|
Post by Tomas on Aug 9, 2023 13:38:42 GMT
Today is the Feast Day of St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, or St. Edith Stein, who was murdered in Auschwitz for being Jewish, along with her sister. Or was she? What definite proof do we have? She was supposedly cremated, which is very convenient since we have no remains to examine. I can't find any eyewitness accounts. Obviously, I'm being grimly satirical here. We know she was murdered, along with millions of her fellow Jews. Does the exact number matter? But you can apply random scepticism to ANY historical fact, which by their nature are not amenable to instant verification. We rely on historical sources and contemporary accounts every single day. If we questioned them all to the standard that the Holocaust is questioned, we would be in a perpetual limbo of agnosticism. You can apply random scepticism to any historical fact, but you can also apply balance and if someone sees something that begs a question, and asks that question I think St Teresa Benedicta would not object. She is no doubt in heaven enjoying her reward and has forgiven her oppressors. The question I have is.....how do they know "she probably died on the 9th of August"? (Running for cover!) Maybe beside the point but one general note on archival sources of the Communist type, to simply find one name in some list does not mean it is of necessity the truthful dates or connections etc. Since both Moscow and Nazi Germany kept many records, it takes professional skills by the historians to do accurate appraisals of what real facts are entangled in the contents. Sort of skills like the various Kremlogists among Western historians and investigative journalists had. In urgency needed sometimes even outside the Iron prisons to understand the devilish conditions.
|
|
|
Post by hilary on Aug 9, 2023 17:14:06 GMT
Many on the progressive left believe all conservatives are closet Nazis. People who post careless or badly thought out queries or claims here and on social media in general can inadvertently (I hope) provide ammunition to the enemies of freedom and tradition. This is a "Conservatives forum". A forum is usually a place where people exchange ideas, like a democracy should be. Even Helen McEntee can tolerate views that are not the mainstream. ("People have a right to offend others and to hold political opinions which are not the mainstream"). Why would the progressive left be here and why do you care?
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 9, 2023 18:38:38 GMT
Today also the Hiroshima date. Worst memorial ever besides the Holocaust. The American that "did his duty" and dropped the unspeakable unheard of Evil over Nagasaki was 33rd grade Freemason according to sources. Incidentally Freemason or not incidentally. That could be a debatable question for any historical cenference, if it were not as Political Incorrect as deemed. Are all such to be dismissed due to either sceptical sense or denied facts, by convenience or conventional conformity in conclusions? No I am only doing a staggering attempt to broaden the lack of trust problem too. There are good and bad men in every kind of group. History works patient and slow, in a good sense precisely as the Jewish memory, the Long Memory namely (according to what several very sensical thinkers use to say). I presume Tomas this is President Truman and not not the actual pilot of Enola Gay you are referring to?
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 9, 2023 18:41:22 GMT
Many on the progressive left believe all conservatives are closet Nazis. People who post careless or badly thought out queries or claims here and on social media in general can inadvertently (I hope) provide ammunition to the enemies of freedom and tradition. This is a "Conservatives forum". A forum is usually a place where people exchange ideas, like a democracy should be. Even Helen McEntee can tolerate views that are not the mainstream. ("People have a right to offend others and to hold political opinions which are not the mainstream"). Why would the progressive left be here and why do you care? Why should we care? How about encouraging them in their anti Free speech agenda by providing evidence of Holocaust denial and scepticism?
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 9, 2023 18:50:41 GMT
Today also the Hiroshima date. Worst memorial ever besides the Holocaust. The American that "did his duty" and dropped the unspeakable unheard of Evil over Nagasaki was 33rd grade Freemason according to sources. Incidentally Freemason or not incidentally. That could be a debatable question for any historical cenference, if it were not as Political Incorrect as deemed. Are all such to be dismissed due to either sceptical sense or denied facts, by convenience or conventional conformity in conclusions? No I am only doing a staggering attempt to broaden the lack of trust problem too. There are good and bad men in every kind of group. History works patient and slow, in a good sense precisely as the Jewish memory, the Long Memory namely (according to what several very sensical thinkers use to say). Conventional fire bombing killed more civilians than the two atom bomb attacks. Personally Stalins deliberate starving of upwards of 1.5 million Ukrainian peasants was a crueler more drawn out atrocity which has on going implications up to today. Hiroshima ushered in the nuclear age to be sure but it was less bloody than the non nuclear bombings of 1937-1945 in Europe and Asia. Arguably Nuclear deterence has saved many millions by making a conventional World War iii impossible?
