Post: #26

(11-30-2017 02:03 PM)Higgs Bosun Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 05:25 AM)FilipSRB Wrote:  As for the Hague Tribunal (which formally closes on 31st of December), combined sentences per nationalities are as follows:

Serbs - 1400 years (if you count six life sentences as 40 years each).
Croats - 294 years.
Bosnian muslims - 42 years.
Albanians - 13 years.

A travesty of justice.

Imagine that if by some strange and unknowable turn of events, in 20 years time you find yourself leading a unit in an ethno-war. There is a historical lesson to be learned here for this eventuality.

First, obviously, don't lose!

Secondly, if you have even the subtlest of itches to commit some war crimes, might as well do it, win or lose. If you win, it won't matter, and if you lose, you know your particular side will be summarily declared war criminals and racists and executed regardless of what you did or didn't do. I mean, it's better to be punished for a crime you committed than for one you didn't.

And that post right there is a great example of sending an unintended message. It almost encourages people to commit warcrimes if it means they win the conflict.

Post: #27

(11-29-2017 07:58 PM)Syberpunk Wrote:  I submit to you future locks:

This is in exceedingly poor taste and I love it.

Post: #28

I remember the problems there as a child but to me it was just background events and what got me was the scenes of dead civilians on the hillside in kosovo. Endless propaganda by our news media to shore up war against Serbia.

It was always genocide this and ethnic cleansing that but never was the reality of why the Serbs were targeting Muslims fully explained or rationalised. The same BS is played out today with the Buddhists, Hindus and Christians fighting the muslims in Rohingya because the Muslims were aggressive and violent and did nothing to stop the fundamentalists from doing what they were doing.

The only problem for the media is its not whites committing the violence but a variety of groups who are from different races and religions. If they don't cover it too much they can keep the lies going.

I'm sure if it was Shia v Sunni in Yugoslavia and the Serbs had nothing to do with it then the NATO powers would never had attacked.

Post: #29

(11-30-2017 03:47 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 02:03 PM)Higgs Bosun Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 05:25 AM)FilipSRB Wrote:  As for the Hague Tribunal (which formally closes on 31st of December), combined sentences per nationalities are as follows:

Serbs - 1400 years (if you count six life sentences as 40 years each).
Croats - 294 years.
Bosnian muslims - 42 years.
Albanians - 13 years.

A travesty of justice.

Imagine that if by some strange and unknowable turn of events, in 20 years time you find yourself leading a unit in an ethno-war. There is a historical lesson to be learned here for this eventuality.

First, obviously, don't lose!

Secondly, if you have even the subtlest of itches to commit some war crimes, might as well do it, win or lose. If you win, it won't matter, and if you lose, you know your particular side will be summarily declared war criminals and racists and executed regardless of what you did or didn't do. I mean, it's better to be punished for a crime you committed than for one you didn't.

And that post right there is a great example of sending an unintended message. It almost encourages people to commit warcrimes if it means they win the conflict.

War crimes?

I don't know about you, but war is dirty, dark, and evil. This whole "Geneva Convention", lobbing missiles, and bombing runs by drones, has seriously made conducting a war seem "sterile".

People die in wars. Civilians and soldiers. That's the whole bloody point.

War crimes, such an oxymoron. As if there are honorable ways to killing, maiming, and looting.

Post: #30

(11-30-2017 04:55 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 03:47 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 02:03 PM)Higgs Bosun Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 05:25 AM)FilipSRB Wrote:  As for the Hague Tribunal (which formally closes on 31st of December), combined sentences per nationalities are as follows:

Serbs - 1400 years (if you count six life sentences as 40 years each).
Croats - 294 years.
Bosnian muslims - 42 years.
Albanians - 13 years.

A travesty of justice.

Imagine that if by some strange and unknowable turn of events, in 20 years time you find yourself leading a unit in an ethno-war. There is a historical lesson to be learned here for this eventuality.

First, obviously, don't lose!

Secondly, if you have even the subtlest of itches to commit some war crimes, might as well do it, win or lose. If you win, it won't matter, and if you lose, you know your particular side will be summarily declared war criminals and racists and executed regardless of what you did or didn't do. I mean, it's better to be punished for a crime you committed than for one you didn't.

And that post right there is a great example of sending an unintended message. It almost encourages people to commit warcrimes if it means they win the conflict.

