Slashdot Mirror

Easy way to get mod points, but just because Rush Limbaugh said it, doesn't make it true.

Goebbels actually thought propaganda should be truthful.
It is perhaps comforting to thinking of the Nazis as evil in every way, but the true evil comes from how they trusted the system in which they worked without question.

Fake Quotations

Stalin had been trying to get an alliance with Britain and France in 1939

Citations?

Britain and France started WWII by forcing Stalin into a position where he thought he had to make a treaty with Germany

He made it not because he was forced, but because he was planning an attack himself. USSR's entire military posture was offensive — materiel dumps, artillery, bombers were located on the edge of the borders. Which is why they were overtaken by Germans so quickly leaving USSR nearly naked in 1941, when Hitler outplayed his pal. Whether Hitler actually knew of Stalin's designs or not remains subject of debate among historians, but it is quite common knowledge, that Stalin was preparing an attack.

By the time Soviet troops entered Poland, the war was well and truly on (and Poland had lost).

That's not true. Polish troops were retreating to reorganize, when they were attacked from the other direction by the Red Army — to this day Poland refers to the events as "Stab in the Back".

Instead of killing the Poles, Stalin could have helped them — but he and Hitler were allies and thus both share culpability for starting the WW2.

Yes Japan was willing to surrender, but only if key provisions of the Potsdam Declaration were changed in their favor. In other words, they wanted to keep fighting to try to gain better terms for surrender.

Framed differently - the Japanese were willing to surrender, but the US wanted to keep fighting to their preferred terms for their surrender. (Specifically, the Japanese wanted protections for their Emperor - at the least, an assurance that we weren't going to execute him).

Here's a 1946 report that indicates that Japan was already ready to (and trying to) surrender months before the atomic bombs were dropped: http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.h...

Here's a (admittedly very biased - skip the filler & just look at the quotes; though I suspect you've heard many of them before) source that quotes many people involved on their opinions on using the bomb: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16...

To be clear; I condemn any violence committed against civilians. I do not believe, however, that the (well-documented) atrocities committed by the Japanese soldiers excuse or justify the US's fire-bombing and nuking of Japanese civilians. While Japan was not innocent by any stretch of the imagination; the Japanese people largely were.

OK, I took the trouble to read the anesi.com link, and it does not state what you think it does.
The Japanese had begun internal discussions on ending the war, but that does not constitute "trying to surrender".
What the Japanese was doing was trying to get Russia act as an intermediary in negotiating a "cessation of hostilities".
The "protect the Emperor" thing was a red herring from the Japanese War council; they didn't give a shit about him.
They wanted to keep as much as possible their existing military government, and they wanted to try to keep as much conquered territory.
I'm sorry, but no.
Japan's militaristic government could not be allowed to continue, and Japan military leadership must be tried for war crimes.

Yes Japan was willing to surrender, but only if key provisions of the Potsdam Declaration were changed in their favor. In other words, they wanted to keep fighting to try to gain better terms for surrender.

Framed differently - the Japanese were willing to surrender, but the US wanted to keep fighting to their preferred terms for their surrender. (Specifically, the Japanese wanted protections for their Emperor - at the least, an assurance that we weren't going to execute him).

Here's a 1946 report that indicates that Japan was already ready to (and trying to) surrender months before the atomic bombs were dropped: http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.h...

Here's a (admittedly very biased - skip the filler & just look at the quotes; though I suspect you've heard many of them before) source that quotes many people involved on their opinions on using the bomb: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16...

To be clear; I condemn any violence committed against civilians. I do not believe, however, that the (well-documented) atrocities committed by the Japanese soldiers excuse or justify the US's fire-bombing and nuking of Japanese civilians. While Japan was not innocent by any stretch of the imagination; the Japanese people largely were.

Wiki is not a source of truth, it is a source of editable information often edited for purposes of propaganda. A quick google search finds more articles disproving Wiki than I can count. Here are the first three.

