Russian attack on country of Georgia

[Flint]

Wikipedia, ba ha ha!!!1 . . . [/source-bashing] . . . totally just kidding

[Undertoad]

Japan wasn't the sort of nation to fight to the bitter end?

[classicman]

Look twit - oh nevermind. You aren't worth the effort to push the keys down to type the words.

Funny how the only link you put into the above post is one to yourself - full of conjecture, assumptions and allegations with ZERO proof to back it up - just fucking fuck the fuck off. Oh and tell me do you and radar do the secret pinky shake each time you meet?

Sorry - couldn't resist.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by classicman

Look twit - Funny how the only link you put into the above post is one to yourself ...-

I'd like to add a correction to my above post - just to be completely accurate.

...which has another link to another one of your own posts which is also full of conjecture, assumptions and allegations with ZERO proof to back it up. Quoting yourself doesn't necessarily make any of your statements/opinions or posts any more accurate, nor does it count toward backing up your unfounded allegations.
The more things change the more they stay the same.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Look twit - oh nevermind. You aren't worth the effort

What effort? You are so wacko extremist as to post insults (ie twit) and never a fact. classicman has been exposed again not knowing about current events even posted in the Cellar in March 2007. It was only a secret to those who post profanity due to shortage of knowledge.

Posted were numerous facts about a potential American attack on Iran complete with four attack carriers, Marine amphibious units, and the rhetoric from Cheney. Adm Fallon said he stopped an American attack on Iran. Those are the facts no matter how often a wacko extremist posts profanity and insult.

classicman - do you even learn from sources other than wacko extremist talk show hosts? You don't even deny listening to them. You did not even know about the American military deployment to the shores of Iran? That would require sources other than extremist talk show hosts and less time posting UG style insults.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

What effort? It was only a secret to those who post profanity due to shortage of knowledge.

Posted were numerous facts about a potential American attack on Iran complete with four attack carriers, Marine amphibious units, and the rhetoric from Cheney. Adm Fallon said he stopped an American attack on Iran. Those are the facts no matter how often a wacko extremist posts profanity and insult.

classicman - do you even learn from sources other than wacko extremist talk show hosts? You don't even deny listening to them. You did not even know about the American military deployment to the shores of Iran? That would require sources other than extremist talk show hosts and less time posting UG style insults.

You can't read remember you only know how to write. Well this post certainly exemplifies that. The on "facts" were references of you by you. Hardly anything worth repeating. You didn't cite anything at all, except yourself. That counts for zero, nothing at all.

I need not deny anything, why is it you feel that I have to justify myself or anything else for that matter to you? You give me all this crap after I voted you the most loved cellarite too - WTF?

[regular.joe]

I see, you are basing your assumption on your experience with a Somali neighborhood, here in the states. Get a plane ticket and try that on for size on the Arabian Peninsula, or Pakistan. Yes, there are young muslim men, smoking and drinking, and looking at porn. Isn't that great? Wow, western influence at it's best. You think the older generation of Muslims are going to be o.k. with that? You think they will give up their youth to our "western culture" without a fight of some kind?

Unconditional surrender for a war that the Japanese started, with an unprovoked attack. I agree with the terms. If I were Japanese it would have taken a couple of atomic weapons to seal that deal as well.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

I see, you are basing your assumption on your experience with a Somali neighborhood, here in the states.

Yes I am. I am not saying that every Islamic culture is at the same point as the Somalis, but that will most likely follow in a similar fashion.



Read this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6463059&&CM=EmailThis&CE=1

Get a plane ticket and try that on for size on the Arabian Peninsula, or Pakistan. Yes, there are young muslim men, smoking and drinking, and looking at porn. Isn't that great? Wow, western influence at it's best. You think the older generation of Muslims are going to be o.k. with that? You think they will give up their youth to our "western culture" without a fight of some kind?

No, I do not think they will give up their youth to our "western culture" without a fight and I don't blame them in any way for it. I just believe they will lost that fight, big time.

Unconditional surrender for a war that the Japanese started, with an unprovoked attack. I agree with the terms. If I were Japanese it would have taken a couple of atomic weapons to seal that deal as well.

I never stated my opinion in the matter and I made sure of it. The decision to drop the atomic bomb or not can be more or less justified based on the goals of the United States. If the US wanted to just end the war then they would not need to drop the bomb. If they wanted unconditional surrender or end the war before the USSR could get further influence in the region and possibly split the country like Germany then the bomb was most likely needed. That brings me back to my original point that we would drop an atomic weapon on an already beaten country to get an upperhand with the USSR. It may not be the only or main reason we dropped it, but that is most definitely a factor.

[classicman]

sounds like a lotta bullshit going on somewhere

[piercehawkeye45]

The historians agree part, ok, but what other parts are complete bullshit?

[Undertoad]

Remembered this ph45 discussion when recently Jon Stewart labeled Truman a war criminal. At the righty pjtv, Bill Whittle replies to Stewart with a very interesting 15 minute history lesson on what it took for Japan to surrender.

Our comprehension of real wartime is confused by the nature of modern war. We have not experienced a fight for the existence of the country in four generations. (Did you know the Manhattan Project required one sixth of all the electricity generated in the entire US?!) So the video is long, and gets too moralistic in the last minute, but it's worth the watch, if you have the time.

And, required viewing for ph45.

[Bullitt]

Historians agree pfffff. You're making the same mistake with the Somalis too. You never ever ever ever take one piece of evidence and attempt to describe an entire set of historical circumstances with it. Any halfway decent historian would laugh at you for doing so. Take a philosophy and writing of history course before you open your mouth about history again because it's obvious you don't have any concept of what good historical discourse involves.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

And, required viewing for ph45.

