Ukraine

First topic message reminder :

Today is first anniversary of the ahem, "special operation" that Russia has mounted against Ukraine. Been several excellent documentaries on it, the BBC Panorama one on Tuesday was superb.
Horrendous what that utter $%"^ Putin is doing.

Can only hope Western backing doesn't diminish. There is opposition to support America is giving from the Republican party apparently. Without support from Nato countries Ukraine won't win, even with it's going to be another brutal year at least.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Samo wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Number one for obesity and shooting up schools.

You ever wonder what would have happened to your little Island if we hadn't have implemented "The Marshall Plan"....$4 billion loan at a paltry 2% over 50 years to a dying Country that came begging....

How much would 4 billion be worth today ???........All because we liked our "little friend"...

Worst investment we ever made....But there is more to life than money...

Were you personally involved in any of that? Seems odd to take pride in something you had nothing to do with, other than to happen to be born in the same geographical location in a later time period.

Thats nationalism for you.

No it's saying if it wasn't for People like me you'd either be speaking German or you'd have been bankrupt and dead on your backside...Although I get being proud of your Country is a notion some people find hard to grasp.

The only thing Truman got wrong with the Marshall plan was not insisting Britain changed its name to "America's little B**ch"..

As for Ukr v Rus..........The Korean war...Vietnam...and most other wars in history end in compromise with very little changing....Especially the Korean..

This one will end in compromise too......So let's not have too many families getting devastated...That's what I say....

Broker a way however hard for both both to claim victory.

God, you're arrogant. We wouldn't be speaking German; we'd likely be speaking Russian you plum.

Like I said Russia and the US won the War with help from Britain....

Without that help you would be called Karl Heinz...But on the brightside you would be better in penalty shootouts..

Being right isn't arrogant.....It's being right...

Whatever. If you seriously think your attitude is conducive to an appreciation of the American contribution in WWII, you're seriously mistaken.

You're also incorrect IMO, but you'll continue to believe what you believe re. the awesomeness, contribution and infallibility of the U.S. Armed Forces.

The fact is, it was a team effort, but Americans with their macho my-c**k-is-bigger-than-yours approach, continue to demonstrate how not to conduct international relations.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Like I said Russia and the US won the War with help from Britain....

Without that help you would be called Karl Heinz

Doesn't automatically make the descendants of US soldiers good people though, does it?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Samo wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Number one for obesity and shooting up schools.

You ever wonder what would have happened to your little Island if we hadn't have implemented "The Marshall Plan"....$4 billion loan at a paltry 2% over 50 years to a dying Country that came begging....

How much would 4 billion be worth today ???........All because we liked our "little friend"...

Worst investment we ever made....But there is more to life than money...

Were you personally involved in any of that? Seems odd to take pride in something you had nothing to do with, other than to happen to be born in the same geographical location in a later time period.

Thats nationalism for you.

No it's saying if it wasn't for People like me you'd either be speaking German or you'd have been bankrupt and dead on your backside...Although I get being proud of your Country is a notion some people find hard to grasp.

Absolutely nothing wrong with being proud of your country. But saying things like that when you personally had absolutely zero involvement but bang on like you did makes you sound like a tosspot.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Like I said Russia and the US won the War with help from Britain....

Without that help you would be called Karl Heinz

Doesn't automatically make the descendants of US soldiers good people though, does it?

Half of the UK is probably made up of US descendants...If WW2 stories of British Women throwing themselves at the Beefster invincibles is true..

We could be related Julius.....Maybe I'll change my name to Trussy Marx.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Like I said Russia and the US won the War with help from Britain....

Without that help you would be called Karl Heinz

Doesn't automatically make the descendants of US soldiers good people though, does it?

Half of the UK is probably made up of US descendants...If WW2 stories of British Women throwing themselves at the Beefster invincibles is true..

We could be related Julius.....Maybe I'll change my name to Trussy Marx.

Truss, you do know where many of the white Americans originally came from, right...?

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mel Gibson is making a 4 part docu-series on the $34 billion global child sex trafficking market involving the Ukraine.....

Could be interesting....

Mel Gibson? Good grief. That upstanding non-misogynist? I await this contribution to the pantheon of great historical documentaries with bated breath...

SPOLIER ALERT - Mel thinks the Jews did it.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Samo wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Number one for obesity and shooting up schools.

You ever wonder what would have happened to your little Island if we hadn't have implemented "The Marshall Plan"....$4 billion loan at a paltry 2% over 50 years to a dying Country that came begging....

How much would 4 billion be worth today ???........All because we liked our "little friend"...

Worst investment we ever made....But there is more to life than money...

Were you personally involved in any of that? Seems odd to take pride in something you had nothing to do with, other than to happen to be born in the same geographical location in a later time period.

Thats nationalism for you.

