On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 20:54:27 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 9/15/2019 8:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 20:26:11 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/15/2019 3:42 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 15:29:09 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/15/2019 3:00 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 09:34:44 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No need to run away from this discussion. Just think about
>>>>>>> what you said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't ignore reality, dsi1. Japs already took over the other
>>>>>>> south pacific islands. Hawaii would have been a big score for
>>>>>>> them...the next big step to be in range of mainland USA and they,
>>>>>>> in fact, did try to get closer in the Aleutions after they
>>>>>>> couldn't conquer Hawaii.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't forget how the Japanese mistreated allied POWs either. They
>>>>>>> really were an evil empire back in those days but war does that
>>>>>>> to people. It's just worldwide insanity. And most of the people
>>>>>>> killed or doing the killing were just normal people that would
>>>>>>> prefer to live in peace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They also treated civilians badly, including women and children. Put
>>>>>> them in concentration camps, almost starved them to death. Of course
>>>>>> throwing an atomic bomb on their cities is also an inconceivable
>>>>>> atrocity. The second biggest western atrocity after the Holocaust.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess that falls under "seemed like a good idea at the time". It did
>>>>> help bring and end to the war and it will be debated forever how many
>>>>> lives would have been lost otherwise. We'll never know what
>>>>> alternatives may have worked. Or not.
>>>>
>>>> Throwing atomic boms on civilians can never be the solution. It's the
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>> Easy to say sitting in your easy chair in 2019. I have to wonder how
>>> you'd feel in 1944 as millions were being killed.
>>>
>>> We can look back at every war and say what was wrong and what atrocities
>>> were committed. Would we have said the same at the time? We'll never
>>> know.
>>
>> A civilised person does not throw atomic bombs on a city. That is
>> exactly the kind of behaviour your fighting to stop. Why do it
>> yourself then? It's barbaric.
>>
>> If it hadn't been the Americans who did that, but the Germans or the
>> Japanese, you'd have agreed with me.
>>
>Civilized people do go to war of any sort. If you were of age at the
>time you may have thought different. The end result was that it did
>stop the behavior of the Japanese. In 1944 I'd have not called them
>Japanese either, they were the Japs.

Civilized people do go to war, but they don't throw atomic bombs on
cites, killing over a 100,000 men, women and children.

And they have been the Japs all my life, because my mother spent years
in a Japanese war camp.

On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 18:01:55 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 7:35:48 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> A civilised person does not throw atomic bombs on a city. That is
>> exactly the kind of behaviour your fighting to stop. Why do it
>> yourself then? It's barbaric.
>>
>> If it hadn't been the Americans who did that, but the Germans or the
>> Japanese, you'd have agreed with me.
>>
>The Japanese were determined to fight to the last man. They were sent an
>ultimatum to surrender or face the consequences. They thought the USA was
>just blowing smoke but it stopped the war and even though it took thousands
>of lives it saved 10's of hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.
>
>It's easy to say 70+ years later from the comfort of your home "that was
>just awfully mean what the USA did to poor little old Japan. For shame."
>You make war, be prepared to suffer the consequences.

It was a barbaric act by barbarians.

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 3:02:00 PM UTC-10, wrote:
> >
> The Japanese were determined to fight to the last man. They were sent an
> ultimatum to surrender or face the consequences. They thought the USA was
> just blowing smoke but it stopped the war and even though it took thousands
> of lives it saved 10's of hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.
>
> It's easy to say 70+ years later from the comfort of your home "that was
> just awfully mean what the USA did to poor little old Japan. For shame."
> You make war, be prepared to suffer the consequences.

That's about right. The Japanese military was willing to fight to the last drop of blood and the citizens would have felt obligated to follow their leaders. Mostly, the war ended because the Emperor decided to take the bold step of going against the military and declared that it was over. Some factions of the military tried to stop this but thankfully, they were not successful.

My guess is that the Americans knew how it all went down and that's the reason they decided not to hang his royal highness. It is also likely that the American leaders realized that hanging Hirohito would be like an foreign horde conquering America and re-crucifying Jesus Christ. Now that's cultural sensitivity!

