Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Militia squad

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Militia squad Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Militia squad - 12/1/2001 7:34:00 AM   
Dedas

 

Posts: 106
Joined: 12/19/2000
From: Ucklum, Sweden
Status: offline 		Please explain to me what the Japanese militia squad was used for during the war!
I mean... bamboo spears and ceramic grenades, how fanatical can you be?
If someone is sitting on the information… please share it with us!

_____________________________

Glory to the brave
Post #: 1
- 12/1/2001 8:34:00 AM   
john g

 

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Dedas:
Please explain to me what the Japanese militia squad was used for during the war!
I mean... bamboo spears and ceramic grenades, how fanatical can you be?
If someone is sitting on the information… please share it with us!
When the Japanese thought the home islands were to be invaded, they planned to call every person (that is everyone!) to resist the invading troops. Training documents were passed out on how to ambush troops and how to disable vehicles all with improvised weapons. The Japanese high command was willing to have everyone die defending their country. That is why the US had estimates of between half a million and a million US casualties if they had to invade. The Japanese by this time were eating tree bark since food supplies were so low that they were already at or below starvation levels. If it had gotten to the point of an invasion taking place there wouldn't have been anything in history like it.
thanks, John.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 2
- 12/2/2001 4:16:00 AM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by john g:

...If it had gotten to the point of an invasion taking place there wouldn't have been anything in history like it.
thanks, John.
..and the alternative was like nothing else in history. Can we spell "atomic bomb", anyone?

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 3
- 12/2/2001 4:25:00 AM   
Khan7

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: StL
Status: offline 		The Atomic Bomb was a heaven-sent lifesaver. It was a quick and harmless slap compared to the two alternatives-- invasion and starvation. Matt [ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: Khan7 ]



_____________________________

Khan7

(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 4
- 12/2/2001 4:34:00 AM   
asgrrr

 

Posts: 529
Joined: 9/18/2001
From: Iceland
Status: offline 		The Japanese were fully prepared to surrender by early summer 1945. The only stumbling block that remained was the fate of the emperor (which the allies had no intent of harming). The decision to use the atomic bomb was intended to scare the soviets and had no other practical purpose.

_____________________________

Never hate your enemy.
It clouds your judgement.

(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 5
- 12/2/2001 5:41:00 AM   
Khan7

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: StL
Status: offline 		And what are your sources, Penetrator? If they were so ready to surrender, why didn't they just say so? Why did it take *two* to get them to move on it? Not rejecting your reasoning out of hand, but I've never heard anyone make that particular claim before. Smells fishy, but if you can back it up.. Matt

_____________________________

Khan7

(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 6
- 12/2/2001 5:56:00 AM   
rlc27

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline 		Wasn't there a great deal of conflict within the Japanese Army and Navy departments at this point (as always) over the issue of whether to surrender or not? If I recall correctly, there was some kind of attempted coup on the more moderate army brass by hardliners who wished to keep fighting--and that was after the bombs had already been dropped. There's a movie that shows the 'training' of civilians in the use of spears. It's called Dr. Akagi (or it might be spelled 'Ikagi'--can't remember. It's Japanese (avail. w/subtitles) and it's not primarily about the war but uses it as a backdrop. They show old NCO's instructing old ladies and children on how to spear tall American infantrymen. They have to run up to a straw dummy and stick it in the throat. Not exactly BUD/S training. I wonder if anything would have actually come of it, ever see 'Zulu?'

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 7
- 12/2/2001 7:13:00 AM   
asgrrr

 

Posts: 529
Joined: 9/18/2001
From: Iceland
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Khan7:
And what are your sources, Penetrator? If they were so ready to surrender, why didn't they just say so? Why did it take *two* to get them to move on it? Not rejecting your reasoning out of hand, but I've never heard anyone make that particular claim before. Smells fishy, but if you can back it up.. Matt
Gar Alperovitz,
"The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb"
Vintage Books
New York 1996
847 pages

_____________________________

Never hate your enemy.
It clouds your judgement.