No it's saying if it wasn't for People like me you'd either be speaking German or you'd have been bankrupt and dead on your backside...Although I get being proud of your Country is a notion some people find hard to grasp.

The only thing Truman got wrong with the Marshall plan was not insisting Britain changed its name to "America's little B**ch"..

As for Ukr v Rus..........The Korean war...Vietnam...and most other wars in history end in compromise with very little changing....Especially the Korean..

This one will end in compromise too......So let's not have too many families getting devastated...That's what I say....

Broker a way however hard for both both to claim victory.

I'd love to know what you think would acceptable other than Russia leaving the territory of a sovereign state that it invaded in violation of international law.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Like I said Russia and the US won the War with help from Britain....

Without that help you would be called Karl Heinz

Doesn't automatically make the descendants of US soldiers good people though, does it?

Half of the UK is probably made up of US descendants...If WW2 stories of British Women throwing themselves at the Beefster invincibles is true..

We could be related Julius.....Maybe I'll change my name to Trussy Marx.

Perhaps we are related. Some of my family are admirable people and some are d1cks.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Like I said Russia and the US won the War with help from Britain....

Without that help you would be called Karl Heinz

Doesn't automatically make the descendants of US soldiers good people though, does it?

Half of the UK is probably made up of US descendants...If WW2 stories of British Women throwing themselves at the Beefster invincibles is true..

We could be related Julius.....Maybe I'll change my name to Trussy Marx.

Perhaps we are related. Some of my family are admirable people and some are d1cks.

Truss is a good lad really. If you invaded his house he'd compromise and let you retain sole use and occupation of the downstairs bathroom, half of the kitchen and the front garden.

No name Bertie wrote:With regard the dropping of two nuclear bombs on civilians in two Japanese cities after the defeat of the Nazis and while conflict was ongoing but reaching its final stages in Japan - the effect of the two bombs in significantly shortening  the war and reducing the number of possible final casualties is debatable.

Are you just trolling or did you learn history from David Icke?

The truth is we don't know what would have happened had the USA and allies invaded mainland Japan. There are some very strong indications, because the US spent a great deal of time and lives invading a whole bunch of Japanese occupied islands, and in places like Iwo Jima the end result was corpses every few metres. Scaling those kinds of battles up to the level required for an invasion and the blood loss and destruction could have easily been significantly greater than anything seen before.

.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Samo wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Number one for obesity and shooting up schools.

You ever wonder what would have happened to your little Island if we hadn't have implemented "The Marshall Plan"....$4 billion loan at a paltry 2% over 50 years to a dying Country that came begging....

How much would 4 billion be worth today ???........All because we liked our "little friend"...

Worst investment we ever made....But there is more to life than money...

Were you personally involved in any of that? Seems odd to take pride in something you had nothing to do with, other than to happen to be born in the same geographical location in a later time period.

Thats nationalism for you.

No it's saying if it wasn't for People like me you'd either be speaking German or you'd have been bankrupt and dead on your backside...Although I get being proud of your Country is a notion some people find hard to grasp.

The only thing Truman got wrong with the Marshall plan was not insisting Britain changed its name to "America's little B**ch"..

As for Ukr v Rus..........The Korean war...Vietnam...and most other wars in history end in compromise with very little changing....Especially the Korean..

This one will end in compromise too......So let's not have too many families getting devastated...That's what I say....

Broker a way however hard for both both to claim victory.

God, you're arrogant. We wouldn't be speaking German; we'd likely be speaking Russian you plum.

Like I said Russia and the US won the War with help from Britain....

Without that help you would be called Karl Heinz...But on the brightside you would be better in penalty shootouts..

Being right isn't arrogant.....It's being right...

Whatever. If you seriously think your attitude is conducive to an appreciation of the American contribution in WWII, you're seriously mistaken.

You're also incorrect IMO, but you'll continue to believe what you believe re. the awesomeness, contribution and infallibility of the U.S. Armed Forces.

The fact is, it was a team effort, but Americans with their macho my-c**k-is-bigger-than-yours approach, continue to demonstrate how not to conduct international relations.

US industrial base, Russian lives and British brains. British and Commonwealth forces fought longer and in more different theatres than any other combatant in WW2.

One area which is not so well known about was the British Navy in the pacific. British aircraft carriers tended to have more armour and less aircraft than their American cousins. Different design strategy driven in part by operating in the European theatre. Anyway - there is a famous quote about how they faced up to Japanese kamikazes.

“When a kamikaze hits a US carrier, it’s six months repair at Pearl. In a Limey carrier it’s a case of “sweepers, man your brooms”.”

lostinwales wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:With regard the dropping of two nuclear bombs on civilians in two Japanese cities after the defeat of the Nazis and while conflict was ongoing but reaching its final stages in Japan - the effect of the two bombs in significantly shortening  the war and reducing the number of possible final casualties is debatable.

