Russian ( Donbass ) Rumblings..

Everyone should just invade everyone else before the violence escalates.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: intrptr

Against Japan and only after they refused an unconditional surrender. Contrary to popular belief the nukes for Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not dropped on the same day. After the first drop they were again given the opportunity to surrender.

Emperors don't 'surrender', they'd lose face. Empires have to be burned out. Japan was defeated, its war making capacity shattered, its home islands surrounded. Unconditional surrender was always the unacceptable option.

Hiroshima was spared the onslaught from the air like other cities to preserve it for a nuclear weapons live test. Other cities like Tokyo were raised to the ground with over a hundred thousand dead in one fire bomb raid alone. Hiroshima was preserved, on purpose.

The Japanese government were not warned of the impending drop, it was a sneak attack. They were not told after ward what kind of weapon had been employed, nor were they warned about further use.

It took the Japanese weeks to figure out a new kind of device had been employed, long after they signed the instrument of 'surrender', not unconditionally either, on Sept 2. The announcement of surrender came on aug 15, 6 days after Nagasaki was hit.

The process of surrender within the government of Japan was not dependent on the employment of nuclear weapons. It was an ongoing insider battle between elements of the Japanese government and military that began long before the drops.

Edit:

Wiki

originally posted by: TheAlleghenyGentleman
a reply to: intrptr

That is indeed quite the photo.

Linking to his work in here.

Someones having vodka fueled delusions of grandeur.

a reply to: intrptr

Emperor Hirohito is in fact the one who ordered them to surrender and he did so when the second bomb was dropped. Prior to the second bomb a coup was attempted and failed.

It was not a sneak attack. For a definition of a sneak attack research Dec 7th 1941 - Hawaii.

Do you just make things up as you go or what?

a reply to: Xcathdra

It was not a sneak attack. For a definition of a sneak attack research Dec 7th 1941 - Hawaii.

The hell. The atom bombs were dropped on Japan without prior warning. Thats a sneak attack, resulting in the loss of many more lives, civilian, purposefully.

Duh...

Do you just make things up as you go or what?

Lol. No, thats what you do. Comparing the destruction of entire cities (by nuclear weapons or incendiary raids) to Pearl harbor is an insult to peace loving people everywhere.

Besides the 'sneak attack' on Pearl Harbor was known by US intelligence beforehand. It wasn't sneaky, it was required to get the American people out of their Isolationist mode of thinking and approve the war.

Just like Gulf of Tonkin, and 911.

Geez what rock you been living under?

What are you even doing here?

Oh yah, disinformation specialist.

a reply to: intrptr

No really its not a sneak attack. Using that failed logic then every military attack in history where one side didnt bother to inform the other side they were going to attack is a sneak attack. When Russia invaded Ukraine, that was a sneak attack (not to mention a war crime and violation of the Geneva conventions by removing insignia on their uniforms).

You really need to get your bias under control as it distorts your logic. As another example of your failed attempt lets look at your false claims about Japanese civilians and a peace loving people. If you spent any time doing research you would know at the time the lives of the Japanese belonged to the Emperor. The final plan to defend the home islands required every single person from like 14 on up to be pressed into military service. When the military ran out of weapons to arm them with they moved to sticks and gardening tools.

If you want we can move this to its own thread and I will continue to show that you just make it up as you go without regard to facts or accuracy.

As for what im doing here I am correcting the false propaganda you like to post then watch how you get pissed when you are called out and cant support the falsehoods you peddle. For an example of that see your last post.

Considering this is a thread about drunk Russians thinking they can control something other than their vodka intake I am not surprised we get propaganda so early from some.

Like the argument the Russian stooge in the op article made, its without merit and only continues to serve as a constant reminder of why Russias leadership and their followers cant adapt to the 21st century. Must be easier to live in the 1980s and just be drunk all the time instead of facing the reality6 that the USSR is gone, Russia's military is not professional and should the drunk russians start a war, they wont win it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

TLDR

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xcathdra

TLDR

thanks for proving my point.

Wanna shift it back to the drunk russians threatening to lose their lives because they think they can defeat europe in a war?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xcathdra

TLDR

This is not something that should EVER be posted or practiced here.

What the hell is wrong with you?

I will keep this ridiculous post in mind next time you participate in any thread.

Unbelievable.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xcathdra

TLDR

thanks for proving my point.

Wanna shift it back to the drunk russians threatening to lose their lives because they think they can defeat europe in a war?

There is 'no point' to the point you;re making. All that last post was proceeded by the same useless talking point you keep saying over and over...

No really its not a sneak attack.

lulz. What you say after that was diversion. just like what you just said about "drunk russians conquering Europe" (WTF)??

a reply to: projectvxn

The only time I ever used it in argument on ATS.

Debating with certain members when every counter argument is supplanted with the same insulting accusations that aren't talking points at all...

heard it all before, thats not argument. Its five paragraphs of ridicule and veiled insult.

Lol, Meh, Tldr is the only reaction to that.

Edit: As soon as member actually addresses any points of mine instead of just attacking me personally , Ill go back to actually debating as well...

originally posted by: intrptr
attacking me personally

My apologies.