(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 8
- 12/2/2001 10:45:00 AM   
Alexandra


Posts: 546
Joined: 12/7/2000
From: USA
Status: offline 		Hoyt's "Japan's War" also supports Penetrator's position, and, IMO, is a must read before you speak about the Pacific Theater. The bombs made no difference on the Japanses surrender - the mass bombings of cities by the USAAF - even when the USN was saying "Hey, would you please use the bombers for tactical objectives and not just to lay waste to houses." - caused much more damage and many more deaths than both a-bombs combined. They also guessed - rightly - that we didn't have many of the a-bombs. As for 'why it took two', there were many reasons, not the least of which was time. Only 3 or 4 days elapsed between the two bombings - it took the Germans longer to arrange thier surrender than that, and they could send officers to the lines to talk to Monty, Ike, etc. The Japanese could not directly talk to any US reps - and they had to ensure a coup did not take place, and it nearly did. Surrendering is - at any level - from a soldier to a nation - one of the hardest things historically to do in combat. Alex

_____________________________

"Tonight a dynasty is born." Ricky Proehl, then of the Saint Louis Rams. He was right! Go Pats! Winners of Super Bowls 36, 38 and 39.

(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 9
- 12/2/2001 1:38:00 PM   
Khan7

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: StL
Status: offline 		Okay, you are the guys who have the bank of knowledge from reading long books which, quite frankly, I don't have the time to get to (don't have much reading time, and other big books are higher on list). So, I'll offer a straightforward factual argument, and you please punch holes in it wherever you see them. It would not seem that the Japanese were "fully" ready to surrender any time before the bombs. At the July meeting of the allies in Potsdam, Stalin indicated that he had had communication with the Japanese, to the effect that they were ready to negotiate a peace and *unwilling* to unconditionally surrender. On July 26, the US, UK and China issued an ultimatum calling for "unconditional surrender and a just peace". There was no answer. 11 days after the ultimatum, on August 6, the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. 3 days later the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. The day after the Nagasaki bomb, August 10, the Japanese asked the US if surrender meant removal of the Emporer. The US responded that the Japanese people would decide his fate. On August 14 the Japanese communicated acceptance of the Potsdam terms, and a little under 2 months later on September 2 the surrender was signed. ------------- So what we can see here is that mere communication was evidently not a difficult thing. The Japanese managed to get a message out a day after the Nagasaki bomb. Whether this should be measured as 1 day after the Nagasaki bomb or 4 days after the Hiroshima bomb, I don't have the info to say, but the total silence for the 2 or 2 1/2 days the Japanese had to say SOMETHING between the two bombs could at the very least be viewed as unwise. And even if 2 were unnecessary, why did the Japanese not offer any communication in response to the July 26 ultimatum? They had *plenty* of time. So we can surmise that Japan's silence after the July ultimatum was a clear indication of a gamble on waiting things out, and letting the allies come, and that their relatively quick communication after the bombs, whether you measure from Hiroshima or Nagasaki, would indicate that they had their desired effect. The small number of A-bombs did not reduce their threat. The US only had the two they dropped at the time, but they were ready to make more. They could have had several ready for use at least by the scheduled invasion of Honshu (i.e. after Kyushu) if not before. And a comparison to the fire-bombings of Tokyo for military effectiveness is somewhat misleading. First of all the Tokyo firebombings were over a longer period of time. Second of all their sheer killing effectiveness was largely due to the civilian nature of the targets. With conventional bombs, if you want to have an effect even NEAR that of an A-bomb, you must have (and risk) hundreds and hundreds of bombers and carpet bomb an area several times over. Even then you are not going to achieve near the destructive effect on the target area. But with an A-bomb, it's pretty much like get one bomber in there at high-altitude, give it heave-ho, and you've got a big mushroom cloud and *total* devastation of a very large target area. A much superior weapon, rather difficult to maintain military operations against. So saying that the A-bombs posed no new threat to the Japanese is total farce. And it would seem that, given the Japanese ignoring the Potsdam ultimatum, and communicating surrender willingness shortly after the bombs, that the bombs definitely did affect the decision. Now certainly you could argue that there were significant elements that were willing to surrender before the bombs, but then you cannot escape the fact that they did not/could not communicate this until afterwards. Even if this were the case, the bombs acted as the final factor in their decision/ability to go with surrender, and still represents an enormous godsend in terms of lives and property saved, over both of the other two alternatives to convince/enable the Japanese to surrender: invasion or years of starvation. ----------------- Anyway, I know that all the info I provided in the first section is historical fact that is too simple and basic to be wrong, or at least so it would seem (obviously my own analysis in the next section cannot be thus regarded). I await your responses, Pen & Alex, my interest has been piqued. Matt [ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: Khan7 ]