Are you just trolling or did you learn history from David Icke?

The truth is we don't know what would have happened had the USA and allies invaded mainland Japan. There are some very strong indications, because the US spent a great deal of time and lives invading a whole bunch of Japanese occupied islands, and in places like Iwo Jima the end result was corpses every few metres. Scaling those kinds of battles up to the level required for an invasion and the blood loss and destruction could have easily been significantly greater than anything seen before.

.

And the fact that Japan didn't surrender even after the 2nd bomb. It was only after the Soviets completely routed Japan's Kwantung Army in Manchuria in 11 days that they eventually conceded defeat... 5 days after Emperor Hirohito had announced a cease fire under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.

Pal Joey wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:With regard the dropping of two nuclear bombs on civilians in two Japanese cities after the defeat of the Nazis and while conflict was ongoing but reaching its final stages in Japan - the effect of the two bombs in significantly shortening  the war and reducing the number of possible final casualties is debatable.

Are you just trolling or did you learn history from David Icke?

The truth is we don't know what would have happened had the USA and allies invaded mainland Japan. There are some very strong indications, because the US spent a great deal of time and lives invading a whole bunch of Japanese occupied islands, and in places like Iwo Jima the end result was corpses every few metres. Scaling those kinds of battles up to the level required for an invasion and the blood loss and destruction could have easily been significantly greater than anything seen before.

.

And the fact that Japan didn't surrender even after the 2nd bomb. It was only after the Soviets completely routed Japan's Kwantung Army in Manchuria in 11 days that they eventually conceded defeat... 5 days after Emperor Hirohito had announced a cease fire under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.

They offered a conditional surrender before the bombs.....We wanted an unconditional one or they got slapped...

They got slapped....

superflyweight wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Like I said Russia and the US won the War with help from Britain....

Without that help you would be called Karl Heinz

Doesn't automatically make the descendants of US soldiers good people though, does it?

Half of the UK is probably made up of US descendants...If WW2 stories of British Women throwing themselves at the Beefster invincibles is true..

We could be related Julius.....Maybe I'll change my name to Trussy Marx.

Perhaps we are related. Some of my family are admirable people and some are d1cks.

Truss is a good lad really.  If you invaded his house he'd compromise and let you retain sole use and occupation of the downstairs bathroom, half of the kitchen and the front garden.    

Best not to try if the current British record of invading the USA is anything to go by...

Didn't the British occupy the American capital and burn down the White House, even though the main British forces were giving the French a customary seeing to?

Done by people like me, you know.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:With regard the dropping of two nuclear bombs on civilians in two Japanese cities after the defeat of the Nazis and while conflict was ongoing but reaching its final stages in Japan - the effect of the two bombs in significantly shortening  the war and reducing the number of possible final casualties is debatable.

Are you just trolling or did you learn history from David Icke?

The truth is we don't know what would have happened had the USA and allies invaded mainland Japan. There are some very strong indications, because the US spent a great deal of time and lives invading a whole bunch of Japanese occupied islands, and in places like Iwo Jima the end result was corpses every few metres. Scaling those kinds of battles up to the level required for an invasion and the blood loss and destruction could have easily been significantly greater than anything seen before.

.

And the fact that Japan didn't surrender even after the 2nd bomb. It was only after the Soviets completely routed Japan's Kwantung Army in Manchuria in 11 days that they eventually conceded defeat... 5 days after Emperor Hirohito had announced a cease fire under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.

They offered a conditional surrender before the bombs.....We wanted an unconditional one or they got slapped...

They got slapped....

Which they didn't accept. The Nagasaki bomb was dropped on the 9th August. Same day as the Ruskies attacked Manchuria. Hirohito made his announcement on the 15th after learning the fate of the Kwantung Army. If the Russians hadn't gone in there was no indication of any unconditional surrender and a third bomb probably would have been considered. The actual unconditional surrender in Tokyo Bay was on September 2.

Anyway, less lives were lost with the bombs dropped - it would have been a lot more if what happened didn't happen. US estimates were around 1 million casualties for a landing on Kyushu plus all the locals - so one could easily imagine millions more Japanese given there were still 2.3 million Japanese troops and up to 28 million civilian militia. Some estimates were 1.7-4.0 million Allied casualties (400,000 - 800,000 dead... more than the whole of the rest of WW2 US dead) and between 5-10 million Japanese fatalities. Vice Admiral Onishi reckoned more like 20 million Japanese deaths.

So, the estimated 250,000 or more dead (including those who died over the following years from radiation) from the 2 bombs is by far the less deadly option compared to the above scenario.

Duty281 wrote:Didn't the British occupy the American capital and burn down the White House, even though the main British forces were giving the French a customary seeing to?

Done by people like me, you know.