On 9/15/2019 11:24 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 3:02:00 PM UTC-10, wrote:
>>>
>> The Japanese were determined to fight to the last man. They were sent an
>> ultimatum to surrender or face the consequences. They thought the USA was
>> just blowing smoke but it stopped the war and even though it took thousands
>> of lives it saved 10's of hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.
>>
>> It's easy to say 70+ years later from the comfort of your home "that was
>> just awfully mean what the USA did to poor little old Japan. For shame."
>> You make war, be prepared to suffer the consequences.
>
> That's about right. The Japanese military was willing to fight to the last drop of blood and the citizens would have felt obligated to follow their leaders. Mostly, the war ended because the Emperor decided to take the bold step of going against the military and declared that it was over. Some factions of the military tried to stop this but thankfully, they were not successful.
>
> My guess is that the Americans knew how it all went down and that's the reason they decided not to hang his royal highness. It is also likely that the American leaders realized that hanging Hirohito would be like an foreign horde conquering America and re-crucifying Jesus Christ. Now that's cultural sensitivity!
>

Bruce wants to take the high road of moral superiority, however,he was
not consulted when the decision to bomb was made. Maybe he would have
talked them out of it. Maybe if he was in the war room he would have
been first in line to push the button. It was a different time and a
brutal war.

The Japs were brutal in war and if they had an atomic bomb at the time
would have used it on Pearl Harbor. Their fighters thought it honorable
to fly their airplanes into ships killing themselves. We'll never know
how many lives would have been lost on both sides had they not been
stopped.

On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 20:24:48 -0700 (PDT), dsi1
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 3:02:00 PM UTC-10, wrote:
>> >
>> The Japanese were determined to fight to the last man. They were sent an
>> ultimatum to surrender or face the consequences. They thought the USA was
>> just blowing smoke but it stopped the war and even though it took thousands
>> of lives it saved 10's of hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.
>>
>> It's easy to say 70+ years later from the comfort of your home "that was
>> just awfully mean what the USA did to poor little old Japan. For shame."
>> You make war, be prepared to suffer the consequences.
>
>That's about right. The Japanese military was willing to fight to the last drop of blood and the citizens would have felt obligated to follow their leaders. Mostly, the war ended because the Emperor decided to take the bold step of going against the military and declared that it was over. Some factions of the military tried to stop this but thankfully, they were not successful.
>
>My guess is that the Americans knew how it all went down and that's the reason they decided not to hang his royal highness. It is also likely that the American leaders realized that hanging Hirohito would be like an foreign horde conquering America and re-crucifying Jesus Christ. Now that's cultural sensitivity!

The Emperor should have been hung for being the criminal coward that
he was.

On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 23:46:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 9/15/2019 11:24 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 3:02:00 PM UTC-10, wrote:
>>>>
>>> The Japanese were determined to fight to the last man. They were sent an
>>> ultimatum to surrender or face the consequences. They thought the USA was
>>> just blowing smoke but it stopped the war and even though it took thousands
>>> of lives it saved 10's of hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.
>>>
>>> It's easy to say 70+ years later from the comfort of your home "that was
>>> just awfully mean what the USA did to poor little old Japan. For shame."
>>> You make war, be prepared to suffer the consequences.
>>
>> That's about right. The Japanese military was willing to fight to the last drop of blood and the citizens would have felt obligated to follow their leaders. Mostly, the war ended because the Emperor decided to take the bold step of going against the military and declared that it was over. Some factions of the military tried to stop this but thankfully, they were not successful.
>>
>> My guess is that the Americans knew how it all went down and that's the reason they decided not to hang his royal highness. It is also likely that the American leaders realized that hanging Hirohito would be like an foreign horde conquering America and re-crucifying Jesus Christ. Now that's cultural sensitivity!
>>
>
>Bruce wants to take the high road of moral superiority

When you're against murdering 150,000 civilians, you're taking the
moral high road? Only compared to the morals of a bunch of scum.

>, however,he was
>not consulted when the decision to bomb was made. Maybe he would have
>talked them out of it. Maybe if he was in the war room he would have
>been first in line to push the button. It was a different time and a
>brutal war.

>The Japs were brutal in war and if they had an atomic bomb at the time
>would have used it on Pearl Harbor.