|
|
|
Post by hilary on Aug 9, 2023 21:43:50 GMT
This is a "Conservatives forum". A forum is usually a place where people exchange ideas, like a democracy should be. Even Helen McEntee can tolerate views that are not the mainstream. ("People have a right to offend others and to hold political opinions which are not the mainstream"). Why would the progressive left be here and why do you care? Why should we care? How about encouraging them in their anti Free speech agenda by providing evidence of Holocaust denial and scepticism? The whole point of free speech is that we can question everything. Advances in science and technology will either confirm or undermine the "accepted" (or acceptable) version of events. People can still choose to believe whichever version they prefer or find most credible. Not allowing people to ask questions is what makes people want to ask them.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 9, 2023 21:52:45 GMT
[quote So, no, I don't have any animosity towards Jewish people. I don't think "the Jewish people" should be given a special status though. We're all God's children. (quote) We aren't all God's children at least not in Christian theology. The Jews are the chosen people of the original biblical covenant. Christians are the Children of that fulfilled covenant in Christ by divine adoption. "For Christ himself has brought us peace by making Jews and Gentiles one people. With his own body he broke down the wall that separated them and kept them enemies. He abolished the Jewish Law with its commandments and rules, in order to create out of the two races one new people in union with himself, in this way making peace." (Ephesians 2.14-16) "It is through Christ that all of us, Jews and Gentiles, are able to come in the one Spirit into the presence of the Father" (Ephesians 2.18) You are right to say we are not all God's children. To those who rejected Jesus and tried to kill Him He said "You are the children of your father, the Devil, and you want to follow your father's desires". (John 8.44) He also said that "Abraham did nothing like this" (John 8.40). I think Christians believe that all are created by God and He wants us all to return to Him through Jesus. Pope Francis uses the image of God's family when talking about different denominations and faiths. It's challenging not to be superficial and complacent though, and to confront the difficult differences honestly. Maybe our ancestors were better at this than we are. St Paul addresses Ephesian followers of Christ in those passages not the whole human race. They were either gentile or Jewish converts. There are no distinctions between Christians in the new covenant/Church. At least in theory! All human beings are made in God's image but Christians believe we have a specially intimate relationship with God. This is an undeserved gift not because we are somehow better people than devout Moslems or Buddhists. And we are meant to spread that faith and invite them to become God's sons and daughters in the church.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 9, 2023 21:59:19 GMT
Why should we care? How about encouraging them in their anti Free speech agenda by providing evidence of Holocaust denial and scepticism? The whole point of free speech is that we can question everything. Advances in science and technology will either confirm or undermine the "accepted" (or acceptable) version of events. People can still choose to believe whichever version they prefer or find most credible. Not allowing people to ask questions is what makes people want to ask them. Normal people don't question the basics about the Nazi genocide as you seem to have on previous occasions.( Apologies if I am mixing you up with another poster if you havent )Do you have any historical training or background ? Virtually the only individuals who claim this issue is somehow linked to "truth" are neo Fascist apologists or Islamic anti semites. The hard left also engage in Holocaust scepticism. Strange three vile hate filled ideologies are united in this obsession.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Aug 10, 2023 7:12:18 GMT