_____________________________

Khan7

(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 10
- 12/2/2001 3:50:00 PM   
AmmoSgt

 

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline 		I think several factors came into play over both the long term and the short term that resulted in the Japanese Surrender.
The long term issues , while not disregarding the homeland supply and famine issues , were the fact that Japan knew the US was damn good at amphibious assault ..and that the tactics of last resort, Kamakazie and last ditch civilain participation in defense had been inadequate in all past attempts .. this was balanced by the Japanese in the faith of the level of ferocity they had every right to assume would occur in defense on the Main Home Islands ... the ability to mount the scale of a key portion of that defense that was anticipated as being needed .. the kamakazie, both by air and sea was no doubt in question amongst some elements of the Japanese High Command .. but on balance both the US and the Japanese had every reason to expect it to be costly for the US ( bear in mind the US suffered "only" 300,000 dead for the entire war , about half what the US Civil War cost) so projected casulities for the Invasion are in fact best expressed in mulitples of the current losses to date for the US for all of WW2.
Russia had a treaty of Neutrality with Japan and the Japanese were using the Russians as the diplomatic conduit for negotiated peace feelers. The Japanese had every reason to expect the Russian to stay neutral .. and we were not at all sure that the russian would abrogate that treaty in any militarily significant way, to keep their promise to the western Allies , to start Hostilities against Japan 3 months after the end of Hoslitlies in Europe .. The Russians had suffered 25 million dead .. The US was seriously concerned about maintaining Home Front support for "merely" Half a Million additional Dead . We had stalled, for very real reasons, the opening of a significant Second Front in the ETO despite promises to Stalin .. and we knew how real and Genuine our reasons were .. and had no real expectations the the Russians could mount the promised 2nd PTO front as promised, knowing full well their real and Genuine reasons for postponing, which made ours look petty, if you want my opinion. We didn't know if the A-bombs would actually work .. the Trinity test was a test of the Fat Man design ...Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima untested .. for all intents and purposes it was almost as big of a surprise to the US as it was to the Japanese, and we had no better idea of how it would effect the Japanese , than the Japanese did .. we had our hopes of course ... but we also had real experience in seeing Hitlers Wonder Weapons fail to turn the Tide of Battle, and the A-Bombs were expected to be and turned out to be the equivalent of a handfull of thousand plane raids , an imaginable number, the use of special weapons or weapons of mass destruction such as poison gas was already being contemplated as an offset to the japanese kamakazie and fantical defense tactics , and results were expected to be equivalent , no more no less, to what we had already done to Berlin and Tokyo .. Yes, assuredly, with only one plane and one bomb, and that was mind boggling , but the horrors of the Cold War, and massive over kill, and Mutally Assured Destruction were not clearly anticipated by very many World Leaders at that time .. they were "merely" super weapons.. yet another super weapon ,after so many super weapons from radar to V-2s, sometimes they change the course of war sometimes they didn't .. but everything had to be tried to reduce the enemy's ability to resist and to reduce friendly casualities ...
The results were shocking and astounding for both sides, .. the results looked different on actual targets than on bare desert , but by then .. the descion had been made .
Then, on top of those mind boggling Bombs, the Russians kept their Promise to the West .. Probably all things considered a greater amazing accomplishment than the Bombs themselves, and a much greater surprise to the Japanese, They had seen Cities desroyed before , from Nanking to Tokyo , especialy the magnitude of the Russian Attack .. the combined effect on the Japanese was overwhelming .. I don't know if one or the other would have been sufficent in and of itself .. but the combination and the srenidpity of the Two Bombs and the Russians happening in the same week tipped the scales , along with the descion to allow the Japanese Emperor to retain His Throne, and the existing famine, and logistical impossibility to effectively carrying out key elements of the Japanese homeland Defense.
It always amazes me how we think of those bombs today .. they were nominally 10 to 20 kiloton devices, while a 1000 plane raid was 4 to 6 kiloton. 2 to 5 times a 1000 plane raid ..
Compare a modern Boomer to the only real meaningful reference point we have, the WW2 bombs ... a single warhead on a Boomer is 10 to 20 times a WW2 nuke , a missle on a Boomer carries 5 to 12 warheads and a Boomer crries 24 missles ..
We are Shocked that Truman coud so easily utilize something 2 to 5 times larger than a conventional Bombing Raid, we question the morality of it , and yet we have no problem thinking in terms of dozens of Boomers EACH ONE carrying approximately 2400 times the hiroshima Bomb.

