E. ALLEN SMITH writes: | (one reason for Hiroshima and Nagasaki being right | was the Japanese alliance with Germany) Was Dresden also right? (more died than at Hiroshima) The firebombing of Tokyo? (10% died in one raid). Stalins execution of his own people? Look at facts, not propoganda, before coming to such conclusions. The conventions of war (namely the aim of keeping civilians out of it, along with good treatment of prisoners) evolved over many centuries, but then come the Brits and the Yanks to destroy it all with their indiscriminate bombing of civilians, using the "they can stop the torture simply by surrendering," and "those bombs saved countless [American/British] lives!" excuses, and directing attention away from their own attrocities by spreading propoganda such as soap made from Jews. Then to direct attention away from themselves even further, the victors judge the defeated at Nuremburg for "war crimes," when the accusors themselves were guilty of terror bombing, the worst war crime of them all. | and the Holocaust (people who claim | it didn't happen are calling my paternal grandfather a liar). Does anybody really claim it did not happen? I doubt it. I assert that those who express doubt over details of the current story (such as the numbers that died in the camps, the existence of gas chambers, or whether Hitler gave an order to systematically kill Jews) are referred to by the media as saying that the Holocaust didn't happen, but that is *not* what they are saying. With regard to your grandfather being liar, that is hard to say without knowing precisly he has said, but if he states that, eg, Dachau was a terrible place, riddled with disease and starvation and terrible conditions, and hundreds of thousands of people died, then who would disagree with him? If on the other hand he asserts that he saw gassed Jews at Dachau, then he is mistaken (although not necessarally a liar.) --- The Nuremberg Trials...had been popular throughout the world and particularly in the United States. Equally popular was the sentence already announced by the high tribunal: death. But what kind of trial was this? ...The Constitution was not a collection of loosely given political promises subject to broad interpretation. It was not a list of pleasing platitudes to be set lightly aside when expediency required it. It was the foundation of the American system of law and justice and [Robert Taft] was repelled by the picture of his country discarding those Constitutional precepts in order to punish a vanquished enemy. U.S. President, John F. Kennedy