Americans need to get over Pearl Harbor. That was nothing compared to
the atomic bombs. It didn't even hit civilians. Even 9/11 was more
significant.

>Their fighters thought it honorable
>to fly their airplanes into ships killing themselves. We'll never know
>how many lives would have been lost on both sides had they not been
>stopped.

You're trying to justify it because it's your country that did it.
Stop taking the moral low road.

In article >, Bruce
> wrote:

> They also treated civilians badly, including women and children. Put
> them in concentration camps, almost starved them to death. Of course
> throwing an atomic bomb on their cities is also an inconceivable
> atrocity. The second biggest western atrocity after the Holocaust.

Zeitgeist. I spelled it right this time. You can spell it, but you
can't wrap your head around the meaning. It's important to learn it
culturally, historically and philosophically. Try harder.

leo

Bruce wrote:
> Civilized people do go to war, but they don't throw atomic bombs on
> cites, killing over a 100,000 men, women and children.

Correction: They did twice

Bruce wrote:
>
> And they have been the Japs all my life, because my mother spent years
> in a Japanese war camp.

What country was your mother living in at the time?

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 06:32:25 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>>
>> And they have been the Japs all my life, because my mother spent years
>> in a Japanese war camp.
>
>What country was your mother living in at the time?

Indonesia.

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 3:30:38 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 12:07:36 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 3:01:07 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
> >>
> >> They also treated civilians badly, including women and children. Put
> >> them in concentration camps, almost starved them to death. Of course
> >> throwing an atomic bomb on their cities is also an inconceivable
> >> atrocity. The second biggest western atrocity after the Holocaust.
> >
> >There were atrocities committed on all sides. Note the firebombing of Tokyo. Perhaps a bigger crime than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My aunt was in Hanover when the allies threw WP at her and citizens. She saw horrendous deaths. People jumping into a lake to put out the fires. It helped. Until they resurfaced. Then the stuff started to burn again. I don't want to just mention the allies, the axis committed their own crimes. However you always hear about the axis crimes, and very very rarely allied crimes.
>
> Let's put it into perspective:
>
> Holocaust: 6 million dead
> Hiroshima & Nagasaki: 129,000 - 226,000 dead
> Tokyo bombing: 84,000 dead
> Dresden bombing: 20,000 dead
> Hannover bombing (88 air raids): 5,000 dead
> Pearl Harbor: 2,500 dead
>
> Most of all these casualties were civilians, except Pearl Harbor was a
> military target.

Those numbers were created by the victors. Had Germany won, they probably would have done the same, i.e. deflate their atrocities.

Belgium in the Congo, very horrific crimes occurred in the name of rubber; amputations and murder.
The Congo Free State, free for whom?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atroci...ngo_Free_State
No one knows how many, but the estimates vary quite a bit; between 1 and 15 million.

On 9/16/2019 12:43 AM, Bruce wrote:

>
> You're trying to justify it because it's your country that did it.
> Stop taking the moral low road.
>

Neither you or I really know if it was necessary to do that. We don't
know the consequences and number of lives that would have been lost
otherwise. You are applying 2019 rules to a 1944 decision that we were
not alive to see and judge.

All war is bad.

On 2019-09-16 6:32 a.m., Gary wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
>> Civilized people do go to war, but they don't throw atomic bombs on
>> cites, killing over a 100,000 men, women and children.
>
> Correction: They did twice
>
In Bruce's world they don't systematically murder the men and then rape,
mutilate the women .... but they did. That is what the Japanese did.
In the city of Nanking they killed 300,000 civilians, and in the most
atrocious ways imaginable. That is about twice as many people killed as
the number who perished in the two nuclear attacks combined.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> On 9/15/2019 11:24 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 3:02:00 PM UTC-10, wrote:
> >>>
> >> The Japanese were determined to fight to the last man. They were sent an
> >> ultimatum to surrender or face the consequences. They thought the USA was
> >> just blowing smoke but it stopped the war and even though it took thousands
> >> of lives it saved 10's of hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides..
> >>
> >> It's easy to say 70+ years later from the comfort of your home "that was
> >> just awfully mean what the USA did to poor little old Japan. For shame."
> >> You make war, be prepared to suffer the consequences.
> >
> > That's about right. The Japanese military was willing to fight to the last drop of blood and the citizens would have felt obligated to follow their leaders. Mostly, the war ended because the Emperor decided to take the bold step of going against the military and declared that it was over. Some factions of the military tried to stop this but thankfully, they were not successful.
> >
> > My guess is that the Americans knew how it all went down and that's the reason they decided not to hang his royal highness. It is also likely that the American leaders realized that hanging Hirohito would be like an foreign horde conquering America and re-crucifying Jesus Christ. Now that's cultural sensitivity!
> >
>
> Bruce wants to take the high road of moral superiority, however,he was
> not consulted when the decision to bomb was made. Maybe he would have
> talked them out of it. Maybe if he was in the war room he would have
> been first in line to push the button. It was a different time and a
> brutal war.