1812 war sprung many myths......The US capitol wasn't completed until 1829...Originally in New York and then Philadelphia...Yes and you burned a few rooms in a White House that is nothing like the beautiful completed structure it is today....

You didn't win the War......But.....Give yourself a clap anyway .......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Didn't the British occupy the American capital and burn down the White House, even though the main British forces were giving the French a customary seeing to?

Done by people like me, you know.

1812 war sprung many myths......The US capitol wasn't completed until 1829...Originally in New York and then Philadelphia...Yes and you burned a few rooms in a White House that is nothing like the beautiful completed structure it is today....

You didn't win the War......But.....Give yourself a clap anyway .......

Don't really know much about that war other than Washington getting burnt. Our history is so vast and great it's but a mere speck, and certainly overshadowed by the Peninsular War and defeat of Napoleon around the same time. Appreciate that for the Yanks it's a bit more seismic.

I guess there is no special relationship on here. That escalated quickly.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:With regard the dropping of two nuclear bombs on civilians in two Japanese cities after the defeat of the Nazis and while conflict was ongoing but reaching its final stages in Japan - the effect of the two bombs in significantly shortening  the war and reducing the number of possible final casualties is debatable.

Are you just trolling or did you learn history from David Icke?

The truth is we don't know what would have happened had the USA and allies invaded mainland Japan. There are some very strong indications, because the US spent a great deal of time and lives invading a whole bunch of Japanese occupied islands, and in places like Iwo Jima the end result was corpses every few metres. Scaling those kinds of battles up to the level required for an invasion and the blood loss and destruction could have easily been significantly greater than anything seen before.

.

And the fact that Japan didn't surrender even after the 2nd bomb. It was only after the Soviets completely routed Japan's Kwantung Army in Manchuria in 11 days that they eventually conceded defeat... 5 days after Emperor Hirohito had announced a cease fire under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.

They offered a conditional surrender before the bombs.....We wanted an unconditional one or they got slapped...

They got slapped....

Truss, is your Dad bigger than my Dad? I get the feeling that sort of thing matters to you.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Didn't the British occupy the American capital and burn down the White House, even though the main British forces were giving the French a customary seeing to?

Done by people like me, you know.

1812 war sprung many myths......The US capitol wasn't completed until 1829...Originally in New York and then Philadelphia...Yes and you burned a few rooms in a White House that is nothing like the beautiful completed structure it is today....

You didn't win the War......But.....Give yourself a clap anyway .......

I'd rather applaud you for taking credit for every military victory the US has ever had. You've been a very brave and busy person over the years.

I feel like this thread has gone rather off-topic, no?

Pr4wn wrote:I feel like this thread has gone rather off-topic, no?

Isn't this off-topic section?

Pal Joey wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:With regard the dropping of two nuclear bombs on civilians in two Japanese cities after the defeat of the Nazis and while conflict was ongoing but reaching its final stages in Japan - the effect of the two bombs in significantly shortening  the war and reducing the number of possible final casualties is debatable.

Are you just trolling or did you learn history from David Icke?

The truth is we don't know what would have happened had the USA and allies invaded mainland Japan. There are some very strong indications, because the US spent a great deal of time and lives invading a whole bunch of Japanese occupied islands, and in places like Iwo Jima the end result was corpses every few metres. Scaling those kinds of battles up to the level required for an invasion and the blood loss and destruction could have easily been significantly greater than anything seen before.

.

And the fact that Japan didn't surrender even after the 2nd bomb. It was only after the Soviets completely routed Japan's Kwantung Army in Manchuria in 11 days that they eventually conceded defeat... 5 days after Emperor Hirohito had announced a cease fire under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.

They offered a conditional surrender before the bombs.....We wanted an unconditional one or they got slapped...

They got slapped....

Which they didn't accept. The Nagasaki bomb was dropped on the 9th August. Same day as the Ruskies attacked Manchuria. Hirohito made his announcement on the 15th after learning the fate of the Kwantung Army. If the Russians hadn't gone in there was no indication of any unconditional surrender and a third bomb probably would have been considered. The actual unconditional surrender in Tokyo Bay was on September 2.

Anyway, less lives were lost with the bombs dropped - it would have been a lot more if what happened didn't happen. US estimates were around 1 million casualties for a landing on Kyushu plus all the locals - so one could easily imagine millions more Japanese given there were still 2.3 million Japanese troops and up to 28 million civilian militia. Some estimates were 1.7-4.0 million Allied casualties (400,000 - 800,000 dead... more than the whole of the rest of WW2 US dead) and between 5-10 million Japanese fatalities. Vice Admiral Onishi reckoned more like 20 million Japanese deaths.

So, the estimated 250,000 or more dead (including those who died over the following years from radiation) from the 2 bombs is by far the less deadly option compared to the above scenario.

