• Quebec beekeeper accused of Nazi war crimes
    316 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;35761675]answer please[/QUOTE] what the hell, who is defending the ussr here?
[QUOTE=thisispain;35761687]let me repeat this again: [b] the reason the Japanese did not accept the Potsdam Decleration is because it didn't involve the Soviets and their invasion of Japan, in which they swiftly destroyed Japanese military forces[/b][/QUOTE] no see you cant say that unless you quote wikipedia see
[QUOTE=Atlascore;35761392]You [B]finally[/B] provided evidence for your argument, good job. [sp]No sarcasm, I promise.[/sp][/QUOTE] oh my god would you leave already? nobody wants you to play argument police.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35761687]let me repeat this again: [b] the reason the Japanese did not accept the Potsdam Decleration is because it didn't involve the Soviets and their invasion of Japan, in which they swiftly destroyed Japanese military forces[/b][/QUOTE] lmao, the japanese navy and airforce were completely obliterated by the US, yet you have some bizarre notion that the soviet intervention in CHINA single-handedly ended the war haha. funny how Hirohito made NO mention of the soviets on his surrender broadcast yet specifically mentioned the nuclear bomb.
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;35761723]lmao, the japanese navy and airforce were completely obliterated by the US, yet you have some bizarre notion that the soviet intervention in CHINA single-handedly ended the war haha. funny how Hirohito made NO mention of the soviets on his surrender broadcast yet specifically mentioned the nuclear bomb.[/QUOTE] [citation needed]
[QUOTE=Lankist;35761744][citation needed][/QUOTE] every battle in the pacific starting after june 4th, 1942
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;35761723]lmao, the japanese navy and airforce were completely obliterated by the US, yet you have some bizarre notion that the soviet intervention in CHINA single-handedly ended the war haha. funny how Hirohito made NO mention of the soviets on his surrender broadcast yet specifically mentioned the nuclear bomb.[/QUOTE] obliterated their navy and airforce??? you mean this island nation had no method of combat over a body of water???????? and yet we still HAD to invade them but then OH NO we know for a FACT (well, conjectured) that such an invasion would cost millions of lives so lets just drop nukes on people
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;35761755]every battle in the pacific starting after june 4th, 1942[/QUOTE] don't give a shit. Hey remember this post: [QUOTE=Lankist;35761260][url]http://www.greenwych.ca/hiro2bmb.htm[/url] Repeating Thisispain: The Japanese were incredibly close to surrender BEFORE the first bomb. [I]Already the Japanese were looking for terms of surrender, but these approaches for peace from Japan, not made public, even to members of the Manhattan Project, were ignored. The U.S. wanted no terms, no conditions; not even the safety of the Emperor could be guaranteed (although that request was granted, after the two atom bombs were dropped). Japan had to surrender immediately and unconditionally - the U.S. knowing full well that Japan could never go for that. (Add'l evidence, in square brackets, added 1999): [That there really were surrender overtures by the Japanese was confirmed by a man who ought to know, CIA chief Allen Dulles. In an interview with Clifford Evans (1/19/63 (NY) WOR-TV), Dulles said: "I had been in touch with certain Japanese.... They...were ready to surrender provided the Emperor could be saved so as to have unity in Japan. I took that word to Secretary (of State) Stimson at Potsdam July 20, 1945...." [Just weeks later, August 6 and August 9, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.] [/I] They were not going to fight down to the last man, woman and child. The war was winding down and Japan was accepting its loss prior to the first bomb, with the only condition being that the Emperor remain in power in order to reunify the broken state. [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] Furthermore I don't know how you guys expected a broken military leadership in 1945 to assess just how much damage had been dealt and then surrender unconditionally in three days. Truman was not a stupid man. He did not expect them to surrender between the two. His demands were designed to justify a second bombing.[/QUOTE] you should actually respond to it because right now you are making a jingoistic ass out of yourself
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;35761766]obliterated their navy and airforce??? you mean this island nation had no method of combat over a body of water???????? and yet we still HAD to invade them but then OH NO we know for a FACT (well, conjectured) that such an invasion would cost millions of lives so lets just drop nukes on people[/QUOTE] yeah man, poor hitler, his army was gone why did the russians attack berlin :(
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;35761723]the soviet intervention in CHINA[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchurian_Strategic_Offensive_Operation[/url] to humour lankist: [quote]The rapid defeat of Japan's Kwantung Army was a very significant factor in the Japanese surrender and the end of World War II, as Japan realised the Russians were willing and able to take the cost of invasion of its Home Islands, after their rapid conquest of Manchuria and Sakhalin. [1][2][5][6][7][8][9][10][/quote] see all those numbers behind that statement? those are citations. "yeah dude so bizarre".
also yeah so wait we defeated japan like they were nothing, but they were still dangerous enough to justify nukes? wasn't it like two pages ago you were saying Japan was a formidable force that we couldn't hope to defeat without massive casualties? Now your argument is that japan were pussies? Then why the fuck did we nuke them?