Presenting facts to this Oz nitwit is a fool's errand, he is simply a Grade One USA - Hater...

In any case the atomic bombings were a splendid gift and a blessing to the Japanese, they should be eternally grateful to the US that their war of aggression was ended in such a merciful manner...

They should also show eternal gratitude to the Allies that the war did not proceed for a longer period. If the war were longer, the USSR would have intervened and we would have most probably faced a post - war divided Japan, Ã* la Germany, Korea, Vietnam...instead US - occupied Japan quickly became a free and prosperous nation.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/05...tion_hokkaido/

[...]

"...Stalin wanted Soviet-U.S. cooperation to continue, with each country respecting the others legitimate claims. This was the reason he proposed Soviet occupation of Hokkaido in the first place. True, the Americans had basically won the war in the Pacific. But, then, in his view, the Soviets had basically won the war in Europe, so if the Soviets could tolerate U.S. presence in Germany, why would the United States refuse to tolerate Soviet presence in Japan?

Trumans refusal to accept what to Stalin seemed like a reasonable idea deeply upset the Soviet leader. U.S. Ambassador W. Averell Harriman, who saw Stalin in October 1945, found him still €œirked€� by the Hokkaido debacle, complaining bitterly that the Soviet Union did not want to have merely a symbolic role in Japan, like €œa piece of furniture.€� In fact, Stalin was so upset by Trumans Aug. 18 written refusal to allow the Soviets on Hokkaido that he crossed out the title €œPresident€� before Trumans name on the presidents letter. In Stalins view, Truman lacked the stature and the foresight to be president. He was not the sort of person who Stalin could strike a deal with €” or who could be counted on to honor his promises. Truman, in other words, was no Franklin Delano Roosevelt..."

[...]


> The Japs were brutal in war and if they had an atomic bomb at the time
> would have used it on Pearl Harbor. Their fighters thought it honorable
> to fly their airplanes into ships killing themselves. We'll never know
> how many lives would have been lost on both sides had they not been
> stopped.


Indeed. A quick goog, this is one of many discussions on this matter: An Allied invasion would have resulted in MASSIVE casualties (note - *total* WWII US war deaths were about 420,000):

"...Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties. The "Los Angeles Times estimated that America would suffer up to 1 million casualties..."


https://www.historylearningsite.co.u...tion-downfall/

Operation Downfall

Citation: C N Trueman "Operation Downfall"

historylearningsite.co.uk. The History Learning Site, 19 May 2015. 21 Aug 2019.

"Operation Downfall was the name given to the planned invasion of Japan. Operation Downfall itself was divided into two parts €“ Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. By mid-1945, it was apparent that the collapse of Japan was near and the Allies had to plan for the invasion of the Japanese mainland €“ something that they knew would be very costly in terms of lives lost.

American military commanders were given the task of planning for the invasion €“ Douglas MacArthur,Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, William Leahy, Hap Arnold and George Marshall. Inter-service rivalry did occur as both army and navy wanted one of "their men to be supreme commander of planning. Eventually the navy accepted that MacArthur was to have total control if the invasion was to take place. The planning proceeded without taking the atomic bomb into consideration as so few knew about its existence.

