On Dec 22, 12:17 am, "John E." wrote:
Mr. Self,

I don't consider myself a "revisionist asshole" but I do believe that the
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral. As were the fire bombings
of Dresden, the raids over Tokyo, the bombing of London, the concentration
and the internment camps, et al.

War is an immoral business, no matter who starts it.

It if solved anything, we wouldn't need to keep having them.

John E.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message

...

16 million served in the Armed Forces during WWII, if my memory is
working. I still ahve a partial book or two of the green stamps
around, stamps my parents bought for me when I was 3-4-5-6.

Now, we get revisionist assholes stating that A-bombing Japan was
immoral, and killed far more people than necessary. Oh, yeah. And it
was racist because we didn't A-bomb Germany. True enough, but, IIRC,
Germany quit about the same day Truman was sworn in to replace
Roosevelt, who had just died. Hitler suicided that same day and that
war was effectively over. Too, I guess the revisionists haven't heard
of the fire bombing of Dresden, nor the fears that all the top brass
in the U.S. had at the time that the Japanese were prepared to defend
their land to the last person. I still believe that.

Semper fi.

It would have been more moral, then, to invade the Japanese home
islands which they had sworn to defend the last person?

During WWII, the Japanese showed an unusual taste for last ditch
defense, actually suiciding in preference to being captured. They were
tough, tenacious fighters with good (in the terms of fighting)
leadership, and more than a little ability to dream up new ways of
killing U.S. troops.

Estimated casualties for an invasion of the Japanese homeland ran from
one to five million, including Japanese civilians.

A-bombing immoral? Actually, the invasion would have been immoral.