What is Wrong with me (my malfunction)????

[gaffo]

if the Russian tried that in 41 it would have been a different story.

We were talking about 1945 fool.
I bet you think American won the Vietnam war too!!

I understand the insult, my skin is thick, you are hurting that i posted i though you are not historically informed vai ww2 and called you in effect a fool.

I did and do think so - you need to inform yourself of history 70-80 yrs ago. and not assume know it when you don't.


I like you Sir - and understand you insulting me, after i did you - i did so because i know you do not know history, you returned my "favor" because i hurt your feelings (noting to do with your historical knowledge).

I understand, i don't like being instulted either,

BUT I VALUE TRUTH - including HISTORICAL TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!! - this happened when/etc. IMO you lack such knowledge per ww2 - or at least less than i - no doubt both of us have much more to learn per history of the 30's 40's.

Vietnam?

utter cluster-fuck, Why did the Australians get involved? - did the US bribe them into that lost war? - i do wonder on that one.

and ya, it was a lost war from day one - China being next door and America being 1/3 a world farther (ignoring the French-America colonial connnection - Deim Ben Fu - French asshats got their ass handed to then, them in 56? (so there was 7 yr between the French losers and American's getting involved!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - how so? don't know, but assume - using Horse Sense, some South Veit ruller -Ziem? (or the guy before him - was there one before him?) - America could not just move in on our own accord after the French got their ass own, nor without a thug in the South viet - i.,e. Zeim - asking us to move it.)

and ya, Ziem was a dick - asssasinated in 65, so a-ok, but then you have Madam so and so (arrogant asshole wife of whatever dictator of SV - Thieu (or pre Thieu) - no matter all are assholes, rem hearing Thieu, the last SV "president" crying about how he would have won some war if the americans were not so fixated upon retreiving the wounded.

History is complex, as is power and privalage, and race.

Thugs. racists, assholes come in all races and times.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't like nor accept your re-writting of FACTUAL HSITORY.

Oh my God stop bullshitting me. I haven't made anything up. Here's a breakdown of events leading up to the Japanese surrender.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/th ... talin-did/

Here's the relevant portion of the Pottsdam Declaration

We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

And this is the response as broadcast by the emperor of Japan

To our good and loyal subjects: After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining in our empire today, we have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure. We have ordered our government to communicate to the governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that our empire accepts the provisions of their joint declaration.

[gaffo]

I don't like nor accept your re-writting of FACTUAL HSITORY.

Oh my God stop bullshitting me. I haven't made anything up. Here's a breakdown of events leading up to the Japanese surrender.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/th ... talin-did/

Here's the relevant portion of the Pottsdam Declaration

We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

And this is the response as broadcast by the emperor of Japan

To our good and loyal subjects: After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining in our empire today, we have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure. We have ordered our government to communicate to the governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that our empire accepts the provisions of their joint declaration.

Third, the Japanese military understood, at least in a rough way, what nuclear weapons were. Japan had a nuclear weapons program. Several of the military men mention the fact that it was a nuclear weapon that destroyed Hiroshima in their diaries. Gen. Anami Korechika, minster of war, even went to consult with the head of the Japanese nuclear weapons program on the night of Aug. 7. The idea that Japan’s leaders didn’t know about nuclear weapons doesn’t hold up.

yep.

read most of your link, then quit.

what your fucking point?

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't like nor accept your re-writting of FACTUAL HSITORY.

Oh my God stop bullshitting me. I haven't made anything up. Here's a breakdown of events leading up to the Japanese surrender.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/th ... talin-did/

Here's the relevant portion of the Pottsdam Declaration

We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

And this is the response as broadcast by the emperor of Japan

To our good and loyal subjects: After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining in our empire today, we have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure. We have ordered our government to communicate to the governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that our empire accepts the provisions of their joint declaration.