The Americans faced one very serious problem. They knew for sure that the Japanese would defend their territory with zeal and that American casualties would be high €“ probably too high for the American public to accept. The fanaticism that had been shown by the kamikazes, would almost certainly be encountered in Japan and the Americans had to plan for this.

There was plenty of evidence to indicate that any invasion of the Japanese mainland would be very bloody for all concerned. The complexity of such an attack also led to both sides of the US military developing different ideas as to what the best plan should be. The navy believed that a blockade supported by an air campaign would suffice. They wanted to use air bases in China and Korea to launch bombing raids against key cities in Japan. The army believed that such a campaign would take too long and that the morale of the American public might suffer as a result. They supported the use of an invasion that would go to the heart of Japan €“ Tokyo. The army got its way.

It quickly became apparent that any invasion of Japan would present huge difficulties. There were very few beaches that could be used as a landing place and the Japanese knew this. Both sides knew that only the beaches in Kyushu and the beaches at Kanto, near Tokyo, could support a huge amphibious landing. The Japanese took the appropriate measures in both areas.

The Americans had planned to land in Kyushu first and use it as a base for planes to attack other targets in Japan. These planes would then be used to give support to the landings at Kanto. As there were so few places to land a massive force of amphibious troops, the Japanese guessed as early as 1944 where such landings would take place.

The actual invasion of Kyushu was known to be fraught with dangers. Therefore, there were those in the American military who advocated the use of chemical weapons on the Japanese defenders. The use of poisonous gas had been outlawed by the Geneva Convention, but neither America nor Japan had signed this. As Japan had used poisonous gas in their attack on China, there were some in the US military who felt it was perfectly justified to use it on the Japanese. The Japanese did fear a gas attack and records do show that senior military figures in Japan wanted to ensure that if there was a gas attack, that the response of the Japanese would be such that it would not make any attack worse. American Intelligence had known for a while that Japan was in no fit state to respond to a gas attack with a gas attack.

The main concern for the Americans was the potential for huge casualty rates. Nearly every senior officer involved in the planning did his own research regarding American casualties €“ this was based on the experience America had fighting the Japanese since Pearl Harbour.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that Olympic alone would cost 456,000 men, including 109,000 killed. Including Coronet, it was estimated that America would experience 1.2 million casualties, with 267,000 deaths.

Staff working for Chester Nimitz, calculated that the first 30 days of Olympic alone would cost 49,000 men.MacArthurs staff concluded that America would suffer 125,000 casualties after 120 days, a figure that was later reduced to 105,000 casualties after his staff subtracted the men who when wounded could return to battle.

General Marshall, in conference with President Truman, estimated 31,000 in 30 days after landing in Kyushu. Admiral Leahy estimated that the invasion would cost 268,000 casualties. Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties. The "Los Angeles Times estimated that America would suffer up to 1 million casualties.

Regardless of which figures were used, it was an accepted fact that America would lose a very large number of men. This was one of the reasons why President Truman authorised the use of the atomic bomb in an effort to get Japan to surrender. On August 6th, "Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima and on August 9th, "Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki. On September 2nd, Japan surrendered and America and her allies were spared the task of invading Japan with the projected massive casualties this would entail..."

</>

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> On 9/16/2019 12:43 AM, Bruce wrote:
>
> >
> > You're trying to justify it because it's your country that did it.
> > Stop taking the moral low road.
> >
>
> Neither you or I really know if it was necessary to do that. We don't
> know the consequences and number of lives that would have been lost
> otherwise. You are applying 2019 rules to a 1944 decision that we were
> not alive to see and judge.
>
> All war is bad.


Let's put this way - I would *not* send the Oz Nitwit back in time to assassinate Hitler (before his rise to power), LOL...!!!

--
Best
Greg

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:47:23 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 9/16/2019 12:43 AM, Bruce wrote:
>
>>
>> You're trying to justify it because it's your country that did it.
>> Stop taking the moral low road.
>>
>
>Neither you or I really know if it was necessary to do that. We don't
>know the consequences and number of lives that would have been lost
>otherwise. You are applying 2019 rules to a 1944 decision that we were
>not alive to see and judge.
>
>All war is bad.

The second biggest atrocity of WW2. Congratulations for defending it.

