright lies': Your propaganda video seems to repeat the thoroughly debunked myth about civilians being strafed by fighters during/after the air raids. From Wiki:
Quote:
Historian Götz Bergander, who was himself an eyewitness of the raids, found no reports on strafing for 13–15 February, neither by any of the pilots nor by the German military and police. He asserted in Dresden im Luftkrieg (1977) that only a few tales of civilians being strafed were reliable in details, and all were related to the daylight attack on 14 February. He concluded that some memory of eyewitnesses was real, but that it had misinterpreted the firing in an airfight as being deliberately aimed at people on the ground.[67] In 2000, historian Helmut Schnatz found that there was an explicit order to RAF pilots not to strafe civilians on the way back home from Dresden. He also reconstructed timelines with the result that strafing would have been almost impossible due to lack of time and fuel.[68] Frederick Taylor in Dresden (2004), basing most of his analysis on the work of Bergander and Schnatz, concludes that no strafing took place, although some stray bullets from an aerial dog fight may have hit the ground and been mistaken for strafing by those in the vicinity.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. I don't judge the content by where it comes from, but by the content. Even evil people had insightful things to say.
The fact that it comes from a neo-Nazi website is not enough for you?
Quote:Oh my fucking god.
Propaganda mixes facts, opinionated and unsubstantiated claims, omission of key details that would contradict the 'message', and outright fiction. So pointing out that the video is to a large extent factual is not enough, you need to say 'the video was impartial' and 'it told all sides of the story'
Can I say that of ANY source of info? Do you really think the USA press doesn't propagandize every war that it tries to start, including some pretty bloody big whoppers about Saddam's so-called WMD and Libya's Qaddafi??? Does BBC tell the Russian side of the story? Show me ONE source that tells ALL sides of ANY story! Can you?
Quote:Well, I once again quote Churchill "German cities will be subject to an ordeal the like of which has never been experienced by a country in continuity, severity, and magnitude ... to achieve this end there are no lengths of violence to which we will not go". Even the press of the day called it "terror bombing". Maybe they weren't trying to kill "every" civilian, but they were sure trying to terrorize them by mass destruction!
When the video claims that the Allied bombing campaign's whole strategy was to kill as many German men, women and children as possible that's not a 'fact'.
Now, think about that- what is terrorism except the application of violence to terrorize a civilian population to achieve a political goal ... in this case, the fall of the Nazi government? Is it, in its essence, any different that a suicide bomber, except in the number of people killed and the distance from which it's done? Please, tell me- explain the difference.
And while you're thinking about that, what is the difference between terrorism, terror bombing, and "shock and awe" (the first phase of the second invasion of Iraq)? If you can explain it to me, I'd appreciate it.
Quote:I read WIKI< Civilians said they were strafed. What WIKI said was that they have have mistaken stray bullets from dogfights as deliberate strafing. In the face of roughly 300,000 civilians having been killed in Germany by Allied bombing, Of which Dresden was completely gratuitous and served no military purpose whatsoever, are you going to quibble about strafing as some indication of gross factual distortion?
As for 'outright lies': Your propaganda video seems to repeat the thoroughly debunked myth about civilians being strafed by fighters during/after the air raids. From Wiki:
Well, I could say that the BBC distorts the facts even more, and is even worse propaganda.
--------------
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:
Does BBC tell the Russian side of the story?
Yes, all the time. But you've misunderstood me. I should have been clearer. When I say 'telling all sides of the story' I mean reporting all the relevant facts, without omitting any. Not about giving equal airtime to different narratives and interpretations, some of which may be highly spurious and come from sources with a clear agenda - e.g. the Russian government.
Quote:
KPO: The fact that it comes from a neo-Nazi website is not enough for you?
SIGNY: No. I don't judge the content by where it comes from, but by the content. Even evil people had insightful things to say.
That's incredibly foolish.
Quote:
Well, I once again quote Churchill "German cities will be subject to an ordeal the like of which has never been experienced by a country in continuity, severity, and magnitude ..
You are not quoting Churchill you're quoting the video. And the video is falsely quoting Churchill. The actual quote says:
"German cities, harbours and centres of war production will be subjected to an ordeal the like of which has never been experienced by any country in continuity, severity or magnitude."
This is what I mean by omitting key details that would tell a different story to the message being pushed. And the second bit of the quote "there are no lengths of violence to which we will not go" was said in a completely different speech (over a year later) and in a different context.
Quote:
I read WIKI< Civilians said they were strafed. What WIKI said was that they have have mistaken stray bullets from dogfights as deliberate strafing.
You're lying. You shouted loudly about the strafing outrage earlier in the thread, and you got it from the Nazi video. For example you talk specifically about people fleeing to parks, zoos and 'other open spaces' and then being strafed - this clearly comes from the video (@13:44); nothing is said like this in Wikipedia at all.
This is your video that 'lines up with the facts'.