Nagasaki brought Hirohito to the table......If you want to believe other factors like Russia and Manchukuo were in play its up to you.....

Always argued with my Father (who is bigger than Julius Father) about the bombs.....Dad thought they should have been a way of detonating one out of harms way as a demo to the Japanese and given them time to evaluate the situation.....I always responded that they were too stupid to listen......Any Country that has kamikaze pilots isn't going to see sense....

I think maybe two though is a case for overkill........Japan were trying desperately after Hiroshima to get a favorable exit...and the devastation of the first bomb would have resonated back to the stubborn Emperor eventually...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:With regard the dropping of two nuclear bombs on civilians in two Japanese cities after the defeat of the Nazis and while conflict was ongoing but reaching its final stages in Japan - the effect of the two bombs in significantly shortening  the war and reducing the number of possible final casualties is debatable.

Are you just trolling or did you learn history from David Icke?

The truth is we don't know what would have happened had the USA and allies invaded mainland Japan. There are some very strong indications, because the US spent a great deal of time and lives invading a whole bunch of Japanese occupied islands, and in places like Iwo Jima the end result was corpses every few metres. Scaling those kinds of battles up to the level required for an invasion and the blood loss and destruction could have easily been significantly greater than anything seen before.

.

And the fact that Japan didn't surrender even after the 2nd bomb. It was only after the Soviets completely routed Japan's Kwantung Army in Manchuria in 11 days that they eventually conceded defeat... 5 days after Emperor Hirohito had announced a cease fire under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.

They offered a conditional surrender before the bombs.....We wanted an unconditional one or they got slapped...

They got slapped....

Which they didn't accept. The Nagasaki bomb was dropped on the 9th August. Same day as the Ruskies attacked Manchuria. Hirohito made his announcement on the 15th after learning the fate of the Kwantung Army. If the Russians hadn't gone in there was no indication of any unconditional surrender and a third bomb probably would have been considered. The actual unconditional surrender in Tokyo Bay was on September 2.

Anyway, less lives were lost with the bombs dropped - it would have been a lot more if what happened didn't happen. US estimates were around 1 million casualties for a landing on Kyushu plus all the locals - so one could easily imagine millions more Japanese given there were still 2.3 million Japanese troops and up to 28 million civilian militia. Some estimates were 1.7-4.0 million Allied casualties (400,000 - 800,000 dead... more than the whole of the rest of WW2 US dead) and between 5-10 million Japanese fatalities. Vice Admiral Onishi reckoned more like 20 million Japanese deaths.

So, the estimated 250,000 or more dead (including those who died over the following years from radiation) from the 2 bombs is by far the less deadly option compared to the above scenario.

Nagasaki brought Hirohito to the table......If you want to believe other factors like Russia and Manchukuo were in play its up to you.....

Always argued with my Father (who is bigger than Julius Father) about the bombs.....Dad thought they should have been a way of detonating one out of harms way as a demo to the Japanese and given them time to evaluate the situation.....I always responded that they were too stupid to listen......Any Country that has kamikaze pilots isn't going to see sense....

I think maybe two though is a case for overkill........Japan were trying desperately after Hiroshima to get a favorable exit...and the devastation of the first bomb would have resonated back to the stubborn Emperor eventually...

No it didn't. There was still opposition from the Imperial Army who wanted to fight on. The Emperor was a bumbling weak idiot who could barely communicate. The bigger fear was the Soviets gaining a foothold on the Korean Peninsula which was still occupied by the Japanese.

Not going to rely on you for any truths or facts. You've been proved wrong so many times by your own ill-informed posts... as seen on here.

We all believe that.

Duty281 wrote:Didn't the British occupy the American capital and burn down the White House, even though the main British forces were giving the French a customary seeing to?

Done by people like me, you know.

We all know you’d be hiding, crapping your pants and offering your “services” to the other side as a back up plan if there was even a chance of physical conflict

People like you indeed

Nothing quite so pathetic as blowhards trying to claim reflected glory for something that happened before they were a speck in their Dad’s nuts

BamBam wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Didn't the British occupy the American capital and burn down the White House, even though the main British forces were giving the French a customary seeing to?

Done by people like me, you know.

We all know you’d be hiding, crapping your pants and offering your “services” to the other side as a back up plan if there was even a chance of physical conflict

People like you indeed

Nothing quite so pathetic as blowhards trying to claim reflected glory for something that happened before they were a speck in their Dad’s nuts

Whoosh!!

The sound of his post going miles over your head.

the-goon2 wrote:

BamBam wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Didn't the British occupy the American capital and burn down the White House, even though the main British forces were giving the French a customary seeing to?

Done by people like me, you know.

We all know you’d be hiding, crapping your pants and offering your “services” to the other side as a back up plan if there was even a chance of physical conflict

People like you indeed

Nothing quite so pathetic as blowhards trying to claim reflected glory for something that happened before they were a speck in their Dad’s nuts

Whoosh!!