War crimes?

I don't know about you, but war is dirty, dark, and evil. This whole "Geneva Convention", lobbing missiles, and bombing runs by drones, has seriously made conducting a war seem "sterile".

People die in wars. Civilians and soldiers. That's the whole bloody point.

War crimes, such an oxymoron. As if there are honorable ways to killing, maiming, and looting.

Deliberately targeting non-combatants is a war crime. So there is something to be said about war crimes.

If civilians die anyway because of use by terrorists as human shields. Then its on the terrorists for forcing them to die with them.

Post: #31

(11-30-2017 07:28 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 04:55 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 03:47 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 02:03 PM)Higgs Bosun Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 05:25 AM)FilipSRB Wrote:  As for the Hague Tribunal (which formally closes on 31st of December), combined sentences per nationalities are as follows:

Serbs - 1400 years (if you count six life sentences as 40 years each).
Croats - 294 years.
Bosnian muslims - 42 years.
Albanians - 13 years.

A travesty of justice.

Imagine that if by some strange and unknowable turn of events, in 20 years time you find yourself leading a unit in an ethno-war. There is a historical lesson to be learned here for this eventuality.

First, obviously, don't lose!

Secondly, if you have even the subtlest of itches to commit some war crimes, might as well do it, win or lose. If you win, it won't matter, and if you lose, you know your particular side will be summarily declared war criminals and racists and executed regardless of what you did or didn't do. I mean, it's better to be punished for a crime you committed than for one you didn't.

And that post right there is a great example of sending an unintended message. It almost encourages people to commit warcrimes if it means they win the conflict.

War crimes?

I don't know about you, but war is dirty, dark, and evil. This whole "Geneva Convention", lobbing missiles, and bombing runs by drones, has seriously made conducting a war seem "sterile".

People die in wars. Civilians and soldiers. That's the whole bloody point.

War crimes, such an oxymoron. As if there are honorable ways to killing, maiming, and looting.

Deliberately targeting non-combatants is a war crime. So there is something to be said about war crimes.

If civilians die anyway because of use by terrorists as human shields. Then its on the terrorists for forcing them to die with them.

There are numerous instances abound in history of this hilarious concept of war crimes being committed and no " punishments" being dolled out.

For your reading pleasure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_w...rld_War_II

You want a fun read? Check out Chester Nimitz's opinion on the use of unrestricted warfare in the Pacific theater.

You want to win in war, you play dirty. War crime charges are only for losers.

If I'm a nation state looking to expand my borders for my citizens, do you think I'm going to willingly let the subjugated previous owners stick around? Get out while the going is good. Staying in a "free city' is a great way to get yourself killed or stuck in perpetual dhimmitude.

Post: #32

(11-30-2017 07:35 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 07:28 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 04:55 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 03:47 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 02:03 PM)Higgs Bosun Wrote:  Imagine that if by some strange and unknowable turn of events, in 20 years time you find yourself leading a unit in an ethno-war. There is a historical lesson to be learned here for this eventuality.

First, obviously, don't lose!

Secondly, if you have even the subtlest of itches to commit some war crimes, might as well do it, win or lose. If you win, it won't matter, and if you lose, you know your particular side will be summarily declared war criminals and racists and executed regardless of what you did or didn't do. I mean, it's better to be punished for a crime you committed than for one you didn't.

And that post right there is a great example of sending an unintended message. It almost encourages people to commit warcrimes if it means they win the conflict.

War crimes?

I don't know about you, but war is dirty, dark, and evil. This whole "Geneva Convention", lobbing missiles, and bombing runs by drones, has seriously made conducting a war seem "sterile".

People die in wars. Civilians and soldiers. That's the whole bloody point.

War crimes, such an oxymoron. As if there are honorable ways to killing, maiming, and looting.

Deliberately targeting non-combatants is a war crime. So there is something to be said about war crimes.

If civilians die anyway because of use by terrorists as human shields. Then its on the terrorists for forcing them to die with them.

There are numerous instances abound in history of this hilarious concept of war crimes being committed and no " punishments" being dolled out.

For your reading pleasure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_w...rld_War_II

You want a fun read? Check out Chester Nimitz's opinion on the use of unrestricted warfare in the Pacific theater.

You want to win in war, you play dirty. War crime charges are only for losers.