Third, the Japanese military understood, at least in a rough way, what nuclear weapons were. Japan had a nuclear weapons program. Several of the military men mention the fact that it was a nuclear weapon that destroyed Hiroshima in their diaries. Gen. Anami Korechika, minster of war, even went to consult with the head of the Japanese nuclear weapons program on the night of Aug. 7. The idea that Japan’s leaders didn’t know about nuclear weapons doesn’t hold up.

yep.

read most of your link, then quit.

what your fucking point?

Read it properly then. It explains why historians don't buy into the myth that nuclear attacks ended the war in the Pacific, and it explains why what you wrote about the Soviets not being in a position to invade is wrong. Most importantly it explains why the nuclear attacks changed little diplomatically from the Japanese perspective, but the Soviet declaration of war changed everything for them. Going beyind that it also provides a fairly compelling theory for why it was convenient for both America and Japan to preserve the story that the bomb ended the war, the story that you have bought into with such misplaced passion.

[Sculptor]

I don't like nor accept your re-writting of FACTUAL HSITORY.

Oh my God stop bullshitting me. I haven't made anything up. Here's a breakdown of events leading up to the Japanese surrender.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/th ... talin-did/

Pearls before swine. He wont get it his mind is closed off.

[Gary Childress]

Oh my God stop bullshitting me. I haven't made anything up. Here's a breakdown of events leading up to the Japanese surrender.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/th ... talin-did/

Here's the relevant portion of the Pottsdam Declaration


And this is the response as broadcast by the emperor of Japan

Third, the Japanese military understood, at least in a rough way, what nuclear weapons were. Japan had a nuclear weapons program. Several of the military men mention the fact that it was a nuclear weapon that destroyed Hiroshima in their diaries. Gen. Anami Korechika, minster of war, even went to consult with the head of the Japanese nuclear weapons program on the night of Aug. 7. The idea that Japan’s leaders didn’t know about nuclear weapons doesn’t hold up.

yep.

read most of your link, then quit.

what your fucking point?

Read it properly then. It explains why historians don't buy into the myth that nuclear attacks ended the war in the Pacific, and it explains why what you wrote about the Soviets not being in a position to invade is wrong. Most importantly it explains why the nuclear attacks changed little diplomatically from the Japanese perspective, but the Soviet declaration of war changed everything for them. Going beyind that it also provides a fairly compelling theory for why it was convenient for both America and Japan to preserve the story that the bomb ended the war, the story that you have bought into with such misplaced passion.

I read it. It seems pretty convincing. Amazing that the Japanese high command just shrugged off all the bombings that devastated their population. One might think the discovery that the enemy was now using single bombs to do what otherwise took thousands of bombs to do would indeed shake things to the core. But apparently not.

[Gary Childress]

Although, apparently even the Soviet entry into the war didn't convince some in the Imperial Army. They tried to stage a coup to overthrow the emperor in order to thwart the emperor's decision to capitulate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

It's interesting, I don't remember that mentioned in the Foreign Policy article.

[Luxin]

deleted 473

[FlashDangerpants]

I read it. It seems pretty convincing. Amazing that the Japanese high command just shrugged off all the bombings that devastated their population. One might think the discovery that the enemy was now using single bombs to do what otherwise took thousands of bombs to do would indeed shake things to the core. But apparently not.

Willingness to let others die is kind of how you get to be in the high command.

[Gary Childress]

I read it. It seems pretty convincing. Amazing that the Japanese high command just shrugged off all the bombings that devastated their population. One might think the discovery that the enemy was now using single bombs to do what otherwise took thousands of bombs to do would indeed shake things to the core. But apparently not.

Willingness to let others die is kind of how you get to be in the high command.

Perhaps. I think it depends on the person, the culture and the circumstances. It's a job that needs to be filled in wartime, like it or not. Unfortunately, the Japanese had some exceptionally bad ones.

[gaffo]

if the Russian tried that in 41 it would have been a different story.

We were talking about 1945 fool.
I bet you think American won the Vietnam war too!!