Claiming that killing people saves lives is delusional to the point of insanity. Unfortunately this insanity is alive and well, though today we claim "we must kill all the Muslims to get peace" instead of those "dirty Japs". The only way to justify the delusion is to invent your own version of history, which never happened. Don't worry, I learned the same lessons in public schools and had to learn to think on my own to see the delusion.

If you have doubts, ask yourself if we ever had to land a single troop in Japan to get them to surrender? Check your history! Japan was completely blockaded. They had no ships to defend a convoy, no local production of petroleum, and could not defend themselves from any form of bombardment we were already attacking them with. We had planes fire bombing them at will, without an atomic bomb. There was no reason to invade them, it was only a matter of time before they surrendered. Then ask yourself why we dropped those bombs on non-military targets, because you won't be able to come up with a real answer for that either!.

That is right, we dropped the a-bomb because the US didn't give a shit about human lives or suffering. Our Government had no problem bitching about the Germans with their Jewish concentration camps, but yet we locked up whole families of Japanese Americans in our own. Oh, I know.. we didn't kill the people we put in jail so we were good guys right?

If you want to justify it, at least be honest about the reasons we bombed two cities full of civilians and not military targets. We are the bully that beat up the sickly kid, and people like you laugh about it. Fucking disgusting!

Eisenhower, MacArthur, and a number of other top military officials at the time disagreed with there being a military necessity for using atomic weapons in Japan. Truman's chief of staff, Adm. Leahy, said that the nuking "was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." The Japanese themselves later claimed that the Soviet Union's declaration of war was a more important factor in their surrender. Additionally, I quote from http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html "In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.) This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor." There's no substance to your claim that a million lives would have been saved. This is at best a post-trauma rationalization and at worst propaganda.

You're so full of sh*t - you couldn't even be bothered to read the rest of the stuff in the original link - which cited sources, including the US generals involved at the time, one of who went on to be president.

First, that is NOT what I wrote. Please read it again, and avoid "reading in" what you want.

Now, as to the right to know, the public had the right to know that the "babies ripped from incubators in Kuwait" story was a lie, that Colin Powell intentionally lied to the UN about the "aluminium tubes" and other stuff (funny how the rest of the world got to watch the UN inspectors debunking it hours before Powell went and lied, but it was blocked in the US), that the US was conducting a secret war in the middle east well before Vietnam, that the Japanese had offered to surrender before Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
Surrender of designated war criminals.

Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader [1968], pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958):

The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.

and

"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing ... I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon," Eisenhower said in 1963.

The ultimate death toll from just the two a-bombs was 200,000. If the censored stories of surrender offers had been published, the American public would have demanded that the surrender be accepted.

No. I'm talking about practical decision-making in a world where everyone has partial knowledge and some people are (intellectually) dishonest. What I'm saying is:

The people who are best able to determine if the science is good (other scientists) think the science is good. The scientific consensus is global, crossing political, economic, generational, racial, gender, etc. boundaries. This means there is less chance of a systemic bias.

Climate skepticism as a movement is selective, with (impossibly) high standards for climate science but low standards for other science (or the implications of its own ideas). It is driven by politically-motivated non-scientists who care more about the implications of climate change than they do about understanding climate. There is no reason to give climate skeptics the benefit of the doubt since there's nothing special about the belief that humans aren't causing climate change. (The real skeptical position is "we don't know", not "it isn't happening".) Furthermore, the alternate explanation includes an implausible conspiracy theory. Climate skeptics follow the pattern of denial, moving goalposts and repeating old arguments.

As a non-climate scientist (like most on Slashdot), I have to decide what to believe based mostly on the credibility of the people involved. I see no reason to doubt the global scientific community, which has a good track record for figuring things out. I see lots of reasons to doubt climate skeptics. Therefore, as a practical matter, I go with the scientists. Your standard is nice in theory, but in practice it would force me to also be skeptical about relativity, the Holocaust, the September 11th attacks, Obama's citizenship, evolution and the age of the earth, etc., which is a spectacular waste of my time. No matter how good the evidence, you can never convince everyone, especially when egos and fortunes are on the line.