[QUOTE=Lankist;35761779]don't give a shit. Hey remember this post: you should actually respond to it because right now you are making a jingoistic ass out of yourself[/QUOTE] still havent answered my question you said that japan was ready to surrender. the nuclear bombs were unnecessary so the soviet invasion was unnecessary?
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;35761796]still havent answered my question you said that japan was ready to surrender. the nuclear bombs were unnecessary so the soviet invasion was unnecessary?[/QUOTE] You started it. You respond first. [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] Hey that's, like, your justification for war crimes, too! [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] woah weird coincidence
[QUOTE=thisispain;35761789][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchurian_Strategic_Offensive_Operation[/url] to humour lankist: see all those numbers behind that statement? those are citations. "yeah dude so bizarre".[/QUOTE] so you believe that the soviet intervention in manchuria caused more to end the war than the entire american pacific campaign? [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;35761804]You started it. You respond first. [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] Hey that's, like, your justification for war crimes, too! [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] woah weird coincidence[/QUOTE] what was your question? I'll gladly answer it
and painting the Japanese as suicidal maniacs is just part of the dehumanization campaign against them that apparently still continues. even though japanese civilians surrendered all the fucking time in WW2.
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;35761815]so you believe that the soviet intervention in manchuria caused more to end the war than the entire american pacific campaign?[/QUOTE] It isn't belief if he has evidence. He posted evidence up to your standards. You HAVE to accept it, otherwise you forfeit what little credibility you have.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35761824] even though japanese civilians surrendered all the fucking time in WW2.[/QUOTE] um, check the date bro [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa[/url]
[QUOTE=thisispain;35761824]and painting the Japanese as suicidal maniacs is just part of the dehumanization campaign against them that apparently still continues. even though japanese civilians surrendered all the fucking time in WW2.[/QUOTE] Tag out, you deal with him, I need a smoke. Be careful, he might accuse you of being a soviet apologist.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35761848]Tag out, you deal with him, I need a smoke. Be careful, he might accuse you of being a soviet apologist.[/QUOTE] [quote]what was your question? I'll gladly answer it[/QUOTE] fuck i dont know what to ask him i better pretend leave still waiting for answer to my question btw
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;35761855]fuck i dont know what to ask him i better pretend leave still waiting for answer to my question btw[/QUOTE] [quote][url]http://www.greenwych.ca/hiro2bmb.htm[/url] Repeating Thisispain: The Japanese were incredibly close to surrender BEFORE the first bomb. Already the Japanese were looking for terms of surrender, but these approaches for peace from Japan, not made public, even to members of the Manhattan Project, were ignored. The U.S. wanted no terms, no conditions; not even the safety of the Emperor could be guaranteed (although that request was granted, after the two atom bombs were dropped). Japan had to surrender immediately and unconditionally - the U.S. knowing full well that Japan could never go for that. (Add'l evidence, in square brackets, added 1999): [That there really were surrender overtures by the Japanese was confirmed by a man who ought to know, CIA chief Allen Dulles. In an interview with Clifford Evans (1/19/63 (NY) WOR-TV), Dulles said: "I had been in touch with certain Japanese.... They...were ready to surrender provided the Emperor could be saved so as to have unity in Japan. I took that word to Secretary (of State) Stimson at Potsdam July 20, 1945...." [Just weeks later, August 6 and August 9, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.] They were not going to fight down to the last man, woman and child. The war was winding down and Japan was accepting its loss prior to the first bomb, with the only condition being that the Emperor remain in power in order to reunify the broken state. Edited: Furthermore I don't know how you guys expected a broken military leadership in 1945 to assess just how much damage had been dealt and then surrender unconditionally in three days. Truman was not a stupid man. He did not expect them to surrender between the two. His demands were designed to justify a second bombing.[/quote] You never addressed this, nor its source evidence. You completely ignored it and contradicted what the fucking Chief of the CIA had said. [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] Try shutting up for five goddamn minutes and reading for a change.