Today also the Hiroshima date. Worst memorial ever besides the Holocaust. The American that "did his duty" and dropped the unspeakable unheard of Evil over Nagasaki was 33rd grade Freemason according to sources. Incidentally Freemason or not incidentally. That could be a debatable question for any historical cenference, if it were not as Political Incorrect as deemed. Are all such to be dismissed due to either sceptical sense or denied facts, by convenience or conventional conformity in conclusions? No I am only doing a staggering attempt to broaden the lack of trust problem too. There are good and bad men in every kind of group. History works patient and slow, in a good sense precisely as the Jewish memory, the Long Memory namely (according to what several very sensical thinkers use to say). Conventional fire bombing killed more civilians than the two atom bomb attacks. Personally Stalins deliberate starving of upwards of 1.5 million Ukrainian peasants was a crueler more drawn out atrocity which has on going implications up to today. Hiroshima ushered in the nuclear age to be sure but it was less bloody than the non nuclear bombings of 1937-1945 in Europe and Asia. Arguably Nuclear deterence has saved many millions by making a conventional World War iii impossible? Sorry, defending the evil on Hiroshima and Nagasaki will not be alright to be left to that. Arguably NOT this to be credited as to have "saved millions" like what you argued, it is a deplorable take!!!! It didn´t make the conventional (in the ww2-sort of sense) war/s impossible, or other death toll mega matters either. Starving by Stalin in Ukraine, or by Churchill in India (not approved as it is another story, another starving, another type?) is bad. Modern warfare is bad. But the worst evil in war history, these events, neither hindered the "ww3". It came and goes on somehow as phases of the Cold War old and present, from Communism to high tech... Or should the Middle East wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, as part minor "ww" in some sense even, be ignored, as if that like the starving and genocide in Africa are too small to care for? Passive low level ww is not the same as the 1940s to be sure, but to find good in the Nuclear Holocaust is far too much stated to be reasonable. Americans themselves know it was decided, in evidence targeted against the Catholic Nagasaki. Evidently most Presidents has had some connexion (more or less like a formality?) to the Masonic cult, yet being a 33rd grade activist may call for other suspicion than it was no more than incidental what they did towards Catholics, the major force blocking its ways, up to 1958 at least. Excerpt from one article on the strike against Japan AND the Catholic Church (arguably, not the absolute 100 percent certain, the wonder that seldom lives!) by the apocalyptical Nuclear pain blast from hell of August 1945: President Harry Truman learned about the atomic weapons program when he took office. By then, operational momentum for testing both “gadgets,” a uranium bomb and plutonium implosion device, saturated decision-making. A “target committee” appointed by the military, comprised of officers and nuclear scientists, zeroed in on the least humane option: detonating the bombs to maximize damage to entire cities of at least three miles diameter. Yet, experienced war hands such as Dwight David Eisenhower, General of the Army, and General Omar Bradley, opposed their use. Eisenhower explained later, “Japan was already defeated and…dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.” Declassified documents portray Stimson as ambivalent: He decried civilian casualties of incendiary bombings, telling Truman on June 6 he didn’t want the US “to get the reputation of outdoing Hitler in atrocities.” While in Potsdam, he went directly to the president to request protection for the ancient city of Kyoto based on cultural value. Stimson reported in his diary, the president concurred. Nagasaki did not show up on hit lists generated in May and June. Its mountainous, irregular terrain failed target committee preferences. Instead, the city was subjected to five rounds of brutal incendiary attacks. Top-tier A-bomb targets escaped firebombing so the catastrophic blast would get full credit for destruction. Allied POW camps in Nagasaki argued against obliterating it, too. At the very last minute, Nagasaki appears as a potential target on a draft strike order dated July 24—as a handwritten add-on, coinciding with the July 24 Stimson-Truman meeting on targets.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 10, 2023 9:56:22 GMT