If I'm a nation state looking to expand my borders for my citizens, do you think I'm going to willingly let the subjugated previous owners stick around? Get out while the going is good. Staying in a "free city' is a great way to get yourself killed or stuck in perpetual dhimmitude.

How many of those killings are unnecessary or necessary? At least Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified in a way:




The bombing of Dresden is not.


I am sorry it is still evil and still ought to be punished.

Post: #33

(11-30-2017 07:54 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 07:35 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 07:28 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 04:55 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 03:47 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  And that post right there is a great example of sending an unintended message. It almost encourages people to commit warcrimes if it means they win the conflict.

War crimes?

I don't know about you, but war is dirty, dark, and evil. This whole "Geneva Convention", lobbing missiles, and bombing runs by drones, has seriously made conducting a war seem "sterile".

People die in wars. Civilians and soldiers. That's the whole bloody point.

War crimes, such an oxymoron. As if there are honorable ways to killing, maiming, and looting.

Deliberately targeting non-combatants is a war crime. So there is something to be said about war crimes.

If civilians die anyway because of use by terrorists as human shields. Then its on the terrorists for forcing them to die with them.

There are numerous instances abound in history of this hilarious concept of war crimes being committed and no " punishments" being dolled out.

For your reading pleasure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_w...rld_War_II

You want a fun read? Check out Chester Nimitz's opinion on the use of unrestricted warfare in the Pacific theater.

You want to win in war, you play dirty. War crime charges are only for losers.

If I'm a nation state looking to expand my borders for my citizens, do you think I'm going to willingly let the subjugated previous owners stick around? Get out while the going is good. Staying in a "free city' is a great way to get yourself killed or stuck in perpetual dhimmitude.

How many of those killings are unnecessary or necessary? At least Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified in a way:




The bombing of Dresden is not.


I am sorry it is still evil and still ought to be punished.

I totally agree about Dresden, but the atomic bombings weren't justified either, Father Miscamble is clearly wrong here, based on the testimonies of many leading US and Japanese figures. Examples:

Quote:Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . . [Nimitz also stated: "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . ."]

In a private 1946 letter to Walter Michels of the Association of Philadelphia Scientists, Nimitz observed that "the decision to employ the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was made on a level higher than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." (See pp. 330-331, Chapter 26)

Quote:In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

"The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . ."

Quote:Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. (See p. 331, Chapter 26)

Halsey is right, for one thing, the Nagasaki bombing was about the live testing of a type of nuclear bomb design than was different from the Hiroshima "Little Boy" uranium. Nagasaki was a plutonium-based "Fat Man" design. You can debate whether Hiroshima was necessary, but not Nagasaki, it was the most egregious case of overkill, figuratively and literally.

Post: #34

(11-30-2017 10:16 PM)911 Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 07:54 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 07:35 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 07:28 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 04:55 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  War crimes?

I don't know about you, but war is dirty, dark, and evil. This whole "Geneva Convention", lobbing missiles, and bombing runs by drones, has seriously made conducting a war seem "sterile".

People die in wars. Civilians and soldiers. That's the whole bloody point.

War crimes, such an oxymoron. As if there are honorable ways to killing, maiming, and looting.

Deliberately targeting non-combatants is a war crime. So there is something to be said about war crimes.

If civilians die anyway because of use by terrorists as human shields. Then its on the terrorists for forcing them to die with them.

There are numerous instances abound in history of this hilarious concept of war crimes being committed and no " punishments" being dolled out.

For your reading pleasure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_w...rld_War_II

You want a fun read? Check out Chester Nimitz's opinion on the use of unrestricted warfare in the Pacific theater.

You want to win in war, you play dirty. War crime charges are only for losers.

If I'm a nation state looking to expand my borders for my citizens, do you think I'm going to willingly let the subjugated previous owners stick around? Get out while the going is good. Staying in a "free city' is a great way to get yourself killed or stuck in perpetual dhimmitude.

How many of those killings are unnecessary or necessary? At least Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified in a way:




The bombing of Dresden is not.


I am sorry it is still evil and still ought to be punished.

I totally agree about Dresden, but the atomic bombings weren't justified either, Father Miscamble is clearly wrong here, based on the testimonies of many leading US and Japanese figures. Examples:

Quote:Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . . [Nimitz also stated: "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . ."]

