All Posts by baff

From your link...
 

"We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese Armed Forces and all Armed Forces under Japanese control wherever situated."

Originally posted by fenring101

Originally posted by tvalentine

thats interesting .. if they surrendered then why did we order them to 6 days after the date in your link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

This is the story i heard

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Japan_not_surrender_before_the_bombing

 

Yep it is so hard to really know what went on. One side, says the Japanese diplomats tried to orchestrate peace talks but were shut down by there own government, another says that the US just ignored them.

 

There is no way we will ever really know, we can speculate. oh and the Potsdam Declaration was set terms, it was not unconditional surrender. They said flat outright there surrender terms, that is why the japanese accepted.

 

Before that, it was besically "You will surrender to any terms we decide" that is the big difference, knowing that your people will be safe if you surrender them to an enemy, than knowing that said enemy can and will do anything they want.

I think you misunderstand.
 

They didn't offer them any terms.

None.

They were offered unconditional surrender or more fighting.

Same as Germany.

No face saving this time.  No quarter or settlement.

Utter humiliation or death. That was the choice on offer.

Lucky for them it was the American's, had it been the Chinese things would have been very different.

Originally posted by fenring101

Originally posted by baff

Right....that's why the women and children were all throwing themselves off cliffs.

You don't knwo much about japanese culture I assume. You haven't seen the interviews with the survivors...

 

 

They had nothing to accept. No surrender was offered.

I think you underestimate the Japanese spirit at the time. They are all nutjobs mate.

 

true they were indoctrinated with the Samurai code of honor, that you are better to commit suicide than surrender. but they were also led to beleive they would be raped and killed anyway. so what choice did they have?

but still, they followed the orders of their emperor, who to be fair, must have been pretty damned clueless to have not ordered a complete and utter surrender way before.

Wars aren't won by surrendering.

I think you are making a very large mistake by assuming that the outcome of the war was plain for everyone to see long before it happened.

This is not the case.

Originally posted by fenring101

 

Well the reason Russia entered the war was because the US did a deal with them, they help them defeat the germans, and in turn russia would help them against Japan. The russians however waited until the war was already won before jumping in. The US had decimated the Japanese navy, airforce and its industries. So the USSR wanted to come in and pick up the pieces.

I'll think you'll find if you ask the Russians they will say the exact same thing of their allies in the war with Germany.

It's not however true.

I suggest you investigate the Russian side of the story before buying into that little claim.

Right....that's why the women and children were all throwing themselves off cliffs.

You don't knwo much about japanese culture I assume. You haven't seen the interviews with the survivors...

We can know what happened. It is in living memory. We just ask the people who were there.

The leaders all suvived to, we can ask them. (And did). Read all their notes and archives. It is all public domain.

History is writen by the victors, so the Japs wrere all evil and they started. But if you want to ask one, they will tell you how they saw it.

This isn't history, this is living history.

They had nothing to accept. No surrender was offered.

I think you underestimate the Japanese spirit at the time. They are all nutjobs mate.

That is exactly correct they would have kept dropping them until Japan acepted an unconditional surrender.

I think you are looking at the Soviet entrance into the war from a cold war perspective of hindsight.

Prior to the bomb being dropped and it actaully working, (it was an experimental weapon), the big problem was how to invade Japan given the casualties experienced at Okinawa.

It was by no means a certainty that it would be achieveable.

The Russian had a lot more man power than us.

They joined the war because we asked them too. We need their millions of troops to help us deal with Japan. Just as we had needed them to deal with Europe.

Europe was dealt with first, because America did not have the capability to go it alone in Japan. 

The success of the bomb changed all that, but it is a mistake to make assumptions about the decisions made at the time based on information learnt after the events. No one knew any of that at the time.

Sid is downstairs right now putting the worlds to rights with my father. They are both over 80.

Sid was deployed at Okinawa.

Read the above post mate. How many atomic bombs America had was information the japanese had available to them. Neither were they discussing the matter with anyone.

There was no bluff, it was all deadly serious.

I don't see why you think there is "a fix" for it.

Why do you think war can be stopped?

If Iranians are better eductated?

Er hello? Iranians don't have schools and universities now? 

I've never met any uneducated Iranians. Quite the opposite.