This video brings very little to the discussion.

First, he made some very big assumptions, the largest being that the Japanese would continue to have the will and resources to fight. Second is that the views of military leaders represent the views of the country. Third, while not an assumption, is never mentioning the fact that the Soviet Union would have an extraordinary effect on the Pacific Theater.


First, what evidence does the speaker bring to conclude that the Japanese would have kept on fighting? That death tolls were rising the closer the US forces got to Japan and a few specially selected quotes from hardcore military leaders?

First I will give a quote of my own by the Emperor after the battle of Okinawa,

"I was told that the iron from bomb fragments dropped by the enemy was being used to make shovels. This confirmed my opinion that we were no longer in a position to continue the war."

Second, here is a view of their economic standing at the time.

"The destruction of the Japanese merchant fleet, combined with the strategic bombing of Japanese industry, had wrecked Japan's war economy. Production of coal, iron, steel, rubber and other vital supplies were only a fraction of their pre-war levels."

Third, it is also documented that Stalin deceived the Japanese into believing that the Soviets would help a peace agreement so they could gain land. It is also documented that the Japanese looked to the Soviets for peace. Another quote from Japanese ambassador to Moscow.

"His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland."

Fourth, it is finally documented that the Japanese even tried to reach a direct peace agreement with the United States.

11 July 1945 - Japan offered to surrender unconditionally, with one exception - they wished to retain their monarchy. They didn't insist on retaining Emperor Hirohito. They were willing to replace him with his small son, for example. The US wouldn't even talk to them - the bomb was dropped on them without the US ever responding to any of their peace feelers. Since we let them keep their monarchy (they never unconditionally surrendered - the US offered assurrances to the Emperor on August 11 after both bombs were dropped, when they had the assurrences they surrendered), there was no difference between this offer and what happened on August 14.

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Arch.../msg00120.html

(I'm not sure how reliable this source is but I have read this in books getting this information from first hand sources)

So basically, the idea that Japan would never have surrendered is complete bullshit. Japan was looking to surrender under the conditions that they could keep the monarchy while Truman and the allies would only accept unconditional surrender. This past argument was a while ago so I don't entirely remember what I believed at the time but I think it was the point that many lives could have been saved if conditional surrender was sought instead of unconditional. There was a large divide among the Japanese at the time, though saying that, it could have gone either way. But from the sources, it seems like at least some of the Japanese leadership were looking for surrender while it is also obvious that some were not as well.


To add some further information regarding the video. The atomic bomb was not the sole factor for the surrender either. As mentioned earlier, Japanese had very little resources. Two, the Soviets invaded around the same time as the atomic bomb droppings and that would have tremendous effects on the Japanese. Third, after the Japanese surrender, some of the military leaders that were obsessed with making sure that the emperor did not surrender attempted a military coup on August 12 to the 15.


That video is complete shit and only responded to elementary critiques of the atomic bomb dropping. To make it clear, I really don't have a strong opinion on this topic because I do realize the effects of the firebombing and it is extremely difficult to not go into that subject while talking about the atomic bomb but I do believe that Truman's pride and obsession with unconditional surrender led to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. I also do not believe this is uncommon among leaders.

Originally Posted by regular.joe

Doing a little back reading. Wikipedia would never be allowed as a vetted source of information, at least not by my teachers. Neither would the internet. We have to crack books.

Uh huh. Well, as most teachers admit, Wikipedia is a great source to start researching for topics since many pages have very well documented sources. For example, if I did this topic for school I would read and document the sources that were cited in Wikipedia to get a start on my project. Also, I would actually do research because I have different standards on a graded assignment then an internet forum. This topic, link below, is very well cited and seems legitimate. If you disagree, show me how.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrend...an#cite_note-3

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

First, he made some very big assumptions, the largest being that the Japanese would continue to have the will and resources to fight.

Will? The army that would rather commit suicide than surrender? You don't have a clue about the Jap culture of the era.

Second is that the views of military leaders represent the views of the country.

You reaffirmed my first statement, the military was the country. There were no views other than the military.

Third, while not an assumption, is never mentioning the fact that the Soviet Union would have an extraordinary effect on the Pacific Theater.

C'mon, with what? We were running a two front war because we had a chance to build an unbeatable war machine while the Russians were getting beat the fuck up. They had all they could handle just getting to Berlin, plus a lot of new territory they desperately wanted to hang on to. Their ability to stage a major attack on Japan was severely limited.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Will? The army that would rather commit suicide than surrender? You don't have a clue about the Jap culture of the era.

Japanese culture has very little to do with this. The Japanese leadership knew they could not beat the United States from the beginning and after Okinawa, many saw the war as a lost cause. The general population would have kept on fighting, but the leadership, while making some really stupid decisions, for the most part did not believe they could hold off the United States and Soviet Union without any oil.

It is shown that the Japanese went to Soviet Union many times looking for peace and were extremely divided themselves on the issue. The point is that the Japanese would seem to accept conditional surrender but not unconditional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_War_Council_(Japan)

At the ending of the war, three wanted to surrender and three wanted to keep on fighting. Guess which ones were on which side.

You reaffirmed my first statement, the military was the country. There were no views other than the military.

To the general public, yes, the military had complete control but not in the government. Japanese leadership was extremely divided on the issue and many in the military did not want surrender even after the emperor changed his stance, hence the attempted coup.

C'mon, with what? We were running a two front war because we had a chance to build an unbeatable war machine while the Russians were getting beat the fuck up. They had all they could handle just getting to Berlin, plus a lot of new territory they desperately wanted to hang on to. Their ability to stage a major attack on Japan was severely limited.

Besides the million men they could have contributed to the front....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchur...ration#Soviets