It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Johann Breyer , 89, charged with 'complicity in murder' in US of 216,000 Jews at Auschwitz

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: neversaynever

There's a difference between an act of war and a crime against humanity. Everyone dropped bombs on everyone else, these 2 just happened to be nuclear. The Holocaust on the other hand falls into the second category.




posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

Yeah thanks, I didn't need a definition.


Ok , what exacly were you looking for?

Maybe i can help?



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
I think those who were his victims descendents might feel differently.

The Jewish victims imo are entitled to justice whether the guy is 100 or 30



I completely agree.. As far as the age of this guy, it should not even be a consideration.

My thought process is -
If we start dismissing Nazi war crimes it could create a mindset that those types of acts / actions were somehow permissible.

In my opinion I think this is one of those categories where charges / day in court is a must, regardless of all other factors.

I would also point out that the Nazis had their day in court where as 6 million Jews / 50 million deaths were never afforded that option.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: neversaynever

There's a difference between an act of war and a crime against humanity. Everyone dropped bombs on everyone else, these 2 just happened to be nuclear. The Holocaust on the other hand falls into the second category.




Really? So you think dropping a nuke on innocent people is not a crime against humanity?are you suggesting this mans crimes are far worse than Hiroshima?

I think both acts are "crimes against humanity"

An act of war! Heh .....what a sad excuse.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The Allies bombed the hell out of Germany. Germany bombed the hell out of England. That's war.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ugmold
How about all the soldiers who killed someone in all the Wars? Isn't this the same? They were all following orders, were they not? Take all the Civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.


I am not defending Nazi Germany for starters. What I am doing is adding some background info people might not be aware of.

WWII had some funky laws in effect for wartime. The point was raised about the German treatment of Russian prisoners. The "justification" by Germany was Russia was not a signatory to the treaty on rules of war. Since Russia was not bound by the rules Hitler made the decision to deal with them.

Military members who are caught in civilian clothing are not protected by the treaties. This area again is goofy because spies were allowed to be summarily executed. If a nation is a signatory, and they are engaged in war with another country who is also a signatory, any breach of the conventions allowed for a reprisal in proportion.


With that said I am just adding info and not defending what occurred.

As for War Crimes - All wars are crimes.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

So your saying let's use this old man as an example?


My thought process is -
If we start dismissing Nazi war crimes it could create a mindset that those types of acts / actions were somehow permissible.



Um mm news flash we have already dismissed "war crimes"



en.m.wikipedia.org...

Can we bring to justice all thoes responsible to?



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The Allies bombed the hell out of Germany. Germany bombed the hell out of England. That's war.




And the U.S nuked japan ..

Exactly , crimes against humanity...


(post by neversaynever removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The Allies bombed the hell out of Germany. Germany bombed the hell out of England. That's war.




And the U.S nuked japan ..

Exactly , crimes against humanity...


So what do you think the Allies should have done about Japan's and Germany's aggression? A sit down? They tried that. It didn't work.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
If that guy goes on war crimes will bush, bush and obama follow. They did worst things in a war situation. War crimes is war crimes. When they are done will america put Netanyahu on crimes against humanity for what he is doing to the Palestinians? No i do not think so. Double standards.
While we at it what is the difference between what was done to the jews and what they now do against the Palestinians?



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The Allies bombed the hell out of Germany. Germany bombed the hell out of England. That's war.




And the U.S nuked japan ..

Exactly , crimes against humanity...







So what do you think the Allies should have done about Japan's and Germany's aggression? A sit down? They tried that. It didn't work.



I am not here to decide on the past .

The actions of war are terrible and it seems only the innocent suffer.

But the act of nuking Japan should never have been an option.


The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike

Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):

In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki 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.


www.washingtonsblog.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

Tell you what. The next war you get to set the rules. Let's see if everyone plays nice.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

During WWII manufacturing / military manufacturing centers were fair game to be attacked. The cities that were chosen for nuclear attack were based on that very premise.

As for casualties every civilian man and woman over 16 (if I remember right) were mobilized by the Japanese military. They were armed with weapons, antiquated weapons, and finally sharp objects. The total number of "military units/manpower reached into the millions..

An invasion of mainland japan would have been just as bad as an invasion of the US mainland by Japan.

Japanese Cities

* - Hiroshima

During World War II, the 2nd General Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.[12]


& - Nagasaki

On August 9, 1945, Nagasaki was the target of the United States' second atomic bomb attack (and the second detonation of a plutonium bomb; the first was tested in central New Mexico, USA) at 11:02 a.m., when the north of the city was destroyed in less than a second, and an estimated 40,000 people were killed instantly.[7] According to the statistics published by the city of Nagasaki, an estimated 73,884 people died and 74,909 people were injured by the bomb codenamed "Fat Man" by the end of 1945.[8]

The original target for the bomb was Kokura but as this was obscured by clouds on the day it was replaced by Nagasaki, an important port in the vicinity. As a result of clouds, the pilot and his crew were going to use radar, but an opening allowed them to make visual contact with a racetrack in Nagasaki. Fat Man's intended target was the Mitsubishi Torpedo Plant. It exploded at an approximate altitude of 1,800 feet.[9]

[10] According to statistics found within Nagasaki Peace Park, the death toll from the atomic bombing totalled 73,884, including 2,000 Korean forced workers[11] and eight Allied POWs, as well as another 74,909 injured. On the day of the bombing, an estimated 263,000 were in Nagasaki, including 240,000 Japanese residents, 10,000 Korean residents, 2,500 conscripted Korean workers, 9,000 Japanese soldiers, 600 conscripted Chinese workers, and 400 Allied prisoners of war.[12] The bomb was somewhat more powerful than the "Little Boy" bomb dropped over Hiroshima, but because of Nagasaki's more uneven terrain, there was less damage.



Again not endorsing.. Just adding info to the discussion.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Every time.

The US government had a duty of care to those citizens that were called up to fight.
They had no duty of care to the Japanese people who were the aggressors in WWII.

Not dropping the 2 nukes would have meant upwards of 250'000 further US and allied deaths & the probable execution of every POW and civilian prisoner.

It's a no brainer, isn't it? Preserve the lives of your own people first, and if you look at the bigger picture, well, those two bombs probably saved a whole heap of Jap lives also, purely by stopping the war cold.

There's a lot of things that the US can be castigated for, nuking two cities to end a war quickly isn't one of them.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

No
I am saying that crimes of that nature should not be ignored because of age. To not hold those people accountable only invites a repeat somewhere down the road.

Secondly all sides committed war crimes so you can stop with the only America list.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


You can try and justify it all you want .

The fact is the top military brass disagreed with the bombings.



www.washingtonsblog.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

And had Japan or Germany been successful in their own nuclear weapons programs and built it first, it would have been used against the allies.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Every time.

The US government had a duty of care to those citizens that were called up to fight.
They had no duty of care to the Japanese people who were the aggressors in WWII.

Not dropping the 2 nukes would have meant upwards of 250'000 further US and allied deaths & the probable execution of every POW and civilian prisoner.

It's a no brainer, isn't it? Preserve the lives of your own people first, and if you look at the bigger picture, well, those two bombs probably saved a whole heap of Jap lives also, purely by stopping the war cold.

There's a lot of things that the US can be castigated for, nuking two cities to end a war quickly isn't one of them.



Same old song and dance .

Its seem the top military brass of the time would have to disagree with you.


www.washingtonsblog.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

And had Japan or Germany been successful in their own nuclear weapons programs and built it first, it would have been used against the allies.





Thats speculation...

No room for that here.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join