I'll tell you what, I'll do some research, I'll go downstairs and ask someone who was actually there.

Oh wait a minute, I already did that.

Are you suggesting that the U.S. was not capable of making more atomic weapons?

All democracies are rigged in all enviroments. It's called gerrymandering.

It wasn't a bluff.

And they showed absolutely no sign of surrendering, they all fought to the death. Man woman and child. Or commited suicide.

Stamping on the leadership doesn't work in a democracy,

The people just elect another who wants the same thing as them.  

Iran has shown every evidence of being intrested in events beyond their borders. They have an active foreign policy and clearly stated expansionist goals.

Voter turnout is noticeably higher in their country than in ours, I think it's fair to say that people as a whole very much support the regime in this.

I'm neither American nor promoting America's use of pre-emptive nuclear weapons. Perhaps if you approached the subject more calmly you would be able to read the words I write more carefully.

I don't view the world in terms of good and evil. All that changed when I gave up reading comic books.

History and geopolitics is not a morality play. Bruce Willis is not going to save the day for truth freedom and justice. 

So you are expecting the another sneak attack from Japan then?

Their children are all old enough for revenge now.

Poland hafd a defensive pact with France and Britain.

War with Germany was declared when Germany invaded Poland, not Belgium. That came afterwards.

And dead parents.

Yeah they will be able to disconnect Poland real soon.

The Poles and the Germans are pretty prickley with each other. Theres not much love there.

I've been reading up on the EU strategic defence pact they had been pushing. The one that the U.S. isn't allowed to participate in.

I'll see what the internet knows about it.

Originally posted by olddaddy

This is classic Cold War US-Soviet posturing for supremacy. Each sides tries to one up the other by fighting proxy wars (Nicaragua, middle east), or getting the other to commit to a sinkhole (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq).

Each side relies on ethnic divisions to support a power struggle.

It matters not to the Great Powers which side wins, and which side loses, because there will always be another country with ethnic divisions to test the other. And when the Great Powers are through testing each other in your country, they will move on, leaving you none the better.

That is the way of Global Power Politics.

It doesn't matter what your people want, if they stay, they play.

 

"Buffer Zone".

Here's another article I enjoyed.

This one talks about the propganda aspect.

http://www.sofiaecho.com/article/georgia-contemporary-myth-making/id_31374/catid_102

Have you seen the wargeeks blog?   I'll try and dig that one up.  It's pretty funny.

Here we go.

http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-south-ossetia-the-war-of-my-dreams/

Originally posted by fenring101

Originally posted by tvalentine

In WW2, Britain introduced the strategy of bombing civilian cities to "lower the morale of the enemy", atleast thats what my text book says.

 

I assume you mean after the luftwaffe bombed london? before that the Royal Air force wasnt really in the position to go on a full offensive.

 

And yes the RAF and US AF did orchestrate mass carpet bombing of many major cities, but the reasons for that where that them bombin industries was not working. They would blow up the major industries by night, and then they would be rebuilt by the workers the next day.

 

That coupled with the V1 and V2 rockets and such which were sent randomly at the UK, I think they just thought **** it, if they want to fight like that, we will show them the meaning of it.

 

And I think you will find that a lot of the pilots and bombers who dropped those incindiery bombs didnt exactly feel too great about themselves, and they had little choice in the matter, as it was a case of win the war or face annihilation. Especially as they knew that the germans were experimenting with Heavy Water, which is a vital component in the development of nuclear weaponry, which they knew due to the manhatten project that the germans were developing similar.

 

Also bear in mind that the Luftwaffe were fielding Jet aircraft when everyone else were using propperler propulsion systems. They had very little choice but to do whatever nessacary in order to win fast.

 

EDIT:-

Just did a bit of reading to confirm I wasnt wrong. Bombing civilians was introduced during the German invasion of Poland during the blitzkrieg. They bombed military, industrial and civilian targets in order for there forces to be able to subdue the population faster.

 

Think you might want to write to the people who created your textbooks as they might want to check facts with the rest of the world.

No mate, after the Bombing of London, Britian concentrated on civilian populations centres under the direction of Bomber Harris. The Americans focused exclusively on industrial targets but Britain focused on terror bombing.
 

The Americans went on to adopt this approach in Japan.

This tactic didn't start in WW2, there was a Blitz on London in WW1 also.