_____________________________

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which

(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 11
- 12/2/2001 8:23:00 PM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline 		Eh eh eh.. did I push a button? ...and I thought I made a clever comparison..hehe. I think AmmoSgt about said it all. Using the A-bomb helped end the war, but not by itself. As always there are other factors. And I'm sure, as Penetrator said, that at least the second bomb was used as a display directed to the Russians. (if Churchill had made the decision instead of Truman, I think he'd dropped the bomb square on the Kremlin...)

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 12
- 12/3/2001 3:18:00 AM   
rlc27

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline 		Khan 7 said:
With conventional bombs, if you want to have an effect even NEAR that of an A-bomb, you must have (and risk) hundreds and hundreds of bombers and carpet bomb an area several times over. Even then you are not going to achieve near the destructive effect on the target area. But with an A-bomb, it's pretty much like get one bomber in there at high-altitude, give it heave-ho, and you've got a big mushroom cloud and *total* devastation of a very large target area. A much superior weapon, rather difficult to maintain military operations against. (snip) Well, right before the A-bombs were dropped, the US was sending formations of 500 B-29's at a time to level cities--like the famous firebombing of Tokyo, which if I remember correctly killed more civilians in one day than either of the A-bombs.
Check out the animation movie, "Grave of the Fireflies," and you'll see what that was like. Wooden houses+Japan's summer heat+incendiary bombs=poof! Which is why modern Tokyo has very, very little of pre-WWII architecture surviving. I think the delay after the first bomb may have had something to do with the high command's total disbelief of the reality of the situation.

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 13
- 12/3/2001 3:21:00 AM   
asgrrr

 

Posts: 529
Joined: 9/18/2001
From: Iceland
Status: offline 		If one wants to chase after words one can argue that no one is fully prepared to surrender until after he has actually surrendered.
The point is that by 1945, or even as early as fall 1944, the political and military elite had realised that defeat was inevitable and was putting out feelers to discover what peace terms would be offered, as Khan himself points out. This is a point of historical fact, and is pointless to speculate about. It is also a fact that the US leadership was aware of this situation. In comparison, on 14. august 1914, "the supreme command of the german army declared the continuation of the war to be without prospect of success". Still, the war continued for almost 3 months. It is a feature of human behaviour the realisation of defeat is not immediately followed by acceptance of the fact.
The relevant point is this: The claim that the japanese were determined to fight to the last man is false. It is high time that this piece of folklore, totally unfounded in reality, is finally laid to rest. It is true that without the A-bombs the war would have lasted a few weeks longer, but there is no foundation to the claim that it would have further cost huge numbers of human lives. That is an excuse that has proliferated so people can avoid facing up to the realities of one of the most callous atrocities of human history.

_____________________________

Never hate your enemy.
It clouds your judgement.

(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 14
- 12/3/2001 7:55:00 AM   
David boutwell

 

Posts: 353
Joined: 5/28/2000
From: Haymarket, Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		"That is an excuse that has proliferated so people can avoid facing up to the realities of one of the most callous atrocities of human history." Ok, Penetrator. Lets see your list of "callous atrocities", ranked accordingly. You're going to have to sell us on that one. Also, sell us on how dropping the A-bombs were "callous". Yes, I read the previous posts, and I'm not buying your position. David Boutwell

_____________________________


(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 15
- 12/3/2001 9:04:00 AM   
Khan7

