- Nov 25, 2004
WW2 and WW1 (which you can’t ignore when looking at WW2) were included in the essays. You asked for some material I provided it, I suggest you actually read it before throwing strong counter arguments.
Again you make a strong statement about who “started” the war, you haven’t read the counter arguments so I’m not sure why you asked for me to provide material given how you aren’t interested in reading it.
Point I’m making is that the atomic bombs dropped by the US was an abhorrent crime, yet I don’t think anyone involved faced any consequences of it given they were the victors nor would the US government admit that it was a crime. Official line is that it was required to end the war without risking American lives, the historical record shows this to be false.
Reduction ad absurdum isn’t fallacious reasoning. Just because one side is more palatable doesn’t mean they are good in any sense.
No, I pointed out that Hitler decided to annex the Sudetenlands, Hitler decided to then invade the rest of Poland, Hitler decided to invade France and Belgium, fortunately for the rest of the world Hitler also tried to invade the Soviet Union which turned the war against him.
Your argument is facile - because Germany wasn't 100% responsible for the causes of war, and there are shades of good and bad on both sides that both sides were somehow equally morally culpable.
You completely neglect to address what would have happened to the world if Hitler and the Nazis were unopposed, and focus only on the causes of the war. And we haven't even talked about what the Japanese did in Asia.
I agree that Hiroshima/Nagasaki were war crimes.