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

originally posted by: neversaynever
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?

Really trying to stretch the argument are we...

This is not about Bush so we can move that argument somewhere else for now (As for war crimes by all means, do something about it).

As for Israel - same answer as above-
Sure people can try to take actions against Israel.
That would mean the Palestinian government and all its little groups can be charged with the same thing. Unless you want to try and justify homicide bombers blowing themselves up in civilian areas inside Israel.


Shall we come back to the topic at hand..

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere

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.

No. Of course Germany wouldn't have put those V2 rockets to use if they had nukes. V1's too noisy. V2's ahhh. Pfft.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.

I agree all sides are guilty of war crimes. And crimes against humanity.

Let's face it America has a nasty record of throwing themselfs into war..

Just saying.

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere
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...

If you actually read my post you can see I stated I was not defending but offering the background info to better understand why it happened.

Respectfully please don't ever make the comment about me and justification to me again.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere

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.

No. Of course Germany wouldn't have put those V2 rockets to use if they had nukes. V1's too noisy. V2's ahhh. Pfft.

Again speculation. Would have , could have, should have?

Let's stick to the facts and leave out innovation shall we?

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere
Let's face it America has a nasty record of throwing themselfs into war..

Just saying.

Really? WW1 The world 1914-1918. The US? 1917-1918. WW2? The world 1939-1945. The US 1941-1945. Yeah, just chomping at the bit. You really need to study more history. I don't mean that as an insult.

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere

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.

No its fact.

You should research WWII history then because it is not speculation. Germany had plans for long range missiles that could make it to New York, which was Hitler's primary choice. An aircraft that can travel upwards of 6k miles was also being developed in an effort to bring the war to the US.

Also Germany invaded Norway - Why did he do that?

Norway had an operational heavy water plant for agricultural areas.
Heavy water is a prime ingredient for nuclear weapons.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere
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...

If you actually read my post you can see I stated I was not defending but offering the background info to better understand why it happened.

Respectfully please don't ever make the comment about me and justification to me again.

Fair enough , you were providing info on why the US had to bomb Japan?
And it seemed to be a form of justification.

My apologies for any misunderstanding.

Humbly

a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

Germany and Japan threw the war, not the US.

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere



Same old song and dance .

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


www.washingtonsblog.com...

That link seems to be an exercise in hindsight.
It's also a quite badly mashed together bit of propaganda rather than naked truth, isn't it?

Take this example.
General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publicly shortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:

The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

It says Lemay stated BEFORE then goes on to "quote" him talking about the bombs and the war ending in PAST TENSE.

In short, your link is crooked. It's just opinion dressed up as fact and as such, worth about the same as anyone else's opinion, nothing more.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere

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.

No its fact.

You should research WWII history then because it is not speculation. Germany had plans for long range missiles that could make it to New York, which was Hitler's primary choice. An aircraft that can travel upwards of 6k miles was also being developed in an effort to bring the war to the US.

Also Germany invaded Norway - Why did he do that?

Norway had an operational heavy water plant for agricultural areas.
Heavy water is a prime ingredient for nuclear weapons.

Right....where's the"fact " that they wanted to attach a war head to it?
Or that they even could?

Again , your trying to introduce innovation here.

Its not needed.

What a waste of taxpayers dollars.
Revenge for what??
Will this man be able to serve all of the time given for his alleged crimes?
Hell no, he maybe will have a few months to serve as he will most probably not live much longer.
Then of the crimes he is accused, are these lies as well such as that elli weasel or whatever...
I imagine the eternal victims will continue to cry foul for generations to come.
Anything to keep public opinion on their side.
I wonder what kind of a man this guy became since the war, did he do good?

a reply to: SprocketUK


So your saying the information on the link is incorrect?
And the quotes are propaganda ?

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere


a reply to: SprocketUK


So your saying the information on the link is incorrect?
And the quotes are propaganda ?

How else could he have said all that before the end of the war?
unless he had a time machine.

Anyway, my intention was to point out it's nowhere near the black and white, cut and dried, case closed "proof" you purport it to be.

The reality at the time was we were all still fighting, loads of ordinary people were dying, that would have carried on, but seeing the destruction of these two cities, the Japs surrendered. war over. No more mass allied casualties.

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere



You can try and justify it all you want .

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

Which members objected? I don't think I have ever heard of that occurring.

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere
Fair enough , you were providing info on why the US had to bomb Japan?
And it seemed to be a form of justification.

The info is to see and understand how certain actions were "justified" during WWII based solely on the conflict itself. It can bring a better understanding of the events however it does not require anyone to agree with the justifications.

As an example Japan opted to pull a surprise attack on the US in an effort to remove the navy from the equation. The justification Japan used was based on the probability that at some point in the near future the 2 nations would eventually collide.

I don't agree with the Japanese justifications for attacking the US however at that point in time Japan found their plans against the US as justified.

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere
My apologies for any misunderstanding.

Humbly

No worries. I apologize if I came across as inappropriate.

I just wanted to get some base info in and how each side dealt with the situation at that point in time. Explaining why something occurred does not equate into support for the action.

originally posted by: g146541
I imagine the eternal victims will continue to cry foul for generations to come.

I don't see how as the youngest of those that would have worked at the camps would be what now? 85? And that recruiting 15 yo's.... at the very end of the war.

a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

warhead?

You missed the part where I talked about the Nazis building a bomber with a 6k mile range. You don't need a missile when you can load the plane and fly it to the target.

a reply to: g146541

Uhm ok.

The guy in the article was a freeman since they could not link him to crimes at the time. Investigations subsequently resulted in new evidence coming forward that linked him to the camp.

So no I don't think its revenge. I see it as nothing more than delayed prosecution of an SS member in a death camp.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere


a reply to: SprocketUK


So your saying the information on the link is incorrect?
And the quotes are propaganda ?

How else could he have said all that before the end of the war?
unless he had a time machine.

Anyway, my intention was to point out it's nowhere near the black and white, cut and dried, case closed "proof" you purport it to be.

The reality at the time was we were all still fighting, loads of ordinary people were dying, that would have carried on, but seeing the destruction of these two cities, the Japs surrendered. war over. No more mass allied casualties.

Kind sir. I respect your opinion ..but frankly I am weak in this subject and I have not investigated the authenticity of the information posted on the linked site. However reading statements from top military officials of the time has indeed convinced me that the dropping of nukes was not necessary . the fact remains that it was mostly civilian casualties who were sacrificed ..


Humbly

LSH

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

warhead?

You missed the part where I talked about the Nazis building a bomber with a 6k mile range. You don't need a missile when you can load the plane and fly it to the target.

I hear you , but again its speculation that they would have nuked the US.

The fact remains that it simply didn't happen.

Now I have a question because I am really weak on the history of WWII . did the Germans of the time have the ability to produce a nuke?

Humbly LSH