So. I have shown that the video comes from a neo-Nazi source, and is replete with lies. Are you going to disown it yet?
Quote:
Now, think about that- what is terrorism except the application of violence to terrorize a civilian population to achieve a political goal
I've already told you my problem with your definition of terrorism - it makes every tyrannical ruler, Stalin, Mugabe, Assad, Putin etc. a 'terrorist'.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In the first months of the war, British strategic bombing (aerial attacks on the enemy’s industry and infrastructure) were bound by the belief that deliberate attacks on civilians and private property were illegal and unjustifiable. By 1945, RAF Bomber Command was obliterating historic German cities overnight.
When Luftwaffe night-bombers unintentionally (and against orders) attacked London in August 1940, Churchill ordered a retaliatory raid on Berlin. This caused an enraged Hitler to order intensified bombing of targets in and around London.
Both sides thus claimed that their attacks on enemy cities were in retaliation for what had been begun by the enemy.
“In the burning and devastated cities, we daily experienced the direct impact of war. It spurred us to do our utmost . . . the bombing and the hardships that resulted from them did not weaken the morale of the populace.”
Albert Speer - Chief of the German War Economy (Speaking after the War)
The effectiveness of the bombing campaign is still debated. There was terrible destruction of the German economy, although output still rose during the war as the economy was geared more and more towards wartime needs. Public support in Germany for the Nazi regime, and civilian morale, was not obviously affected. The bombing campaign did force Germany to devote huge resources to the defence of the homeland, and the German air force suffered significant losses at the hands of Allied fighter escorts. The US Eighth Air Force and RAF Bomber Command paid a high price. Six in ten British bomber aircrew were killed, one of the highest casualty rates of any service in the war. http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-ww2/the-bombing-offen
sive
The Allies realized that the most vulnerable part of the German war economy was oil. Subsequent attacks on German oil production and refinement were far more effective and led to widespread shortages of gasoline. Not only did this affect the ability of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe to conduct operations, but more importantly, it limited the amount of training time pilots, tank operators, and other fuel-intensive vehicle pilots received before heading into combat. Ultimately, this had a huge impact on the quality of troops fielded by the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe.
Ultimately, though, the Strategic Bombing efforts were a complete waste of time, money, and resources. Each bombing run was extraordinarily costly in terms of both aircraft lost, but more importantly, in terms of quality pilots killed or taken prisoner. These pilots could have been put to much more effective use flying air superiority missions or interdiction missions against the Luftwaffe. The production of B17s could have gone toward more useful fighter-bombers and interceptors. http://www.quora.com/How-effective-was-allied-strategic-bombing-in-cur
bing-the-war-effort-of-both-Nazi-Germany-and-Imperial-Japan
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Does BBC tell the Russian side of the story? -SIGNY
Yes, all the time.
No, it doesn't. Do you know how I know? Because I read the BBC AND Russian sources. Something you're too frightened to do.
Quote:The BBC omits MANY facts from its reportage. So many that I can say with confidence that it's reportage is highly biased.
But you've misunderstood me. I should have been clearer. When I say 'telling all sides of the story' I mean reporting all the relevant facts, without omitting any. Not about giving equal airtime to different narratives and interpretations, some of which may be highly spurious and come from sources with a clear agenda - e.g. the Russian government.
I'm not a "equal time" kind of person. OTOH, if you want to know the other POV my experience is that you have to look at many sources, not just the one you "like".
Quote:Not really. Assuming the purity of a source... now that's foolish!
KPO: The fact that it comes from a neo-Nazi website is not enough for you?
SIGNY: No. I don't judge the content by where it comes from, but by the content. Even evil people had insightful things to say.
KPO: That's incredibly foolish.
Quote:Links please. I looked up that specific phrase, and I found it, word for word, in an earlier article on an entirely different website which referenced a speech before the House of Commons, and I provided a link. Don't like what I found? Let's compare sources.
Well, I once again quote Churchill "German cities will be subject to an ordeal the like of which has never been experienced by a country in continuity, severity, and magnitude .." -SIGNY
You are not quoting Churchill you're quoting the video. And the video is falsely quoting Churchill. The actual quote says:
"German cities, harbours and centres of war production will be subjected to an ordeal the like of which has never been experienced by any country in continuity, severity or magnitude."
This is what I mean by omitting key details that would tell a different story to the message being pushed. And the second bit of the quote "there are no lengths of violence to which we will not go" was said in a completely different speech (over a year later) and in a different context.
Quote:You objected to that point, I looked it up across several sources including Wikipedia. There were citizens who claimed that they were strafed. Because of time and fuel, it was judged that strafing wasn't part of the plan, but they may have been subject to stray bullets from a dogfight. I'll provide my links to that thought.