Bullocks, that's the excuse used by the perpetrators of this war crime to justify it. Dropping a bomb over the civil center of a town (the town hall, in fact), military or no is inexcusable. It's like dropping a nuke over Notre Dame because there's arms factories in Paris' suburbs.

On top of that it was widely known that japan was on the verge of capitulation and had been negotiating surrender already (see here for example; google will no doubt turn up way more) so the nukes were just plain unnecessary. Of course, these facts tend to get swiped under the carpet as they don't exactly reflect well on the then US government.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html

Puiblished in the Chicago Tribune. Wasn't a formal attempt that is true, but hardly the closed book you would like it to be.

Sorry but you are just poorly informed, which is not surprising since this issue has been avoided by the media and politicians ever since 1945. Japan has already made several attempts to surrender before the bombs were dropped, and under pretty much the same terms as those that were eventually accepted: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html

Firebombing campaign probably wouldn't have been necessary either as it now seems pretty well confirmed that Japan was already trying to surrender before the bomb was dropped, and under the same terms that were eventually accepted: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html

Most of the whining about my statement has been for a citation. I find this rather hilarious, as the first person who responded to my post gave a citation that supported my point: that there had been earlier offers of peace from japan that were rejected by Roosevelt. Either way, the source I take my information from was the largely undisputed article printed shortly after Japan's surrender, authored by Walter Trohan. For those who do not have access to Proquest, The Journal of Historical Review gives a pretty good analysis of the article and also reprints the text at the bottom of the page.
From the Journal Article:

Trohan's article revealed that two days prior to Rooseveltâ(TM)s departure for Yalta, the president received a crucial, forty page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from highly placed Jap officials offering surrender terms which were virtually identical to the ones eventually dictated by the Allies to the Japanese in August.

Yes, there were 5 offers of peace relayed to the allies long before the atom bombs were dropped. The three I refer to in my original post were the three that had been relayed directly to US forces, the other two were relayed via the British.

Why is it that everyone focuses on the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, completely ignoring the months of fire raids that preceeded

I do not discount the magnitude of these bombings, but a quick search of Wikipedia does reveal that these missions began after the three offers of peace I am discussing. The terms which the allied forces made Japan agree to in the end (which only asked to keep their monarch in place) were identical to the ones given before these bombings. This means that the bombings were entirely unnecessary.

Furthermore, after having been burned to a crisp, they still wouldn't grant an unconditional surrender.

True, they did not agree to an unconditional surrender, but since Roosevelt dismissed the offer out of hand, it is also true that there was no effort truly made to find out if they would accept unconditional surrender. However, since the eventual surrender still allowed Japan the one condition they asked for, I find your point is rather moot.
Though, the bombings did have one effect. They made Japan desperate enough to make similar offers to Russia.
From the end of the Trohan article:

Just before the Japanese surrender the Russian foreign commissar disclosed that the Japs had made peace overtures through Moscow asking that the Soviets mediate the war. These overtures were made in the middle of June through the Russian foreign office and also through a personal letter from Hirohito to Stalin Both overtures were reported to the United States and Britain.

The analysis about bombers and civilian war is mostly correct. Additionally, I never really disagreed that eliminating the enemy's ability to wage war was effective, I only note that the extent to which it was taken in the Pacific Theater was completely unnecessary.

You're also wrong about why we never had future attacks from Japan. They'd have done it if they could ... we just w

your entire post is riddled with excuses that can only be said in hindsight

Hindsight is what gives Bush's critics most of their ammunition too.

But my arguments are not based on hindsight. There were good reasons, why Saddam remained a dangerous enemy — and was soundly bombed before. Alistair Cooke may be too intellectual in his enumeration of reasons, but hard facts remain.

The fact is, *at the time*, there was no good reason to invade Iraq.

Well, it should've been done years earlier — and the previous President agreed. (It is just that his balls were used for a different purpose.) But the reasons to do it didn't become any worse with time.

And even if you don't buy that argument, *terrorism* was no good reason to invade Iraq, since they had no connection to 9/11...

Saddam's support for terrorism is well established regardless of whether or not he was connected to a particular act of terror, such as 9/11. For example, he was sponsoring terror attacks against Israel, by giving $10K to families of the dead bombers. The last reward ceremony took place in February 2003.

