| Author |
Message |
brinxmat

Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 262 Location: Norway
|
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:07 am Post subject:
|
 |
|
And Irving gets three years. Surely it was better to just poke fun, rather than make a matyr of him. _________________ -- Say "&Eth;onne hit wæs hrenig weðer" |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
elektro80
Site Admin

Joined: Mar 25, 2003 Posts: 21959 Location: Norway
Audio files: 21
|
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:09 am Post subject:
|
 |
|
True. _________________ A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
v-un-v
Janitor


Joined: May 16, 2005 Posts: 8932 Location: Birmingham, England, UK
Audio files: 19
G2 patch files: 1
|
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:50 am Post subject:
|
 |
|
| brinxmat wrote: | | And Irving gets three years. Surely it was better to just poke fun, rather than make a matyr of him. |
well- exactly.
But I think it's that the Austrians want to make an example of him as they were recently critisised by a holocaust war-crimes investigator for being too complacent in finding ex-nazi's still living in the country. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
dmosc

Joined: Jun 23, 2003 Posts: 298
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:15 pm Post subject:
|
 |
|
well, it's been a few years since I studied the issue but a few points stick out in my memory.
1) Although the atomic bomb is incredibly destructive, it is not limitless. War on the other hand has an ever-rising deathtoll the longer it goes on. If the holocaust could have been prevented by nuking berlin, would it not have been a good reason? Is saving millions of lives worth sacrificing hundreds of thousands? I think this kind of math is as bad as the next person but it certainly must be considered. It is indeed possible that the atomic bomb saved lives. Although impossible to prove, you have to look not only at the number of avoided japanese and US casualties but at the fairly bloodless cold war that followed. I do not attest to a Dr. Strangelove doomsday machine but denying any kind of deterrent value of the device is equally foolish.
2) The first atomic bomb was dropped and still no surrender was made. There was several days in between the first and second bombings so I have always not understood why people say the first one was too much. Clearly it was not enough to even force a surrender.
3) I think, and there is evidence to back me up, that russia played a large role in the US's decision to use the bomb. Not just to defeat Japan, but to show the weapon to russia. Also, to force Japan to unconditionally surrender to the united stats and not some combination of the two. The US had a great interest in setting up military bases in japan which were of great value in the cold war. Allowing the war to drag on would have likely meant that Japan would be split or entirely given to russia.
So, I am not so quick to condemn the policital actions taken by our former leaders to drop the bomb. Clearly it was a very extreme measure but it is one that has shaped a great deal of our history as a planet since. Frankly, I do not view the past 60 years of the world as an overwhelming failure so I cannot condemn the defining action that lead to it. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
|