The sound of his post going miles over your head.

Yes, that poster isn't the brightest bulb in the box, but even by his standards that is quite a whooosh.

Pal Joey wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:With regard the dropping of two nuclear bombs on civilians in two Japanese cities after the defeat of the Nazis and while conflict was ongoing but reaching its final stages in Japan - the effect of the two bombs in significantly shortening  the war and reducing the number of possible final casualties is debatable.

Are you just trolling or did you learn history from David Icke?

The truth is we don't know what would have happened had the USA and allies invaded mainland Japan. There are some very strong indications, because the US spent a great deal of time and lives invading a whole bunch of Japanese occupied islands, and in places like Iwo Jima the end result was corpses every few metres. Scaling those kinds of battles up to the level required for an invasion and the blood loss and destruction could have easily been significantly greater than anything seen before.

.

And the fact that Japan didn't surrender even after the 2nd bomb. It was only after the Soviets completely routed Japan's Kwantung Army in Manchuria in 11 days that they eventually conceded defeat... 5 days after Emperor Hirohito had announced a cease fire under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.

They offered a conditional surrender before the bombs.....We wanted an unconditional one or they got slapped...

They got slapped....

Which they didn't accept. The Nagasaki bomb was dropped on the 9th August. Same day as the Ruskies attacked Manchuria. Hirohito made his announcement on the 15th after learning the fate of the Kwantung Army. If the Russians hadn't gone in there was no indication of any unconditional surrender and a third bomb probably would have been considered. The actual unconditional surrender in Tokyo Bay was on September 2.

Anyway, less lives were lost with the bombs dropped - it would have been a lot more if what happened didn't happen. US estimates were around 1 million casualties for a landing on Kyushu plus all the locals - so one could easily imagine millions more Japanese given there were still 2.3 million Japanese troops and up to 28 million civilian militia. Some estimates were 1.7-4.0 million Allied casualties (400,000 - 800,000 dead... more than the whole of the rest of WW2 US dead) and between 5-10 million Japanese fatalities. Vice Admiral Onishi reckoned more like 20 million Japanese deaths.

So, the estimated 250,000 or more dead (including those who died over the following years from radiation) from the 2 bombs is by far the less deadly option compared to the above scenario.

Nagasaki brought Hirohito to the table......If you want to believe other factors like Russia and Manchukuo were in play its up to you.....

Always argued with my Father (who is bigger than Julius Father) about the bombs.....Dad thought they should have been a way of detonating one out of harms way as a demo to the Japanese and given them time to evaluate the situation.....I always responded that they were too stupid to listen......Any Country that has kamikaze pilots isn't going to see sense....

I think maybe two though is a case for overkill........Japan were trying desperately after Hiroshima to get a favorable exit...and the devastation of the first bomb would have resonated back to the stubborn Emperor eventually...

No it didn't. There was still opposition from the Imperial Army who wanted to fight on. The Emperor was a bumbling weak idiot who could barely communicate. The bigger fear was the Soviets gaining a foothold on the Korean Peninsula which was still occupied by the Japanese.

Not going to rely on you for any truths or facts. You've been proved wrong so many times by your own ill-informed posts... as seen on here.

We all believe that.

Nice to know I'm held in such high esteem ......

Bless you I don't think you have any idea of how potent those two bombs were......Russia's invasion was merely noise....

Love to the guys on the Cucumber sandwich thread.....BTW what has Hugh Jackman done wrong today ??.....

I like him !!

Duty281 wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

BamBam wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Didn't the British occupy the American capital and burn down the White House, even though the main British forces were giving the French a customary seeing to?

Done by people like me, you know.

We all know you’d be hiding, crapping your pants and offering your “services” to the other side as a back up plan if there was even a chance of physical conflict

People like you indeed

Nothing quite so pathetic as blowhards trying to claim reflected glory for something that happened before they were a speck in their Dad’s nuts

Whoosh!!

The sound of his post going miles over your head.

Yes, that poster isn't the brightest bulb in the box, but even by his standards that is quite a whooosh.

In fairness you're a bright guy...So what did Diane Abbott write that was Antisemitic ??

I believe that's been answered for you two or three times. I see no point in answering it a third or fourth time.

Duty281 wrote:I believe that's been answered for you two or three times. I see no point in answering it a third or fourth time.

You amuse me.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:With regard the dropping of two nuclear bombs on civilians in two Japanese cities after the defeat of the Nazis and while conflict was ongoing but reaching its final stages in Japan - the effect of the two bombs in significantly shortening  the war and reducing the number of possible final casualties is debatable.

Are you just trolling or did you learn history from David Icke?

