Author Topic: another take  (Read 1341 times)

Offline 68Boomer

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 96
another take
« Reply #45 on: November 02, 2007, 07:55:52 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
You've yet to see it because you haven't bothered to look for it:

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


First...thank you for taking the time to put up the link.

However....it is not my place to go searching for it. I have never seen, and I watch news and history programs religiously, a Japanese Official openly apologize in public to the people that the atrocities were committed against.

And there are two other reasons, personal reasons for the 'Not Bothering'.

One should not have to seek an apology, an apology that is given after being sought is worthless in my opinion.

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
another take
« Reply #46 on: November 02, 2007, 08:22:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Yeager
Once can only guess what the result would have been had Pattons advice been followed.


After reading Omar Bradley's "Soldier's Diary" (issued here in Russian in 1957) I came to a conclusion that Patton was a loonie. It's funny that the same book was used to make a Patton movie...

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
another take
« Reply #47 on: November 02, 2007, 08:27:58 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Yeager
It is a fact that at Potsdam Truman told Stalin that he (truman) had a brand new weapon, a super bomb.  Where Borada was wrong is that Stalin already knew about it.


American A-Bomb project wasn't taken seriously until Truman boasted Trinity in Potsdam. Otherwise we could probably have a Bomb a year or two earlier.

USSR started to invest in nuclear program only in 1945. A Bomb have cost us probably as much as a War, but, fortunately, we got it in time.

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12772
another take
« Reply #48 on: November 02, 2007, 08:39:10 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Boroda
American A-Bomb project wasn't taken seriously until Truman boasted Trinity in Potsdam. Otherwise we could probably have a Bomb a year or two earlier.

USSR started to invest in nuclear program only in 1945. A Bomb have cost us probably as much as a War, but, fortunately, we got it in time.


In time? You seem to be implying that having nukes saved you from the US? We had 'em alone, if we wanted to nuke Moscow why didn't we before you could retaliate? Ultimately they did not save the USSR anyhow so perhaps you didn't get them in time afterall?
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Dago

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5324
another take
« Reply #49 on: November 02, 2007, 08:43:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
In time? You seem to be implying that having nukes saved you from the US? We had 'em alone, if we wanted to nuke Moscow why didn't we before you could retaliate? Ultimately they did not save the USSR anyhow so perhaps you didn't get them in time afterall?


Boroda lives in a Prada created fantasy world where he actually believes the truckloads of bullcrap they piled on the citizens.
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
another take
« Reply #50 on: November 02, 2007, 08:44:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan was scheduled to begin on November 1, 1945

Admiral William Leahy estimated that there would be more than 250,000 Americans killed or wounded on Kyushu alone.

Admiral Leahy was (I think) in the Navy.  Here was an admiral who was planning for invasion, not seige.

As for The cold war being blamed entirely on the USA (or atleast anti-Soviet countries) the USA and its allies had a nuclear monopoly from 1945 to 1949.  The reason the Soviets built the bomb is because they feared us having it, but the USA could have used nuclear blackmail or nuclear war against the soviets during that period without fear of nuclear counterattack if that were our intent.

Instead we went from a navy of 105 carriers to 6 aircraft carriers and resulted in a wholesale resignation of many Navy leaders in 1949 in protest to the Navy downsizing.

In 1946 we went from 557 billion in military spending to 52.4 billion in 1947.

I can see how Uncle Joe could have been concerned with the USA cutting military spending by 90%.

When in 1946 the USA, Canada and the UK issued a joint declaration asking for int'l controls and cooperation regarding nuclear weapons and technology I can see how that was threatening to Joe.


Thank You, it's very interesting, I didn't know about mil budget cuts. I appreciate any information that adds to the complete picture.

USSR didn;t have any intentions of starting a war on the "allies". Before maybe 1950 it was impossible, after 1945 USSR also cut down it's military several times, and the country was literally in ruins, we have reached 1940 level only in 1947, and then came the last starvation, bad harvest 1947.

Joint declaration for international control - nice, I didn't know it too. In 1947 Molotov said to Western scientists who visited USSR that there is no such thing as a "secret of an atomic bomb". Another interesting fact is that USSR didn't boast the Bomb, American RB-29s discovered increase in radiation when flying spy missions over Kamchatka several weeks ago. Doesn't it show that Soviet side was quite self-confident?