I read WIKI< Civilians said they were strafed. What WIKI said was that they have have mistaken stray bullets from dogfights as deliberate strafing.- SIGNY
You're lying. You shouted loudly about the strafing outrage earlier in the thread, and you got it from the Nazi video. For example you talk specifically about people fleeing to parks, zoos and 'other open spaces' and then being strafed - this clearly comes from the video (@13:44); nothing is said like this in Wikipedia at all.=KPO
Quote:So?
This is your video that 'lines up with the facts'.
So. I have shown that the video comes from a neo-Nazi source
Quote:you questioned two items out of .... how many claims? Yes, one of the aircrew really said what he said. Yes, those all of cities were bombed. Yes, bombing were made in multiple runs, some of those runs targeting open spaces like zoos, parks, and banks of rivers. The bombing of Dresden - militarily pointless. The scenes of firestorms, smouldering ruins, and charred victims - are you claiming they're all false?
and is replete with lies. Are you going to disown it yet?
So, what are you trying to say - that every claim that the video makes is wrong? That Britain always behaved in the most morally correct fashion possibl
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
k - It's not personal. It's just war.
s- Well, that's very Hitlery of you.
It is. German Nazis prided themselves on their inhumanity and inability to be personally moved while they were in pursuit of a military or social goal. Being inhuman and indifferent to the suffering and death of their victims was considered a mark of superiority.
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:
Links please. I looked up that specific phrase, and I found it, word for word, in an earlier article
More lies. The article you linked to was NOT word for word the same as the video, it is clearly different. Your propaganda video edits and combines different authentic quotes into a single, fake quote, which you then faithfully repeated here, linking to a respectable source which I guess you were hoping no one would check.
Here is the full speech that contains the TRUE quote about subjecting German centres of war production to an ordeal:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1942/420602b.html
Quote:
Because of time and fuel, it was judged that strafing wasn't part of the plan, but they may have been subject to stray bullets from a dogfight.
So the video lied about intentional strafing of civilians (and zoo animals), and you repeated those lies. Congratulations you've lost the argument.
Quote:
So, what are you trying to say - that every claim that the video makes is wrong? That Britain always behaved in the most morally correct fashion possible during WWII?
Back to putting ludicrous words in my mouth again I see. This is the mark of an authoritarian don't you know?
Quote:
NO, IT MAKES EVERY RULER WHO KILLS CIVILIANS PURPOSELY TERRORISTS
You can't even keep your definition of 'terrorist' the same.
Quote:
Well, that's very Hitlery of you
You're the one who frequents neo-Nazi websites, so I'll take your word for it.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The seven million tons of bombs dropped on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia - more than twice the amount of bombs dropped on Europe and Asia in World War II – decisively won the Vietnam War.
Originally posted by kpo:
More lies.
It's not personal. It's just war.
Does anybody see what is mistaken with the above statement?
There is a verified fact that bombs kill. Look it up on Wikipedia. It is not verified that bombs win wars. It is a faith with the same level of physical “proof” as reincarnation, which billions believe with absolute certainty. www.google.com/search?q=proof+of+reincarnation
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It is clear, in the source that I linked (which unfortunately can't be copied here because of formatting) that Churchill, across many statements, approved of saturation bombing. It's ALSO clear FROM THE RESULTS, that saturation (area, terror, carpet) bombing WAS THE POLICY. Strafing of civilians WAS COMMON. Survivors - I knew several- said that you didn't dare move on the roadway during the day, because British and Americans would shoot at anything ... people, dogs, cows, carts. My MIL had to take shelter from strafing behind a horse-drawn cart (the horse was killed).
Terrible things were done, by all sides.
Quote:Bullshit. YOUR point was that a source had to be more than substantially factually correct.
So the video lied about intentional strafing of civilians (and zoo animals), and you repeated those lies. Congratulations you've lost the argument.
You're admitting, right there, that the video is substantially correct.
You've also said that any source had to mention all relevant facts in order to be unbiased. Are you willing to put your own statements to that test, or the BBC?
I guarantee that you'll both fail.
I've said this many times, in many ways: ALL sources are biased. Every single one. There is not a single source that explains every single relevant fact about any particular event. ALL information presented to us, by anyone, is subject to selection. Even your vaunted BBC. The history that we're taught in school? Biased. The articles that we read online? Biased. The documentaries that we view? Biased.
If you want to know the other POV, you have to READ the other POV. In fact, you have to read a LOT of other POVs, because everybody .... everybody... has a different story to tell. To run screaming from other POVs, with your fingers in your ears, is plain fucking childish.
Furthermore .... YOU are a propagandist. You're trying to tell everyone what to read and not to read. You're trying to limit what people see and what they think to a specific POV. Isn't the the essence of propaganda? Not sure how successful you are with others, but you're doing a great propaganda job ... on yourself.
AND FURTHERMORE, by your own tagline you support pointless wartime killing. Experiencing any sort of sadness or horror at mass death ... well, that's for the faint of heart, and you are clearly above all that.
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