Originally posted by fenring101

Originally posted by BushMonkey

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by baff 

Drop one on your enemies and those that are still alive do what you say for the next 6 decades.

You don't have to drop it on an oil field.

 

If you think nuclear weapons and bombing will resolve "problems" in the Middle-East, then I can only hope you do not vote, hold a driver's license or firearm's card. 

 

This is coming from the same person who calls Iran a democracy and believes that the state of Israel is next to the Suez Canal?

 

You are just playing games or so incredibly misinformed that it is outrageously hilarious.

 

You said the USA is weak, you are wrong. It still has the largest economy and most powerful military.

Secondly there are 2 schools of thought  in war, you destroy their military assets or you just kill the lot of them man woman and child. I believe the latter over the former. Then you won't need to fight them again the next generation. 
 Oh gasp did he just say that?  i know but am a harsh mofo. Black and white good and evil right or wrong, wage war or surrender, no middle ground when it comes to war with me. Victory at all costs, just make sure it costs the enemy more.

 

The is a difference between war and genocide. I suggest you learn it. War is about forcing your enemies to surrender by force of arms, ideals and politics. Information is as much about war as weapons.

 

And yes, there have been many cultures who think that in war you go in take what you want and kill everyone there, and take the people you dont kill as slaves. So yes, seens the US doesnt agree with slavery anymore, I guess they'd have to kill everyone.

 

Do you have any idea what you are saying? and no your not a harsh mofo, you are a child or atleast you have the mental age of a child with no real world experience.

 

Do you have any idea of the repurcussions it would have on your own people? there arent that many people as sick and twisted as you who could actually carry out orders like that without suffering severe psychological disorders because of it.

 

And by your school of thought, everyone whome the US has ever fought against and defeated should have been wiped out. correct? Such as japan, germany, iraq, afganistan, uk and countless others. You do realise that if Japan had been wiped out in WW2 then the world would not be as technological right now, and that China would probably be ahead of the US in computers? or that without the UK the US would have very little foothold in Europe, inwhich case the USSR would have had full control over germany and would have very likely invaded and conquered the whole of europe post WW2.

 

These forums really need to have adult supervision before children can post.

Would those be the same people in the U.S. who all cheered at the fire bombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima...or the other ones.
 

I think you are a bit simple minded mate.

You may be able to choose what kind of a war you are engaged in if it is all going your way, but when the chips are down public opinion will support all sorts of things.

In WW1 the people all thought as you. Germany had been defeated as had Japan. Our political aims had been achieved and the war was over. They had surrendered.

30 years later, it started up all over again.

This time the allies knew better. They knew that the war had to be taken into Germany and Japan itself that their populations had to know and understand extermination on the magnitude they had been dealing it themselves. That war is not necessarily just something you see on TV.

Now they are peaceful people. Those are the repercussions. Peace in our time.

When it's time to fight, you need big balls.

It isn't a question of whether the U.S. has the capability to militarily dominate the Middle East. It does. It is a question of whether it has the political will. And that...remains to be seen.

The Iranians think that you do not. They think they do, and you don't. That you are weak, not militarily but mentally.

It is their intention to take the Middle East off your hands.

You are preaching to the converted mate.

The big global warming crisis is over.

We've all moved on to the energy crisis and the economic one now.

And maybe back to the old impending nuclear holocaust.

Mankind needs a boogieman. The apocalpyse. If there isn't a convenient one around available, he will invent his own.

By the way your science is out.

NASA corrected their figures, the hottest year on record wasn't 1998, it was 1934.

America doesn't need Israel for any engagement with Iran.

It has bases in all but one of the neighbouring countries. The place is completely surrounded.

Plus it's carrier based assets.

It has overwhelming air power in theatre. Israels is rather limited by comparison. Iran is a large country and not next door. The targets are spread all over the country. Israel doesn't have the mid air refueling capability to reach all the necessary targets let alone the number of planes required to mount the kind of sustained air assault needed to reduce Iran's retaliatory capabilties.

That's not to say the U.S. wouldn't be pleased if Israel bombed Irans nuclear facilities.

Why don't you inform us all about the history some more. And the U.S.'s military capabilities, I'm sure we would be in a better position to answer your questions if you armed us with the necessary knowledge.