Conventional fire bombing killed more civilians than the two atom bomb attacks. Personally Stalins deliberate starving of upwards of 1.5 million Ukrainian peasants was a crueler more drawn out atrocity which has on going implications up to today. Hiroshima ushered in the nuclear age to be sure but it was less bloody than the non nuclear bombings of 1937-1945 in Europe and Asia. Arguably Nuclear deterence has saved many millions by making a conventional World War iii impossible? Sorry, defending the evil on Hiroshima and Nagasaki will not be alright to be left to that. Arguably NOT this to be credited as to have "saved millions" like what you argued, it is a deplorable take!!!! It didn´t make the conventional (in the ww2-sort of sense) war/s impossible, or other death toll mega matters either. Starving by Stalin in Ukraine, or by Churchill in India (not approved as it is another story, another starving, another type?) is bad. Modern warfare is bad. But the worst evil in war history, these events, neither hindered the "ww3". It came and goes on somehow as phases of the Cold War old and present, from Communism to high tech... Or should the Middle East wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, as part minor "ww" in some sense even, be ignored, as if that like the starving and genocide in Africa are too small to care for? Passive low level ww is not the same as the 1940s to be sure, but to find good in the Nuclear Holocaust is far too much stated to be reasonable. Americans themselves know it was decided, in evidence targeted against the Catholic Nagasaki. Evidently most Presidents has had some connexion (more or less like a formality?) to the Masonic cult, yet being a 33rd grade activist may call for other suspicion than it was no more than incidental what they did towards Catholics, the major force blocking its ways, up to 1958 at least. Excerpt from one article on the strike against Japan AND the Catholic Church (arguably, not the absolute 100 percent certain, the wonder that seldom lives!) by the apocalyptical Nuclear pain blast from hell of August 1945: President Harry Truman learned about the atomic weapons program when he took office. By then, operational momentum for testing both “gadgets,” a uranium bomb and plutonium implosion device, saturated decision-making. A “target committee” appointed by the military, comprised of officers and nuclear scientists, zeroed in on the least humane option: detonating the bombs to maximize damage to entire cities of at least three miles diameter. Yet, experienced war hands such as Dwight David Eisenhower, General of the Army, and General Omar Bradley, opposed their use. Eisenhower explained later, “Japan was already defeated and…dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.” Declassified documents portray Stimson as ambivalent: He decried civilian casualties of incendiary bombings, telling Truman on June 6 he didn’t want the US “to get the reputation of outdoing Hitler in atrocities. Tomas I am well aware of the debates around the usage of the atomic bombs on Japan. It can't be divorced from the wider issue of terror bombing against civilians to break the will of the enemy. Ironically Japan initiated terror attacks on Chinese cities in the 1930s. The Italian Fascists used poison gas in Ethiopia and the Nazi Condor Legion regularly used bombing in Spain to aid Franco. The Nazis terror bombed Neutral states and broadcast the results to terrorise other countries. Many more civilians died via non nuclear terror attacks. The allies responded in kind with terror raids on Germany and Japan.Total war is hideous but can we in 2023 criticise those who faced the actual decisions to defeat the demon of Fascism as quickly as possible with as few deaths as possible. Stalin urged greater and more ruthless RAF raids on Germany as retribution and because he accused Churchill of sacrificing Soviet troops and preserving his own. I don't defend the Japanese nuclear attacks but an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost many more lives. Nuclear deterence /terror has kept the peace in Europe for almost 7 decades. A non nuclear world makes large scale slaughter more likely ironically The movie Oppenheimer brings up some of the profound moral issues. The bomb can't be uninvented. The further invention of the hydrogen bomb was a truly shocking development. Science divorced from morality is a dangerous existential threat.
|
|
|
Post by hilary on Aug 10, 2023 10:42:50 GMT
Aug 10, 2023 10:56:22 GMT 1 cato said:
"I don't defend the Japanese nuclear attacks but an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost many more lives".
The lives of American soldiers and it wouldn't have had the political support there.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Aug 10, 2023 13:09:07 GMT
Interestingly, Leonard Cheshire-- who witnessed the bombing of Nagasaki in an accompanying plane-- defended the action as saving more lives than it took. I don't agree with him, though. Cheshire was a WWII flying ace who founded various charities, converted to Catholicism, and is now being investigated as a possible saint.