Noting your lack of character when called out on your lack of historical knowledge, FOOL.

when you learn more history and are less a dick (instead of classical transfurance - shoot the messenger - try pointing the gun to yourself instead, then instead of fulling the trigger - take a little time to say to yourself - "gee maybe the messenger had some valid points, and i might learn something from them - before i off him or myself.

I'f noted your posts here - most are worthy, so willing to discuss VALID history - not as me vs a dick, but as me vs/with a compatriot - both interested in actual history and willing to learn more of actual history from the other.

but until then fuck off - if you choose your ego over actual historical knowledge - there can be no discussion of REAL history between us.

--------------

as for Vietnam , South Vietnam was lost by 68 - after the Tet Offensive (which ironically enough was a defeat of the North Vietnamese! - militarily, but nontheless, look like enough of a win (though a defeat in fact), for the American Public opinion (I do not know of the S Viet opinion on Tet - though also at least as important as the American public view - in 68). If you can provide a link - instead of just vitrial toward me for your feeling hurt - I may learn something about the South Vietnames' view of Tet in 68 and make this forum worth more than just another Twit/facefuck egocentric social clusterfuck of noise over facts. - so make this forum better than just another twit-sphere of egosentrism without facts).

And no "we" first most, the South Vietnamese LOST - South Vietnam LOST her Soverienty in April 75 (2.2 yrs after we cut our support via US troops), and 2.2 yrs after the North Vietnamese "agreed" to a peace agreement (so ya the NV violated the agreement via the Paris Peace Accords - willingly and knowingly/and ya we - US know they would and also knew we (US) was war weary by 73-75 - and would just look aside when the NV voilated the legally binding peace treaty they signed 2 yrs prior!

I value the Rule of Law - be it from my County, to my State to my Nation, to International Law. Fact is NV "broke the law" when they illegally invaded SV 2.2 yrs after they signed a Law Abiding treaty not to do so (and ya we (US/Australia - and ya even the SV folks - knew the "War was lost" by 73, but still the NV signed the fucking dotted line!!!!!!!!!!!!! agreeing to the existance of SV!!!!!!!!!!!!! - so, ya they were dicks for not honouring their agreement/rule of law - but also know so and also know they could take SV without any trouble - in full dickish illegallity. a good move!!!!!!!!!!!!!! militarily and politically, but still fully dickish and utterly illegal!

[Sculptor]

if the Russian tried that in 41 it would have been a different story.

We were talking about 1945 fool.
I bet you think American won the Vietnam war too!!

Noting your lack of ...

That was as far as I read.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Just another couple of old warmongers 'arguing' about the indefensible.

[gaffo]

We were talking about 1945 fool.
I bet you think American won the Vietnam war too!!

Noting your lack of ...

That was as far as I read.

ok - your choice, when/if you wish to talk about history - vs your ego being hurt, i'll be around.

peace to you Sir.

[gaffo]

Just another couple of old warmongers 'arguing' about the indefensible.

ya ok whatever.

I'm an idealist, and so why i affirm "the rule of law" - ie. if you sign a legal document, you abide by it.

i also like the concept if the universality of man - vs tribalism, and why i like the UN and affirm international law and treaties as law abiding.

---------
so ya North Vietnam - knowing they won the war by 73 (US was "out of there" - "just give us (US) the fiction of "peace" - so we can leave and declair "victory" ("peace with honour"!!!!!!!!!!) - like with Iraqnam and soon Afghanistan)................so ya they violated The Rule of Law in 75!!!!!! - after signing the a docutment that dissallowed their invasion 2 yrs later!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ya its called hypocrisy and self interest, and ya if the roles were reversed, i.e if NV was weak instead of SV, the SV would have done the same thing!

------------

i.e. so ya, being a hyporcite is not left/right, it just is. as not valuing the rule of law. if you don't like the contract, dont sign it!


but in an idealist/ still making war with windmills.