In a private 1946 letter to Walter Michels of the Association of Philadelphia Scientists, Nimitz observed that "the decision to employ the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was made on a level higher than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." (See pp. 330-331, Chapter 26)

Quote:In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

"The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . ."

Quote:Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. (See p. 331, Chapter 26)

Halsey is right, for one thing, the Nagasaki bombing was about the live testing of a type of nuclear bomb design than was different from the Hiroshima "Little Boy" uranium. Nagasaki was a plutonium-based "Fat Man" design. You can debate whether Hiroshima was necessary, but not Nagasaki, it was the most egregious case of overkill, figuratively and literally.

Keywords: 'purely military'

Do you know that the Japanese kept concentration camps full of Europeans whom they might have executed with an invasion?

Japan was warned several times to surrender, but because of their Ketsu-Go didn't. The atomic bomb saved the lives of civilian prisoners that Japan kept.

Post: #35

I remember that the left was against NATO bombing Serbia during the war.

They've done a complete 180 on these things

Post: #36

(12-01-2017 03:28 AM)Lime Wrote:  Do you know that the Japanese kept concentration camps full of Europeans whom they might have executed with an invasion?

Lol.

The (((americans and allies))) killed millions of civilian germans, women and children, by starvation and freezing to death, in actual concentration camps with no sanitation or protection against the elements.

Post: #37

(12-01-2017 06:57 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  I remember that the left was against NATO bombing Serbia during the war.

They've done a complete 180 on these things

And they will do again a turn if they see it fitting and feign ignorance of times before, just like they do now.

Post: #38

(12-01-2017 07:57 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:57 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  I remember that the left was against NATO bombing Serbia during the war.

They've done a complete 180 on these things

And they will do again a turn if they see it fitting and feign ignorance of times before, just like they do now.

It's because the left saw NATO as american capitalist imperialism, but now that America is globalist/marxist, they simply switch sides.

Post: #39

(12-01-2017 07:01 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 03:28 AM)Lime Wrote:  Do you know that the Japanese kept concentration camps full of Europeans whom they might have executed with an invasion?

Lol.

The (((americans and allies))) killed millions of civilian germans, women and children, by starvation and freezing to death, in actual concentration camps with no sanitation or protection against the elements.

I don't think it is as extreme as what the japs did, but it is a good incentive to not lose a war you started.

Post: #40

"My ancestors are smiling at me, Imperials. Can you say the same?!"

Post: #41

(11-30-2017 04:36 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  I remember the problems there as a child but to me it was just background events and what got me was the scenes of dead civilians on the hillside in kosovo. Endless propaganda by our news media to shore up war against Serbia.

It was always genocide this and ethnic cleansing that but never was the reality of why the Serbs were targeting Muslims fully explained or rationalised. The same BS is played out today with the Buddhists, Hindus and Christians fighting the muslims in Rohingya because the Muslims were aggressive and violent and did nothing to stop the fundamentalists from doing what they were doing.

The only problem for the media is its not whites committing the violence but a variety of groups who are from different races and religions. If they don't cover it too much they can keep the lies going.

I'm sure if it was Shia v Sunni in Yugoslavia and the Serbs had nothing to do with it then the NATO powers would never had attacked.

The US/NATO actions in FRY were the beginning of my serious doubt of post-Cold War Western foreign policy. The fact that we were so committed to supporting some shady muslims against some shady christians, with no inherent benefit to ourselves, was (and still is) confounding to me. I suspected our leftie media was over-hyping on behalf of non-Christians, but I could/can not understand what was in it for them. Why would they bother fighting for a group that had no cultural ties or loyalty, and came from/advocate a religion so inherently antithetical to western culture?

Who benefits? I know the US taxpayer did not benefit. I doubt the European taxpayer did. Certainly not Christian Serbs. Well now, who does that leave?

Post: #42

(12-01-2017 07:01 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  The (((americans and allies))) killed millions of civilian germans, women and children, by starvation and freezing to death, in actual concentration camps with no sanitation or protection against the elements.

And let no one ever forget the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff in 1945. It was a German refugee ship overloaded with civilians trying to flee the Red Army's advancement. Sunk by a Soviet submarine commanded by an alcoholic who was previously being court martialed for his drinking. The commander was posthumously awarded "Hero of the Soviet Union" in 1990.There is a submarine museum in St Petersburg that til this day is named after the commander.
"The A.I. Marinesko Museum of the History of Russian Submarine Forces".

