any resemblance?
no matter the reason and who stated it first (wars)
does any man have the right to?
kill so many inocent people? no...
tell me what you think
2007-11-02 22:00:51 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Both were horrible. there should be no forgiving for any one. So did Chruchill in bombing Dresde , Napoleon in making war permanently and staline.
Un fortunately , mosters are loved by their slaves (their people)
2007-11-02 23:06:31 · answer #1 · answered by maussy 7 · 0⤊ 5⤋
The obvious answer is that Hitler's plan to kill the Jews (and others) was not part of the war. They were not killed during battle, but systematically targeted from populations which had already surrendered to the Germans.
Before entering WW2, Roosevelt criticized Germany for it's targeting of civilians during air strikes. Once the US got into the war, their high-mindedness deserted them. Technically speaking, the intentional targeting of civilians is and was a war crime. But in reality, WW2 was a total war, and ending the war required destroying the infrastructure of both Japan and Germany, and destroying the will and morale of the civilan populations.
In the current Iraq conflict, Libs and the NY Times work together to destroy the will and morale of the American people. But FDR and Truman had no such allies in Japan, so bombing civilians was quickly adopted as a necessity. It was justified by saying (truthfully) that both Japan and Germany began the practice of targeting civilians, and the Allies were justified in reponding in kind.
And, please, get over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US and UK killed as many people in conventional attacks on dozens of cities as were killed by the two atomic bombs. People are conditioned to shut off their brains when they hear the word "nuclear", but it inhibits critical thinking about a historical event.
2007-11-03 06:09:38 · answer #2 · answered by A Plague on your houses 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hitler tortured and murdered people just for fun. Jews , Gypsies , Slav's , it didn't matter just kill them.
Truman ordered a bomb to be dropped in order to end a war and save more lives than were lost. Massive bombing from both side took place during ww2. Fire bombing of Tokyo , and Dresden killed tens of thousands.
The point of war is to make the other side not want to fight it anymore. The atomic bomb did that for Japan and saved millions of lives. Hitlers gas chambers didn't save anyone !
I don't see how you can compare these two people as if they were the same. Truman's action was a military action against an enemy city. Hitlers action was just plain murder for the fun of it.
2007-11-03 05:31:19 · answer #3 · answered by old-bald-one 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think your question could be asked a lot more clearly.
Hitler alone did not kill a lot of Jews. You need to clarify this.
Truman alone did not kill a lot Japanese in Hiroshima alone, you also need to clarify this.
I see a resemblance already - it is your inability to state which persons under the leadership of Hitler and Truman were responsible for the deaths of the German and European Jews (and many others which you left out) and the Japanese civilians (and military members) in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (you left them out) and Tokyo.
No matter what your reason for asking this type of question is, we took the right upon ourselves to stop the deaths of the Europeans and the Asians after the deaths of thousands and hundreds of thousands even millions of soldiers and civilians that were the victims of aggression. If saving lives is the reason - don't you think we should have the right?
I think your comparison of Hitler to Truman shares no resemblance - one was conducting political and racial slaughter throughout Europe - the other was fighting to stop the Japanese political/economic/social aggression and slaughter throughout Asia.
2007-11-03 05:30:29 · answer #4 · answered by WMD 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No. No. No.
Hitler killed Jews out of spite. The Jews were only rich and affluent. They did not do anyone any harm.
Truman drop bombs on Japan to end this stupid war quickly. And also to save more innocent lives from getting killed should the Japanese mainland be invaded.
You can't compare apples with oranges.
2007-11-03 11:05:11 · answer #5 · answered by Forward 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
State-sponsored and high volume genocide vs. 2 nuclear attacks....there does not seem to be any comparison. Resemblance is in the innocents lost, not the motivation behind the act. The US was trying to win the war, Hitler was attempting genocide on a large scale. I like JS' response above, give hime the 10 points.
2007-11-03 11:59:23 · answer #6 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There were many Korean and Chinese forced labors as well as British POWs killed in Hiroshima. Neither Hitler nor Japanese army massacred in mass in mistakes prior to 1945. The Alliance Forces were not that careful in both European and Asian theaters. Which one was good?
So, trying to find some similarity or difference between the two is not very constructive.
2007-11-03 08:43:52 · answer #7 · answered by carol c 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Hitler killed Jews with a pathological hatred of them. The bomb was dropped to save US doughboys in an all out attack on the Japanese homeland. They are not even in the same league, ball park, city state, country or planet.
2007-11-03 05:30:37 · answer #8 · answered by bubnkez 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
If it was the quickest way to bring the war to the end, it SAVED far more lives than it extinguished.
2007-11-03 05:18:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No one has the right to kill anyone. I think it was wrong for them to do that. Adolf Hitler killed many people,but he is famous,deadly famous
2007-11-03 05:06:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Jewish hate Hitler. The Japanese do not hate Truman. Think.
2007-11-03 05:46:07 · answer #11 · answered by Heart of man 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