The truth is we don't know what would have happened had the USA and allies invaded mainland Japan. There are some very strong indications, because the US spent a great deal of time and lives invading a whole bunch of Japanese occupied islands, and in places like Iwo Jima the end result was corpses every few metres. Scaling those kinds of battles up to the level required for an invasion and the blood loss and destruction could have easily been significantly greater than anything seen before.

.

And the fact that Japan didn't surrender even after the 2nd bomb. It was only after the Soviets completely routed Japan's Kwantung Army in Manchuria in 11 days that they eventually conceded defeat... 5 days after Emperor Hirohito had announced a cease fire under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.

They offered a conditional surrender before the bombs.....We wanted an unconditional one or they got slapped...

They got slapped....

Which they didn't accept. The Nagasaki bomb was dropped on the 9th August. Same day as the Ruskies attacked Manchuria. Hirohito made his announcement on the 15th after learning the fate of the Kwantung Army. If the Russians hadn't gone in there was no indication of any unconditional surrender and a third bomb probably would have been considered. The actual unconditional surrender in Tokyo Bay was on September 2.

Anyway, less lives were lost with the bombs dropped - it would have been a lot more if what happened didn't happen. US estimates were around 1 million casualties for a landing on Kyushu plus all the locals - so one could easily imagine millions more Japanese given there were still 2.3 million Japanese troops and up to 28 million civilian militia. Some estimates were 1.7-4.0 million Allied casualties (400,000 - 800,000 dead... more than the whole of the rest of WW2 US dead) and between 5-10 million Japanese fatalities. Vice Admiral Onishi reckoned more like 20 million Japanese deaths.

So, the estimated 250,000 or more dead (including those who died over the following years from radiation) from the 2 bombs is by far the less deadly option compared to the above scenario.

Nagasaki brought Hirohito to the table......If you want to believe other factors like Russia and Manchukuo were in play its up to you.....

Always argued with my Father (who is bigger than Julius Father) about the bombs.....Dad thought they should have been a way of detonating one out of harms way as a demo to the Japanese and given them time to evaluate the situation.....I always responded that they were too stupid to listen......Any Country that has kamikaze pilots isn't going to see sense....

I think maybe two though is a case for overkill........Japan were trying desperately after Hiroshima to get a favorable exit...and the devastation of the first bomb would have resonated back to the stubborn Emperor eventually...

No it didn't. There was still opposition from the Imperial Army who wanted to fight on. The Emperor was a bumbling weak idiot who could barely communicate. The bigger fear was the Soviets gaining a foothold on the Korean Peninsula which was still occupied by the Japanese.

Not going to rely on you for any truths or facts. You've been proved wrong so many times by your own ill-informed posts... as seen on here.

We all believe that.

Nice to know I'm held in such high esteem   ......

Bless you I don't think you have any idea of how potent those two bombs were......Russia's invasion was merely noise....

Love to the guys on the Cucumber sandwich thread.....BTW what has Hugh Jackman done wrong today ??.....

I like him !!

I drove by his old home recently. Very nice suburb with some big homes, however his home was more modest.

A family friend went to school with him. He said he was sort of popular, good at sport and drama... obviously... but not a bad bloke.
There's a sad story how he was left on the front porch (we call them verandahs)... locked out of the house... after his mother just upped and left one day because of a failed marriage. He had to wait until dark until his old man came home from work in the city. They probably had some Chinese takeaway that night... there was a decent one in Wahroonga* where he lived. Not sure if it's still the same owners nowadays. Posh little village atmosphere there now.

Must admit I haven't watched much of his stage performances or many of his movies but I'm also happy that things worked out well for him.

* Mel Gibson lived there.... also Ellyse Perry.

BamBam wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Didn't the British occupy the American capital and burn down the White House, even though the main British forces were giving the French a customary seeing to?

Done by people like me, you know.

Nothing quite so pathetic as blowhards trying to claim reflected glory for something that happened before they were a speck in their Dad’s nuts

You obviously don't support Man Utd then......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:...Bless you I don't think you have any idea of how potent those two bombs were......Russia's invasion was merely noise....

Ah yes. I forgot you were actually a leading part of the Manhattan Project and an observer on both the Enola Gay and the Bockscar B29s...

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:...Bless you I don't think you have any idea of how potent those two bombs were......Russia's invasion was merely noise....

Ah yes. I forgot you were actually a leading part of the Manhattan Project and an observer on both the Enola Gay and the Bockscar B29s...

Certainly went to New York City quite a lot as a kid...Takes less time in a car than say Manchester to London....

So I have been involved with a few Manhattan projects in my time..

So in conclusion.....Russia blew up their own bridge....Targeted their own nuclear plant...Destroyed their own pipeline and screwed up a dam that fed water to Crimea that was one of the places they supposedly went to war to protect..