In short, they lied.

Whether or not lies were used as additional arguments, does not invalidate the perfectly real other arguments. And, although this is off-topic, they, probably, did not lie, after all.

They lied, and now Americans are paying the price in lives, as well as in hard dollar figures

So? Roosevelt lied too in order to get Americans to begin helping Britain against Hitler in earnest. But it was a just cause, and the world is better off as a result. Oh, and most of the justifications today — Hitler's atrocities — really weren't known to the outside world. Unlike the Iraq war, America's participation in WW2 (many times more expensive in lives in treasure) actually needed some hindsight justification.

And, just FYI, the disapproval at the time had nothing to do with jealousy.

Of course, it is. Either jealousy — no other country could punish Saddam like we did — the entire Europe could not even leash Milosevic without our help; or fear — by the other asshole-regimes world-wide.

O RLY?

Orwell's beliefs about the control of the past, including the recent past, also derived from his experiences in the Spanish civil war, where he found that "no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain for the first time I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts." http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p--9_Bennett.html Just a point on your side...

Here's the actual situation:

Description of "Holocaust denial" antisemitism in the middle east including among the Palestinians.

Further research shows that these hateful kooks are mainstream there, while the holocaust deniers are laughed at or shunned here. Clearly, this is a place that has a problem with rabid ethnic hatred (as the Palestinian "foreign policy" shows).

Great source you've got there, nazi scum.

(They're holocaust denyers. See also their wikipedia entry)

It is a good thing that something similar to this never will happen in Europe!

In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:

Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China's] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union ...

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

-

I figured this was pretty common knowledge today. Google will bring up plenty of information on it. Even the history channel has had shows which mention it. /shrug

It was known by American decision makers that the Japanese were looking to arrange terms of surrender. I think it's pretty easy to speculate why they would go ahead regardless...

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

Freedoms..

would those "freedoms" include the right to freely debate the merits of historical events or discuss the differences between groups of people?

Sorry, Canada isn't this bastion of "freedom" you make it out to be. Any country that has thoughtcrimes legislation is on my blacklist.

Is that the same Curtis LeMay who said: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war"?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

I really didn't expect so much of US military high command to agree with me, but wherever I look there are people with insight into every detail of the situation who are of the opinion that the nuclear bombs were totally unnecessary to end the war with Japan. It's been educational.

'Apart from the moral questions involved, were the atomic bombings militarily necessary? By any rational yardstick, they were not. Japan already had been defeated militarily by June 1945. Almost nothing was left of the once mighty Imperial Navy, and Japan's air force had been all but totally destroyed. Against only token opposition, American war planes ranged at will over the country, and US bombers rained down devastation on her cities, steadily reducing them to rubble.

[...]

Even before the Hiroshima attack, American air force General Curtis LeMay boasted that American bombers were "driving them [Japanese] back to the stone age." Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: "It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." This was confirmed by former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye, who said: "Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s."

[...]

Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them.

[...]

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter."

[...]

By mid-June, six members of Japan's Supreme War Council had secretly charged Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo with the task of approaching Soviet Russia's leaders "with a view to terminating the war if possible by September." On June 22 the Emperor called a meeting of the Supreme War Council, which included the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the leading military figures. "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers," said Emperor Hirohito. "We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will strive now to study the ways and the means to conclude the war. In doing so, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."

[...]

Summarizing the messages between Togo and Sato, US naval intelligence said that Japan's leaders, "though still balking at the term unconditional surrender," recognized that the war was lost, and had reached the point where they have "no objection to the restoration of peace on the basis of the [1941] Atlantic Charter." These messages, said Assistant Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss, "indeed stipulated only that the integrity of the Japanese Royal Family be preserved."'