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;35761815]so you believe that the soviet intervention in manchuria caused more to end the war than the entire american pacific campaign?[/QUOTE] that's not a relevant question. we're talking about why the Japanese did not surrender when the potsdam deceleration was issued and how that affected the decision to use nuclear bombs. Originally the nuclear bomb was being made because supposedly the Germans were making them and they were trying to outrun them in nuclear design, which i add was with complete uncertainty. note that the decision to use the nuclear bomb against Japan was decided long before the Potsdam deceleration was even issued. [quote] 1. The bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible. 2. It should be used against a military target surrounded by other buildings. 3. It should be used without prior warning of the nature of the weapon. (One member, Ralph A. Bard, later dissented from this portion of the committee's recommendation.) [/quote] note that surrender isn't part of that outline, they were gonna use the weapon against Japan, surrender or no surrender.
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;35761796]still havent answered my question you said that japan was ready to surrender. the nuclear bombs were unnecessary so the soviet invasion was unnecessary?[/QUOTE] man what are you on about? yes soviet invasion was unnecessary alright?
[QUOTE=Lankist;35761874]You never addressed this, nor its source evidence. You completely ignored it and contradicted what the fucking Chief of the CIA had said. [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] Try shutting up for five goddamn minutes and reading for a change.[/QUOTE] numerous generals, admirals, the chief of staff, the vp, and the president disagreed with the chief of the CIA, I'll take their word for it. [QUOTE=thisispain;35761893]that's not a relevant question. we're talking about why the Japanese did not surrender when the potsdam deceleration was issued and how that affected the decision to use nuclear bombs. Originally the nuclear bomb was being made because supposedly the Germans were making them and they were trying to outrun them in nuclear design, which i add was with complete uncertainty. note that the decision to use the nuclear bomb against Japan was decided long before the Potsdam deceleration was even issued.[/quote] Japan was asked to surrender, they were told they'd be attacked if they didn't. They didn't, so the bomb was dropped, and they were invaded, then they surrendered. [quote]note that surrender isn't part of that outline, they were gonna use the weapon against Japan, surrender or no surrender.[/QUOTE] that's conjecture, you can't say what they would or wouldn't do as lankist said about operation downfall earlier in the thread. do you oppose the firebombing of tokyo? or the bombing of major cities by ever major power in WW2? [QUOTE=Lachz0r;35761931]man what are you on about? yes soviet invasion was unnecessary alright?[/QUOTE] then why is it being lauded as an end to the war japan was going to either: surrender without soviet intervention and nukes surrender faster with soviet intervention and nukes they were told to take the first option they didn't ultimately their citizens paid the price, unfortunately.
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;35762020]Japan was asked to surrender, they were told they'd be attacked if they didn't. They didn't, so the bomb was dropped, and they were invaded, then they surrendered. that's conjecture, you can't say what they would or wouldn't do as lankist said about operation downfall earlier in the thread. do you oppose the firebombing of tokyo? or the bombing of major cities by ever major power in WW2? then why is it being lauded as an end to the war[/QUOTE] probably because fear of soviet invasion meant that japanese wanted to surrender? and i know you're not asking me but i personally oppose the firebombing of tokyo and the bombing of major cities. i'm against every military action that targeted civilians
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;35762060]probably because fear of soviet invasion meant that japanese wanted to surrender?[/quote] um, i don't know about you but i'd be more afraid of a weapon that can destroy an entire city in the hands of a massive army without me being able to do anything about it than i would another massive army invading me [quote]i'm against every military action that targeted civilians[/QUOTE] its good that you stick to your principles, but the bombing of cities was an effective way of ending the war. you break the enemy's morale, you don't completely destroy them thankfully, in modern warfare most of the time civilians arent deliberately targeted but they still take massive casualties.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35761696]what are you joseph fucking mccarthy no, sod off. I'll answer your questions when you stop ignoring my evidence.[/QUOTE] The irony.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;35762171]The irony.[/QUOTE] Of you ignoring evidence?
how the fuck did the thread get so off topic let's put her back on the the rails. it was 67 years ago, he's going to die soon and they still want to get him for war crimes he may or may not have committed? straight up stupid
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;35762397]how the fuck did the thread get so off topic let's put her back on the the rails. it was 67 years ago, he's going to die soon and they still want to get him for war crimes he may or may not have committed? straight up stupid[/QUOTE] "I can't come up with a rebuttal so hey let's get back on topic." [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] remember that time when you gave me shit for going out for a smoke [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] yeah thats coming back in a big way
[QUOTE=Lankist;35762455]"I can't come up with a rebuttal so hey let's get back on topic." [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] remember that time when you gave me shit for going out for a smoke [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] yeah thats coming back in a big way[/QUOTE] OMG YOU WANT TO END THE ARGUMENT ONLY BECAUSE YOU R DUM
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.