He was also a member of Bomber Command, who bombed German, and an ardent defender of its commander Arthur Harris.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Aug 10, 2023 14:27:51 GMT
Sorry, defending the evil on Hiroshima and Nagasaki will not be alright to be left to that. Arguably NOT this to be credited as to have "saved millions" like what you argued, it is a deplorable take!!!! It didn´t make the conventional (in the ww2-sort of sense) war/s impossible, or other death toll mega matters either. Starving by Stalin in Ukraine, or by Churchill in India (not approved as it is another story, another starving, another type?) is bad. Modern warfare is bad. But the worst evil in war history, these events, neither hindered the "ww3". It came and goes on somehow as phases of the Cold War old and present, from Communism to high tech... Or should the Middle East wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, as part minor "ww" in some sense even, be ignored, as if that like the starving and genocide in Africa are too small to care for? Passive low level ww is not the same as the 1940s to be sure, but to find good in the Nuclear Holocaust is far too much stated to be reasonable. Americans themselves know it was decided, in evidence targeted against the Catholic Nagasaki. Evidently most Presidents has had some connexion (more or less like a formality?) to the Masonic cult, yet being a 33rd grade activist may call for other suspicion than it was no more than incidental what they did towards Catholics, the major force blocking its ways, up to 1958 at least. Excerpt from one article on the strike against Japan AND the Catholic Church (arguably, not the absolute 100 percent certain, the wonder that seldom lives!) by the apocalyptical Nuclear pain blast from hell of August 1945: President Harry Truman learned about the atomic weapons program when he took office. By then, operational momentum for testing both “gadgets,” a uranium bomb and plutonium implosion device, saturated decision-making. A “target committee” appointed by the military, comprised of officers and nuclear scientists, zeroed in on the least humane option: detonating the bombs to maximize damage to entire cities of at least three miles diameter. Yet, experienced war hands such as Dwight David Eisenhower, General of the Army, and General Omar Bradley, opposed their use. Eisenhower explained later, “Japan was already defeated and…dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.” Declassified documents portray Stimson as ambivalent: He decried civilian casualties of incendiary bombings, telling Truman on June 6 he didn’t want the US “to get the reputation of outdoing Hitler in atrocities. Tomas I am well aware of the debates around the usage of the atomic bombs on Japan. It can't be divorced from the wider issue of terror bombing against civilians to break the will of the enemy. Ironically Japan initiated terror attacks on Chinese cities in the 1930s. The Italian Fascists used poison gas in Ethiopia and the Nazi Condor Legion regularly used bombing in Spain to aid Franco. The Nazis terror bombed Neutral states and broadcast the results to terrorise other countries. Many more civilians died via non nuclear terror attacks. The allies responded in kind with terror raids on Germany and Japan.Total war is hideous but can we in 2023 criticise those who faced the actual decisions to defeat the demon of Fascism as quickly as possible with as few deaths as possible. Stalin urged greater and more ruthless RAF raids on Germany as retribution and because he accused Churchill of sacrificing Soviet troops and preserving his own. I don't defend the Japanese nuclear attacks but an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost many more lives. Nuclear deterence /terror has kept the peace in Europe for almost 7 decades. A non nuclear world makes large scale slaughter more likely ironically The movie Oppenheimer brings up some of the profound moral issues. The bomb can't be uninvented. The further invention of the hydrogen bomb was a truly shocking development. Science divorced from morality is a dangerous existential threat. Ok, when there is a question mark at the line that said it arguably "saved millions" it can be discussed. But it is far fetched to take that demon warfare as anything other than evil. It did hardly save. It can hardly even be held that it caused man to hesitate pulling extinction of life on earth. Mankind (rather than "men", as in majority of men) became aware that evil is evil, so that those who were unaware was not so after that. But then again, it tends to be like saying something like "the most extremist 'improved' torture was/is good in the way that it saved/saves millions of men because it hinder/hindered them from claiming honesty in politics and business". It may have hindered men to defend weakness and human rights, but it was no help. It was not evil that saved, not anything anytime. My argumentation may be bad but I cannot subscribe to any take making the Hiroshima and Nagasaki evil benevolent, not by numbers nor by nature. Warfare might have been less disastrous also without that "new strong innovative" Hell-experiment, that is pure what-if-territory loved by history buffs and more guesswork than history proper. But taken here think least as much the quote from Eisenhower and others it was not considered needed by all experts strategists and generals. Glad you never fell into condescending against my negative view in the context. Thanks for that tone! The new movie would be interesting to watch on screen.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 11, 2023 14:08:55 GMT
Aug 10, 2023 10:56:22 GMT 1 cato said: "I don't defend the Japanese nuclear attacks but an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost many more lives". The lives of American soldiers and it wouldn't have had the political support there. If you look at the ferocious battles the US Marines engaged in fighting in the Pacific Japanese casualty figures were much higher than the American. These were trained troops who refused to surrender and fought to the death rather than give in. An invasion of the Japanese homeland was widely expected to be a bloodbath. Most of these deaths would have been Japanese civilians.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 11, 2023 15:02:29 GMT
From Gemma O Doherty to the Japanese war. We have travelled a meandering route ! I might start a separate post on the morality of the bomb or the immorality of the said invention.
|
|