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 08:27:12 -0700 (PDT), GM
> wrote:

>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> On 9/16/2019 12:43 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > You're trying to justify it because it's your country that did it.
>> > Stop taking the moral low road.
>> >
>>
>> Neither you or I really know if it was necessary to do that. We don't
>> know the consequences and number of lives that would have been lost
>> otherwise. You are applying 2019 rules to a 1944 decision that we were
>> not alive to see and judge.
>>
>> All war is bad.
>
>
>Let's put this way - I would *not* send the Oz Nitwit back in time to assassinate Hitler (before his rise to power), LOL...!!!

Huh?

On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 03:21:50 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:47:23 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>>On 9/16/2019 12:43 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You're trying to justify it because it's your country that did it.
>>> Stop taking the moral low road.
>>>
>>
>>Neither you or I really know if it was necessary to do that. We don't
>>know the consequences and number of lives that would have been lost
>>otherwise. You are applying 2019 rules to a 1944 decision that we were
>>not alive to see and judge.
>>
>>All war is bad.
>
>The second biggest atrocity of WW2. Congratulations for defending it.

Unfortunately, they did not have benefit of your solution, whatever it
was.

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:22:01 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 03:21:50 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:47:23 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/16/2019 12:43 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're trying to justify it because it's your country that did it.
>>>> Stop taking the moral low road.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Neither you or I really know if it was necessary to do that. We don't
>>>know the consequences and number of lives that would have been lost
>>>otherwise. You are applying 2019 rules to a 1944 decision that we were
>>>not alive to see and judge.
>>>
>>>All war is bad.
>>
>>The second biggest atrocity of WW2. Congratulations for defending it.
>
>Unfortunately, they did not have benefit of your solution, whatever it
>was.

You only defend this atrocity because your country committed it and
your shitty media have been telling you all your life that it was ok.
You're so biased you can't walk straight.

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 2:34:30 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:22:01 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 03:21:50 +1000, Bruce >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:47:23 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 9/16/2019 12:43 AM, Bruce wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You're trying to justify it because it's your country that did it.
> >>>> Stop taking the moral low road.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Neither you or I really know if it was necessary to do that. We don't
> >>>know the consequences and number of lives that would have been lost
> >>>otherwise. You are applying 2019 rules to a 1944 decision that we were
> >>>not alive to see and judge.
> >>>
> >>>All war is bad.
> >>
> >>The second biggest atrocity of WW2. Congratulations for defending it.
> >
> >Unfortunately, they did not have benefit of your solution, whatever it
> >was.
>
> You only defend this atrocity because your country committed it and
> your shitty media have been telling you all your life that it was ok.
> You're so biased you can't walk straight.

I don't think that any atrocities can be defended. Whether by the Germans, CCCP's, Belgians, African slave traders, etc.

On 2019-09-16 4:33 p.m., A Moose in Love wrote:
> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 2:34:30 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:

>> You only defend this atrocity because your country committed it
>> and your shitty media have been telling you all your life that it
>> was ok. You're so biased you can't walk straight.
>
> I don't think that any atrocities can be defended. Whether by the
> Germans, CCCP's, Belgians, African slave traders, etc.

People obviously see things differently and they judge what they see on
the basis of the ethics of the time. Those ethics change. Nazi Germany
was reviled for its atrocities against Jews, but it's not like Germany
had a monopoly on Antisemitism. The most notorious concentration camps
were in the occupied territories to the east, and they had no trouble
finding locals to do their dirty work for them. Slavery sucked, but it
it had been part of human life for eons. There were white slaves in
North America and Europe long before there were black slaves, and they
switched to African slaves because they were much easier to get. The
just went to the slave ports in Africa where local rulers enriched
themselves by invading their neighbours and selling them to the European
traders. It was all acceptable by the ethics of the times.

On 9/16/2019 6:32 AM, Gary wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
>>
>> And they have been the Japs all my life, because my mother spent years
>> in a Japanese war camp.
>
> What country was your mother living in at the time?
>
I thought Bruce lived in Australia and was from Denmark. Now he's
saying his mother was interred in a Japanese war camp? Wonders never cease.