Talk about a war crime. The Gustloff til this day is the greatest loss of life at sea in history with an estimated 9000 killed. Refugees trying to escape rape, pillage, and murder at the hands of the soviet savages. Completely swept under the rug. The sub crew and its commander recognized as heroes. I don't know about anyone else but I sure as hell never learned about this in school. Conveniantly scrubbed from the history books down the memory hole.

Post: #43

The atomic bomb was absolutely needed to win the war with Japan.

Even after the bombs when the emporer (who is revered almost as a God) was trying to sign the treaty is generals where trying to have him assassinated along the way.

On top of the prior to the bombings airmen and pilots risked their lives dropping leaflets pleading for civilians to depart.

Don't dare call that a war crime.

Edit - it was estimated that a million US soldiers would be killed invading Japan and God knows the civilian deaths since they were told to attack invaders.

Those bombs SAVED lives.

Post: #44

(12-01-2017 03:28 AM)Lime Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 10:16 PM)911 Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 07:54 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  ...

How many of those killings are unnecessary or necessary? At least Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified in a way:

The bombing of Dresden is not.


I am sorry it is still evil and still ought to be punished.

I totally agree about Dresden, but the atomic bombings weren't justified either, Father Miscamble is clearly wrong here, based on the testimonies of many leading US and Japanese figures. Examples:

Quote:Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . . [Nimitz also stated: "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . ."]

In a private 1946 letter to Walter Michels of the Association of Philadelphia Scientists, Nimitz observed that "the decision to employ the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was made on a level higher than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." (See pp. 330-331, Chapter 26)

Quote:In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

"The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . ."

Quote:Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. (See p. 331, Chapter 26)

Halsey is right, for one thing, the Nagasaki bombing was about the live testing of a type of nuclear bomb design than was different from the Hiroshima "Little Boy" uranium. Nagasaki was a plutonium-based "Fat Man" design. You can debate whether Hiroshima was necessary, but not Nagasaki, it was the most egregious case of overkill, figuratively and literally.

Keywords: 'purely military'

Do you know that the Japanese kept concentration camps full of Europeans whom they might have executed with an invasion?

Japan was warned several times to surrender, but because of their Ketsu-Go didn't. The atomic bomb saved the lives of civilian prisoners that Japan kept.

The top three US admirals I've quoted above have clearly stated that Japan was ready to surrender. I'd take their word and qualified opinion over those of think tankers and mainstream historians, who have shaped public opinion and perpetrating the canard that we had to nuke Japan in order to save lives.

Once again, even if you believe that canard, there is no excuse for Nagasaki. But even Hiroshima should have been avoided. If the intent was to crush any leftover will that Japan had left in the final month of the war (and there wasn't much left of it, according to the top military leaders), this demonstration of force could have easily been achieved with much more limited civilian casualties, as rear admiral Lewis Strauss (chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission) pointed out:

Quote:Rear Admiral L. Lewis Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy from 1944 to 1945 (and later chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission), replaced Bard on the Interim Committee after he left government on July 1. Subsequently, Strauss repeatedly stated his belief that the use of the atomic bomb "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion. . . ." (See p. 332, Chapter 26) Strauss recalled:

I proposed to Secretary Forrestal at that time that the weapon should be demonstrated. . . . Primarily, it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate. . . . My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to the Japanese observers, and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a good place--satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood. . . . I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest . . . would [have] laid the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they had been matchsticks, and of course set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities, their fortifications at will. . . . (See p. 333, Chapter 26)

As well, the theory that all of Japan was an Okinawa-like giant bunker archipelago requiring the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of US soldiers to be liberated is bunk. Their whole fleet and air force were destroyed, and the country was bombed at will with complete impunity by thousands of B-29s and B17s decommissioned from the European front, every bridge, every road, every plant, every military installation, with the undivided attention of the US military after the defeat of Germany. Japan could have been blockaded and would be left without energy sources or enough food to ward off mass starvation.

It wouldn't have come to that anyway, because as the admirals have stated above, Japan was already ready to surrender by August '45, but the point here is that you didn't to invade the main archipelago to bring them to their knees.