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

The first reference I can find to such a law is in the Journal for Historical Review. The home page of this institute seems awfully dedicated to Hitler, and the writeup of the law doesn't mention any specifics, and refers to the "Zionist state". Still skeptical, I found this in the Air Force Law Review, which looks a little more promising (search for 'Israel', but God knows I can't figure out where that shit is in the real law books)

The idea that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming has, unfortunately, been used by some individuals with unsavory political affiliations. My own view of the matter is that it was probably a good thing in the long run, as no war has ever been so morally cut-and-dry as WW2--however, it says something of who FDR was, I think. It has been years since I studied this seriously, but this article from the Institute for Historical Review does a very nice job of summarizing the debate, and the history of the debate.

The phrase "mouthpiece of American imperialism," comes from an Al Jazeera executive recently interviewed on the Daily Show, describing how he is recieved in the Arab world. The documentary Control Room deals with this extensively, I understand (though I'm still trying to find some way to see it). Arab leaders hate the network, which has helped its popularity greatly. Their popularity stems primarily from the vivid debates they start, by allowing all sides to be represented. While I do watch CNN every morning as I get ready for work and regularly scan the AP news wire, I've come to use Al Jazeera's English edition increasingly as a news source. It is a very different view of things, that's certain, but I've not yet found any consistent bias except in their willingness to let the other side--whether they're terrorist murderers or imperialist conquerors--have their say.

The idea that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming has, unfortunately, been used by some individuals with unsavory political affiliations. My own view of the matter is that it was probably a good thing in the long run, as no war has ever been so morally cut-and-dry as WW2--however, it says something of who FDR was, I think. It has been years since I studied this seriously, but this article from the Institute for Historical Review does a very nice job of summarizing the debate, and the history of the debate.

The phrase "mouthpiece of American imperialism," comes from an Al Jazeera executive recently interviewed on the Daily Show, describing how he is recieved in the Arab world. The documentary Control Room deals with this extensively, I understand (though I'm still trying to find some way to see it). Arab leaders hate the network, which has helped its popularity greatly. Their popularity stems primarily from the vivid debates they start, by allowing all sides to be represented. While I do watch CNN every morning as I get ready for work and regularly scan the AP news wire, I've come to use Al Jazeera's English edition increasingly as a news source. It is a very different view of things, that's certain, but I've not yet found any consistent bias except in their willingness to let the other side--whether they're terrorist murderers or imperialist conquerors--have their say.

So, WHAT ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST?
We're still missing all the evidence you know.

I'd suggest reading some books, like this one:
http://www.ety.com/HRP/booksonline/graf/toc.htm

Robert Faurisson's got good points of views, as has the Institute For Historical Review.
http://www.ihr.org

Like Germany it is intent in gaining territory and resources like Afghanistan and Iraq, Germany claimed it was liberating when it launched its invasions. As with Germany there is a high state of Paranoia about enemies all around and in there midst this is tweaked and worked on by the government. If you question this you are yelled down by the fanatics possibly labelled a traitor/terrorist and shoved of to a concentration camp where you have no right's, not saying all those there are innocent of any crime but a lot will be. The arrogant feeling of racial/cultural supremacy that Germany was encouraged to feel is very similar to what a lot of American's feel. A lot of American and Europeans died fighting to remove people like bush.

This is not a dig at America it's people or it's way of life but a warning that history will judge you later and it will use all the facts from all sides plus hindsight so don't have knee jerk reactions don't be fooled by spin and always question.

Finally to all those Americans who complain about French treachery check out this and this. Some allies America where then the whole plan was simply try to cause hurt and try to get ride of a trading rival.

It cannot be described as racist in any way.

Any website that warns of the Jews having too much power in the media or politics is racist to me. Imagine if I changed a quote on that website, "Throughout history, said Weber, Jews have time and again wielded great power to further group interests that are separate from, and often contrary to, those of the non-Jewish populations among whom they live." to this: "Throughout history, said Weber, Blacks have time and again wielded great power to further group interests that are separate from, and often contrary to, those of the non-Black populations among whom they live."

That would be quite racist. The IHR is merely an anti-semitic group of thugs who try to sweep the holocaust under the rug, so to speak. To take them seriously is to throw all logic out the window. Unfortunately, I will be going on vacation soon, so I will be unable to continue this interesting debate any longer. Thank you for your arguments, I hope to disagree with you more in the future.

