On Monday, December 29, 2014 10:34:51 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 29, 2014 7:15:59 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> On 12/28/2014 9:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> The estimates were in the hundreds of thousands - and that's among U.S. >>> servicemen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall they >>> obviously would have also killed a lot of Japanese defenders. >>> >> >> The estimates were continually revised upwards, from the initial >> estimate of 30,000 (perhaps in an effort to retroactively justify the >> bomb's use). >> >> >> Estimates of hundreds of thousands were at the time. Perhaps they have >> been continually revised downwards to attribute guilt. >> >> >> >>> >>> Japanese casualties from Nagasaki and Hiroshima totaled about 200,000. >>> Suppose U.S. casualties in an invasion had been only 10,000 and Japanese >>> casualties only 20,000; do you think Truman should have sacrificed 10,000 >>> of his own citizenry to save 180,000 of the enemy? I can assure you that >>> the U.S. electorate would not have agreed with such a calculation. >>> >>> >> So how high do you think the ratio of dead foreign civilians to dead >> domestic soldiers can get before its no longer politically acceptable? >> 100:1, 1000:1, 10000:1? At some point it becomes de facto genocide. >> >> >> Ask yourself. If you were President what ratio would you countenance? >> Remember, you're balancing the lives of your constituents who elected you >> to lead in their interests, against the lives of an enemy who has already >> killed 100,000 U.S. troops and between 10 and 20 million in China, Burma, >> Indochina,... >> >> Brent >> > > > What is most striking to me about this conversation, is that bar one, > ever single contribution posted to the thread, basically draws on WWII > allied propaganda ENTIRELY for the substance of what they say, the > opposition relative to others, and so on. > > The point here isn't whether and how much was omitted, or included for > misdirective effect. If it was accurate sufficiently to depend on 70 years > later, that on its own would be unprecedented ....unique in history. > > I mean. We're talking here ab out what was broadcast for public > consumption, while the war was still in play. Just that it's unchanged for > getting on a century is unprecedented. > > It's also just dang unscholarly that you pelple use wartime propaganda > like this. not one of you, all of you....without pre-arrangement. > > Particularly when major studies have taken plae, drawing on White House > records and other soures. Primary sources. That have completely changed the > picture. > > I don't think ay of you have authentic scientific values. >
Bowie performs 'boys' or whatever the track was titled. He musters a one time only dance routine...not seen before or since. The drag routine, apparently lampoons what was going on in Berlin at the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SoiXlp0HAU -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