Not very clever these Ruskies..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So in conclusion.....Russia blew up their own bridge....Targeted their own nuclear plant...Destroyed their own pipeline and screwed up a dam that fed water to Crimea that was one of the places they supposedly went to war to protect..

Not very clever these Ruskies..

Did you fall out of your mum halfway up a ladder?

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So in conclusion.....Russia blew up their own bridge....Targeted their own nuclear plant...Destroyed their own pipeline and screwed up a dam that fed water to Crimea that was one of the places they supposedly went to war to protect..

Not very clever these Ruskies..

Did you fall out of your mum halfway up a ladder?

Ok, why did Putin destroy the dam? What was his goal? If the notion that it wasn't him is so ridiculous, why did he do it?

You are seriously having to ask that?

Really.

Oh dear.

If it's so obvious, answer it!

the-goon2 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So in conclusion.....Russia blew up their own bridge....Targeted their own nuclear plant...Destroyed their own pipeline and screwed up a dam that fed water to Crimea that was one of the places they supposedly went to war to protect..

Not very clever these Ruskies..

Did you fall out of your mum halfway up a ladder?

Ok, why did Putin destroy the dam? What was his goal? If the notion that it wasn't him is so ridiculous, why did he do it?

I thought I'd made myself clear as to my thoughts on conversing with you, but going to have one more go. F*ck off!

the-goon2 wrote:If it's so obvious, answer it!

The road on top of it might have something to do with it.

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So in conclusion.....Russia blew up their own bridge....Targeted their own nuclear plant...Destroyed their own pipeline and screwed up a dam that fed water to Crimea that was one of the places they supposedly went to war to protect..

Not very clever these Ruskies..

Did you fall out of your mum halfway up a ladder?

Don't let me keep you from talking about knitting or whatever it is you do with the boys on the Tea thread..

mountain man wrote:You are seriously having to ask that?

Really.

Oh dear.

Why are so many experts questioning it ????.....Do you believe everything you read in the media....

At the moment poor old Prince Harry is Satan....and he was trembling in the witness box .....They don't have agendas do they ?? But then again you didn't know that opposition parties were being cancelled in the Ukraine did you !!!

Feel free to hit and run like usual..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So in conclusion.....Russia blew up their own bridge....Targeted their own nuclear plant...Destroyed their own pipeline and screwed up a dam that fed water to Crimea that was one of the places they supposedly went to war to protect..

Not very clever these Ruskies..

Did you fall out of your mum halfway up a ladder?

Don't let me keep you from talking about knitting or whatever it is you do with the boys on the Tea thread..

We were going to knit you a Christmas jumper but (a) not enough wool to cover your big jubbly man boobs and (b) we just don't want to.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So in conclusion.....Russia blew up their own bridge....Targeted their own nuclear plant...Destroyed their own pipeline and screwed up a dam that fed water to Crimea that was one of the places they supposedly went to war to protect..

Not very clever these Ruskies..

Did you fall out of your mum halfway up a ladder?

Don't let me keep you from talking about knitting or whatever it is you do with the boys on the Tea thread..

That makes me so angry. It's crochet, not knitting.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So in conclusion.....Russia blew up their own bridge....Targeted their own nuclear plant...Destroyed their own pipeline and screwed up a dam that fed water to Crimea that was one of the places they supposedly went to war to protect..

Not very clever these Ruskies..

Did you fall out of your mum halfway up a ladder?

Don't let me keep you from talking about knitting or whatever it is you do with the boys on the Tea thread..

That makes me so angry. It's crochet, not knitting.

But what I want to know, and it's so important, is do the cucumber sandwiches come before or after the knitting? Sorry, crocheting.

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:If it's so obvious, answer it!

The road on top of it might have something to do with it.

So he gets to destroy the road on the dam. Great. it's road he currently occupies, so only his army can use it for the moment. But it could be used by Ukraine if they counter attack. However if Putin is looking to push forward, it will impact his supply lines.

What is the cost of destroying that key road. Well the land he occupies, were plenty of ethnic Russians live is destroyed, water for Crimea (which he has occupied illegally since 2014) is compromised. Basically makes the land he fought for useless for years.

What else does he gain by doing that?

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:If it's so obvious, answer it!

The road on top of it might have something to do with it.

So he gets to destroy the road on the dam. Great. it's road he currently occupies, so only his army can use it for the moment. But it could be used by Ukraine if they counter attack. However if Putin is looking to push forward, it will impact his supply lines.

What is the cost of destroying that key road. Well the land he occupies, were plenty of ethnic Russians live is destroyed, water for Crimea (which he has occupied illegally since 2014) is compromised. Basically makes the land he fought for useless for years.

What else does he gain by doing that?

Occupying land doesn't mean it's your land, it is still Ukrainian sovereign territory lived in by Ukrainians. He's not fighting for land to use, he's fighting for land to subjugate the Ukranian people.