All of Japan could have been turned into a giant concentration camp and half their population killed without any boots on the ground. That's actually what the Morgenthau Plan called for in Germany, the deindustrialization, blockade and starvation of a quarter to a half of Germany's population, a German Holodomor. In the end, a somewhat smaller plan was implemented, resulting in the unnecessary death of 6 to 10 million Germans between 1946 and 1950.





/thread-60831...pid1539445

In the end, the German and European problem is now being dealt with through the ( ( ( Coudenhove-Kalergi plan of ethnic replacement.

Quote:In his "third person" autobiography (co-authored with Walter Muir Whitehill) the commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated:

The President in giving his approval for these [atomic] attacks appeared to believe that many thousands of American troops would be killed in invading Japan, and in this he was entirely correct; but King felt, as he had pointed out many times, that the dilemma was an unnecessary one, for had we been willing to wait, the effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials. (See p. 327, Chapter 26)

As to any collateral European prisoners/hostages Japan may have had in late summer '45, Japanese military leaders could have been put on notice for impending war crimes trials similar to those that were being set up in Nurnberg. In fact, Japanese war criminals got off too easy, in good part because there were no ( ( (grudges) ) ) against them.

Post: #45

(12-01-2017 02:47 PM)Fisto Wrote:  The atomic bomb was absolutely needed to win the war with Japan.

Even after the bombs when the emporer (who is revered almost as a God) was trying to sign the treaty is generals where trying to have him assassinated along the way.

On top of the prior to the bombings airmen and pilots risked their lives dropping leaflets pleading for civilians to depart.

Don't dare call that a war crime.

Edit - it was estimated that a million US soldiers would be killed invading Japan and God knows the civilian deaths since they were told to attack invaders.

Those bombs SAVED lives.

Spies had said the Japanese army were training women and children to use sharpened sticks to fight in the even of an invasion.

No, Japanese men would have expected the same ferocious spirit from the civilians during an invasion. No other people on the planet are as protective of their lands as the Japs.

Perhaps the most gut wrenching stories are those of the firebombs in Tokyo, which should have made them surrender. But it didn't. Burning kids jumping into rivers and groups of women huddled over children as their skin scorched black was not enough to make them surrender.

The bomb saved more lives than we would ever want to think about.

Post: #46

(12-01-2017 07:01 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 03:28 AM)Lime Wrote:  Do you know that the Japanese kept concentration camps full of Europeans whom they might have executed with an invasion?

Lol.

The (((americans and allies))) killed millions of civilian germans, women and children, by starvation and freezing to death, in actual concentration camps with no sanitation or protection against the elements.

Hitler was defeated by May 1945. The first test of the atomic bomb was in July 1945. And don't discredit the concentration camps in the Southeast Indies and Indochina. You do not seem to understand the difference between concentration camps and extermination camps (that's what I get for you using the word 'actual', why where the camps in Southeast Asia not 'actual' concentration camps?.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ja...rld_War_II

@911 point taken (regarding whether the Japanese were ready to capitalute or not), will research into it.

Post: #47

(12-01-2017 12:13 PM)Ranch Hand Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 04:36 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  I remember the problems there as a child but to me it was just background events and what got me was the scenes of dead civilians on the hillside in kosovo. Endless propaganda by our news media to shore up war against Serbia.

It was always genocide this and ethnic cleansing that but never was the reality of why the Serbs were targeting Muslims fully explained or rationalised. The same BS is played out today with the Buddhists, Hindus and Christians fighting the muslims in Rohingya because the Muslims were aggressive and violent and did nothing to stop the fundamentalists from doing what they were doing.

The only problem for the media is its not whites committing the violence but a variety of groups who are from different races and religions. If they don't cover it too much they can keep the lies going.

I'm sure if it was Shia v Sunni in Yugoslavia and the Serbs had nothing to do with it then the NATO powers would never had attacked.

The US/NATO actions in FRY were the beginning of my serious doubt of post-Cold War Western foreign policy. The fact that we were so committed to supporting some shady muslims against some shady christians, with no inherent benefit to ourselves, was (and still is) confounding to me. I suspected our leftie media was over-hyping on behalf of non-Christians, but I could/can not understand what was in it for them. Why would they bother fighting for a group that had no cultural ties or loyalty, and came from/advocate a religion so inherently antithetical to western culture?

Who benefits? I know the US taxpayer did not benefit. I doubt the European taxpayer did. Certainly not Christian Serbs. Well now, who does that leave?