By the way, since you posted a nice link to the the establishment of holocaust existence supporters... I suggest you check out this site It cannot be described as racist in any way. Indeed, many of the writers are in fact Jewish, some even Rabbis. You will find that not all Jews are Zionists, and not all support the myth of an orchestrated holocaust. Some articles are written by professors at major universities. Some from less free countries have even gone to prison for their views.

Good luck.

The means of study was a questionairre. I've googled for it til my fingers ached and I can't find it. Without knowing what questions they asked and how they asked them, how do we know if this study is legitimate or if it's a dud?

Revisionist historians are in the same league that the NASA guy paid to expose the liars for what they are.

For more information visit the Institute for Historical Review.

WHy do you lot think Zimmerman is some sort of God? For more info on these people, check them out here.

Journal of Historical Review

Biowarfare in the 20th Century

Biohazard (Alibek) review

It's hard to imagine anyone much better placed than Alibek to know the truth.

The equation you and many before you draw is Invasion Deaths > Atomic Deaths. Putting aside the fact that this is 1) speculation and 2) been convincingly refuted, you have to keep in mind that in wartime, soldiers are paid and trained to kill and die for their country. If it takes a million soldiers to "win" then that's what it takes. That's why you have armies and strategy and generals and a whole lotta soldiers. If you can't win on those terms you shouldn't be able to win. There is no moral or ethical justification for premeditated killing of noncombatants, whether it's one mother, or hundreds of thousands of mothers, shoppers, nurses, musicians, drunkards and heroes. And yet the refrain: but we would have lost too many troops! It is the most cowardly strategy.

And we have never owned up - Germany, Italy, and Spain never stop agonizing or apologizing for their roles in this most bloody century, but we are serene...

www.ihr.org

Anyone who spends an hour on this site, or a few hours reading decent articles posted on alt.revisionism, will soon learn that it is not Irving, Butz and Cole that are the Nazis, it isa the likes of Simon Wiesenthal that are.

And they are NOT denying the Holocaust(tm), they are saying three things (mainly):

• The figure of 6 million jews and 5 million others is utter twaddle
• There was no intentional killing - it was all down to stuff like Typhus.
• There were no gas chambers - those "gas chambers" disguised as showers were, gasp!, really showers after all!

  • Read with an open mind and you'll be surprised.

    For anyone really interested in this, but Butz's book, "The Hoax of The Twentieth Century". Everything is referenced to a high degree (unlike books that dispute this, such as the ones from Lipstadt). Get the book from Loompanics.

    And for what it's worth, some of the "Deniers" are even jews themselves (i.e. David Cole).

    Another book of interest that was recently published (Butz's was originally printed in the 70s), is Fincklesteins one on *why* the jews promote the Holocaust(tm).

Sounds like a fruit machine I once used. I could pass on the name of a company that sells the little bulbs if you like. www.ihr.org

www.ihr.org

For a start, the machines have 4 rotors. They are the ones used on the subs (like the ones the BRITS, NOT THE YANKS, got the codebook for on U571)

They are NOT priceless. Quite a few exist. But only three exist at Bletchly Park

For more info on the war, in particular the Jews/Holocaust(tm) check out www.ihr.org

Notice how the slashdot moderators modded the previous post up to 3 or more? Simply because it is a pro-jew post? In the same way they do the same for anything pro-linux or pro-transmeta. If it's Intel or Microsoft they get modded down.

Just because a jew calls someone else a "jew hater" he is now anti-semitic (no proof ever required) and the posts are modded appropriately.

You're going to mod this post down anyway, just because I've hit a nerve - you know full well you haven't got the balls to criticise the jews even if you wanted to (and I doubt you want to). And because of that I'm going to repost the other guys URL of http://www.ihr.org so you can read some more about the jews.

Gary

Just because a jew calls someone else a "jew hater" he is now anti-semitic (no proof ever required) and the posts are modded appropriately.

You're going to mod this post down anyway, just because I've hit a nerve. And because of that I'm going to repost the other guys URL of http://www.ihr.org so you can read some more about the jews. Gary