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12772
another take
« Reply #51 on: November 02, 2007, 08:48:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Boroda
Thank You, it's very interesting, I didn't know about mil budget cuts. I appreciate any information that adds to the complete picture.

USSR didn;t have any intentions of starting a war on the "allies". Before maybe 1950 it was impossible, after 1945 USSR also cut down it's military several times, and the country was literally in ruins, we have reached 1940 level only in 1947, and then came the last starvation, bad harvest 1947.

Joint declaration for international control - nice, I didn't know it too. In 1947 Molotov said to Western scientists who visited USSR that there is no such thing as a "secret of an atomic bomb". Another interesting fact is that USSR didn't boast the Bomb, American RB-29s discovered increase in radiation when flying spy missions over Kamchatka several weeks ago. Doesn't it show that Soviet side was quite self-confident?


I have little doubt that Russia will/is rise/rising again. As a sovereign state uninterested in imposing communism on the rest of the world I welcome her. Otherwise, not so much.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
another take
« Reply #52 on: November 02, 2007, 08:48:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
In time? You seem to be implying that having nukes saved you from the US? We had 'em alone, if we wanted to nuke Moscow why didn't we before you could retaliate? Ultimately they did not save the USSR anyhow so perhaps you didn't get them in time afterall?


Look at Charioter and Fleetwood plans.

Also look at the A-bomb stock the US had. That's why I said Truman bluffed.

A-bombs were only terror-weapons. they couldn't stop Soviet Army from cleaning the Western Europe in a couple of weeks. Our bomb arrived just in time, when Americans have built a stock enough to start massive terror-bombings of Soviet cities.

Check Drop-Shot plan, the one that was delayed after Soviet nuclear test.

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
another take
« Reply #53 on: November 02, 2007, 08:53:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
I have little doubt that Russia will/is rise/rising again. As a sovereign state uninterested in imposing communism on the rest of the world I welcome her. Otherwise, not so much.


Communism was just a slogan. I see it as an official religion, nothing more.

The problem is that the West isn't interested in independent powerful Russia with it's own foreign policy :( It doesn't have anything to do with communism.

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
another take
« Reply #54 on: November 02, 2007, 09:01:22 PM »
Just a side-note to stay on topic:

I agree with people who say that Tibbets was just a warrior following orders, without even understanding what they are dropping on Hiroshima. He just had the best B-29 crew in the Pacific.

I understand his decision to hide his grave so no "pacifist" idiots will have an opportunity...

Offline Slash27

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12795
another take
« Reply #55 on: November 02, 2007, 09:04:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Boroda
A-bombs were only terror-weapons. they couldn't stop Soviet Army from cleaning the Western Europe in a couple of weeks. Our bomb arrived just in time, when Americans have built a stock enough to start massive terror-bombings of Soviet cities.

 


Holy bull****:huh

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12772
another take
« Reply #56 on: November 02, 2007, 09:04:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Boroda
Communism was just a slogan. I see it as an official religion, nothing more.

The problem is that the West isn't interested in independent powerful Russia with it's own foreign policy :( It doesn't have anything to do with communism.


It worked well when so many had nothing. When a nation becomes more prosperous and the people feel they aren't being properly rewarded for their labors the glow dims.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline AquaShrimp

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1706
another take
« Reply #57 on: November 02, 2007, 09:27:29 PM »
The U.S. planned to have 7 tactical A-bombs to use in the invasion of Japan.  These would have been dropped on Japanese troop concentrations.

And while it is true that every Japanese was supposed to be ready to fight, it would have been a one sided slaughter.  The Japanese never developed an effective anti-tank gun, and the majority of soldiers to be faced by the U.S. were old men and young boys.  You can be assured that they would be nowhere near as well armed or well trained as the the home defense guard that Germany put up in its last days.

The only trick Japan had up its sleeve were the 5000 aircraft relegated to Kamikaze duty that were hidden in caves and forests.

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
another take
« Reply #58 on: November 02, 2007, 09:27:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Slash27
Holy bull****:huh


:D

Another "everyone knows".

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
another take
« Reply #59 on: November 02, 2007, 09:30:14 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The U.S. planned to have 7 tactical A-bombs to use in the invasion of Japan.  These would have been dropped on Japanese troop concentrations.


US didn't have 7 A-bombs until late-1946. Truman bluffed.