Besides the MIC that's always itching for a war, especially after the fall of the Iron Curtain, the Yugoslavian wars were the opportunity for NATO globalists to reshape EE and start executing Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard strategy of the conquest of Eurasia, which calls for the integration of all of EE into a NATO that is hostile to Russia, and eventually the breakup of Russia into 4 parts.

Beyond geopolitics, it is useful to understand people like Brzezinski as globalists bent on total dominion over the people of the world, as opposed to the welfare of their home nation-state and fellow countrymen. Their real agenda is not about West vs. East, but about a new world order where their elite has absolute power.



Brzezinski foresaw the globalist future nearly 50 years ago, his book Between Two Ages is a must-read.

/thread-62962...pid1580560

The Serbs were the dominant ethno-religious group in Yugoslavia, and were the natural allies of Orthodox Russia. They were the main losers of that campaign. Macedonia, Bosnia were set up as corrupt client-states. There are a lot of close similarities with Iraq, which was also run by an authoritarian secular strongman:
Tito = Saddam
Serbs = Sunnis leading ethno-religious group
Catholics = Shiites somewhat slighted rival religious denomination, a fracture line that can be readily exploited
Moslems = Kurds "oppressed" minority that has to be saved by NATO on humanitarian grounds, future client state to be set up.

The balkanization of the Balkans and EE serves the globalist agenda, client-states like Montenegro or Moldova can stack up the votes in Brussels and neutralize western Europe nation-states that might be run by independent-minded leaders like Jacques Chirac.

Post: #48

(12-01-2017 04:21 PM)Laner Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 02:47 PM)Fisto Wrote:  The atomic bomb was absolutely needed to win the war with Japan.

Even after the bombs when the emporer (who is revered almost as a God) was trying to sign the treaty is generals where trying to have him assassinated along the way.

On top of the prior to the bombings airmen and pilots risked their lives dropping leaflets pleading for civilians to depart.

Don't dare call that a war crime.

Edit - it was estimated that a million US soldiers would be killed invading Japan and God knows the civilian deaths since they were told to attack invaders.

Those bombs SAVED lives.

Spies had said the Japanese army were training women and children to use sharpened sticks to fight in the even of an invasion.

No, Japanese men would have expected the same ferocious spirit from the civilians during an invasion. No other people on the planet are as protective of their lands as the Japs.

Perhaps the most gut wrenching stories are those of the firebombs in Tokyo, which should have made them surrender. But it didn't. Burning kids jumping into rivers and groups of women huddled over children as their skin scorched black was not enough to make them surrender.

The bomb saved more lives than we would ever want to think about.

You're perpetrating the prevailing narratives and cultural tropes used by the winners to justify the atomic bombings, and ignoring the clear proofs I've laid forward, in the form of clear statements from many leading military figures on the real state of the war and the tangible prospects of Japanese surrender in the summer of '45.

Post: #49

911 I think it's you thats throwing out trops and narratives lol

Everyone knows the USA is "evil" even when defeating Japan during WW2

It's not at all common knowledge that pilots and airmen risked their lives to fly over enemy cannons to drop 100s of thousands of leaflets warning the Japanese people.

You're also completely silent about the emporer having several assassination attempts on his life while going to surrender.
It's you that's ignoring evidence.

Post: #50

Don't really know anything about this guy but in terms of the ICTY, it's a fucking joke. I will give him props for going out the way he did.

Serbs lost thousands of civilians in the Yugoslav Wars and there are huge stretches of Croatia and Kosovo where we constituted the majority before the war and now literally have no one there. I suppose the ICTY is implying that all of those civilians either committed mass suicide or just decided to pack up and leave 'cause the climate in Serbia proper is marginally better.

Here's an example of what a politicized, (globalist) agenda-driven Court this is. The now prime minister of "Kosovo" wrote a book where he vividly described his role as a commander of the Kosovo Albanians during the war. He detailed his operations against Serbian civilians and loyalist Albanians, as well as other instances of ethnic cleansing in the book. The ICTY acquitted him of all charges, citing (get this) "artistic freedom" and that this virtual admission of guilt couldn't be used as evidence. The acquittal was so appalling that even former ICTY judges and other EU officials (that's how you know its bad) such as Carla del Ponte denounced the verdict.

But hey, such is "justice" when NATO runs the courts.