Jill

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 10:03:39 AM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
> On 9/16/2019 6:32 AM, Gary wrote:
> > Bruce wrote:
> >>
> >> And they have been the Japs all my life, because my mother spent years
> >> in a Japanese war camp.
> >
> > What country was your mother living in at the time?
> >
> I thought Bruce lived in Australia and was from Denmark. Now he's
> saying his mother was interred in a Japanese war camp? Wonders never cease.
>
> Jill

He's from The Netherlands, which has a long (colonial) history with
Indonesia, which is where she was living when she was interred.

Cindy Hamilton

On 9/17/2019 10:13 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 10:03:39 AM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 9/16/2019 6:32 AM, Gary wrote:
>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And they have been the Japs all my life, because my mother spent years
>>>> in a Japanese war camp.
>>>
>>> What country was your mother living in at the time?
>>>
>> I thought Bruce lived in Australia and was from Denmark. Now he's
>> saying his mother was interred in a Japanese war camp? Wonders never cease.
>>
>> Jill
>
> He's from The Netherlands, which has a long (colonial) history with
> Indonesia, which is where she was living when she was interred.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
Okay, thanks for the explanation.

Jill

On 2019-09-17 10:03 a.m., jmcquown wrote:
> On 9/16/2019 6:32 AM, Gary wrote:
>> Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> And they have been the Japs all my life, because my mother spent years
>>> in a Japanese war camp.
>>
>> What country was your mother living in at the time?
>>
> I thought Bruce lived in Australia and was from Denmark.Â* Now he's
> saying his mother was interred in a Japanese war camp?Â* Wonders never
> cease.

No. He is Dutch, and the Dutch had colonies all over the world,
especially Indonesia (Dutch East Indies). The attack on Pearl Harbor was
just part of Japan's sweep across the south east and they only wanted to
knock the US out of the picture while they went after what the really
wanted. Dutch civilians were rounded up and kept in prison camps for
the duration. The men were sent to labour camps.

On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:13:50 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 10:03:39 AM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 9/16/2019 6:32 AM, Gary wrote:
>> > Bruce wrote:
>> >>
>> >> And they have been the Japs all my life, because my mother spent years
>> >> in a Japanese war camp.
>> >
>> > What country was your mother living in at the time?
>> >
>> I thought Bruce lived in Australia and was from Denmark. Now he's
>> saying his mother was interred in a Japanese war camp? Wonders never cease.
>>
>> Jill
>
>He's from The Netherlands, which has a long (colonial) history with
>Indonesia, which is where she was living when she was interred.

Precisely.

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 4:21:48 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:13:50 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 10:03:39 AM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
> >> On 9/16/2019 6:32 AM, Gary wrote:
> >> > Bruce wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> And they have been the Japs all my life, because my mother spent years
> >> >> in a Japanese war camp.
> >> >
> >> > What country was your mother living in at the time?
> >> >
> >> I thought Bruce lived in Australia and was from Denmark. Now he's
> >> saying his mother was interred in a Japanese war camp? Wonders never cease.
> >>
> >> Jill
> >
> >He's from The Netherlands, which has a long (colonial) history with
> >Indonesia, which is where she was living when she was interred.
>
> Precisely.

Oh, and I'm sorry I typed "interred" when I meant "interned". I was looking
at someone else's misspelling of the word and succumbed.

Cindy Hamilton

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 03:03:34 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 4:21:48 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:13:50 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 10:03:39 AM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
>> >> On 9/16/2019 6:32 AM, Gary wrote:
>> >> > Bruce wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And they have been the Japs all my life, because my mother spent years
>> >> >> in a Japanese war camp.
>> >> >
>> >> > What country was your mother living in at the time?
>> >> >
>> >> I thought Bruce lived in Australia and was from Denmark. Now he's
>> >> saying his mother was interred in a Japanese war camp? Wonders never cease.
>> >>
>> >> Jill
>> >
>> >He's from The Netherlands, which has a long (colonial) history with
>> >Indonesia, which is where she was living when she was interred.
>>
>> Precisely.
>
>Oh, and I'm sorry I typed "interred" when I meant "interned". I was looking
>at someone else's misspelling of the word and succumbed.

No worries, I hadn't noticed.