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: StL
Status: offline 		KendoKabob: Yes I addressed this point about the firebombs. I realize my post was a bit long, but it's all in there if you'll read it Penetrator: If we're going to get into callous atrocities, the most obvious and easy one to look at is the firebombing of Tokyo, which easily surpasses the A-bombs. Then if you really want to get into it, you'd have to look at the London blitz, the ethnic purges and mass destruction effected by the Nazis, the massive destruction, rape and pillage effected by the Soviets, the Allied bombings of German civilian populations (especially the British nighttime carpet bombings). And then if you REALLY want to get into it you'd have to look at the pillage, slaughter, rape, more pillage, slaughter, rape, then some pillage, and a bit of slaughter, and a bit more slaughter, then further slaughter, that the Japanese effected all over their conquered territories throughout the whole war. Anyway, back to the point at hand: I don't think that the "takes a while to realize defeat" argument really works when you look at it. Read AmmoSgt's post. I think he has a pretty good handle on it. The Japanese had every reason to keep fighting. They had reason to believe that if the US was forced to make a land invasion, the casualties would be so steep that they still had a very good chance of getting off with less than total defeat. This is why they were pushing for a negotiated peace, they felt they had a bargaining chip. And the US couldn't just *warn* them that they had Nuclear weapons, because no one yet knew what they really were or what they could do or even if they would work. As AmmoSgt said the Hiroshima bomb was dropped untested. So, basically, the Japanese WOULD have gone on and fought like hell, because this at the time was the most favorable option. They had a good chance of pulling off a save, and that chance was to them worth whatever the risks and costs would be. The A-bombs changed that (I suppose you could also include the Russian invasion of Manchuria in this, though that seems perhaps to be inconsequential in comparison, especially when you consider that the Japs' main concern was their homeland at this point). Up until the A-Bombs, they had very good reasons to believe that they could prevent their total defeat. Therefore they were only willing to negotiate a peace, a partial surrender, at that point. The A-Bombs (+ the Russians) proved to them that they could not avoid total defeat, therefore they went for the demanded total surrender. War is in many ways very much like poker. Anyway, I think it's also ridiculous to consider the A-bombs particularly salient atrocities against the backdrop of WW2. Frankly they're piddlysquat compared to whatever else was going on in that war, even whatever else we were doing to Japan. So, in closing, the Japanese WOULD have pitched a to-the-last-man defense, because they had good reasons to believe that this would succeed in causing horrific enough Allied casualties that they would see the 'wisdom' of a negotiated peace, and lay off the whole "total defeat" goal. The other option of course would be to simply starve Japan for the next decade or so and see if the political dice come up with a situation which would favor surrender for food; or which would fester with hatred and rise again from the stench of millions of rotting, emaciated corpses. Matt [ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: Khan7 ]



_____________________________

Khan7

(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 16
- 12/3/2001 8:10:00 PM   
panda124c

 

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Belisarius:
Eh eh eh.. did I push a button?
Yes two, One we (the US) are the only country that has actually 'nuked' another country. And number two, Japan is the only country that has actually been 'nuked'. Not a good position for either one. So no need for anyone to be offended, history is like spilt milk.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 17
- 12/4/2001 4:08:00 AM   
asgrrr

 

Posts: 529
Joined: 9/18/2001
From: Iceland
Status: offline 		Callous adj. 2 a: feeling no emotion b: feeling no sympathy for others.
(Websters 1983) Notice how "callous" does not mean "great" or "terrible".
I must, however, backtrack slightly. After refreshing my memory with segments of the aforementioned work, the principal reason for using the atomic bomb was less to intimidate the russians than to secure the surrender of japan before the russians invaded the japanese-held territories on the mainland, which Truman and others believed they could only be ejected from with difficulty.
The evidence against the idea that the decision was dictated by military necessity and/or the desire to avoid the loss of life is overwhelming and far too long to repeat here, including the testimony of individuals of the highest rank in the US armed forces and government. Destroying entire cities with tens of thousands of inhabitants, not out of military necessity but to score diplomatic points does seem almost as callous as is theoretically possible to get.
I see no point in debating suppositions and speculation. If anyone wishes to argue a contrary view, I wish it be based on factual historical information.

_____________________________

Never hate your enemy.
It clouds your judgement.

(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 18
- 12/4/2001 5:21:00 AM   
Khan7

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: StL
Status: offline 		Okay, salient flaws in your line of reasoning would be.. (1) Okay, so we did it to prevent the Soviets from invading the mainland. Seeing as my point that the Japanese would have resisted to the last man in the case of any invasion, which is all the more valid if you are talking about the Soviets, because of the longstanding bad blood between the Japs and Russians, and because the case could be made for ANY people that death is better than life under Soviet rule, how does this debunk the point that the A-bombs saved countless lives?? Even if you would pointlessly contest the fact that it was in the strategic best interest and indeed the very cultural blood of the Japanese to resist like maniacs, you surely wouldn't try and tell me that the casualties of a Soviet invasion suffered in the actual fighting, + the atrocities committed in the act of conquering, + the atrocities committed in the act of occupying, + the atrocities that would be committed in the act of "culturally revolutionizing", would not be MUCH greater than the casualties resulting from the A-bombs. And would you also try to tell me that the Japanese would have been better off under Soviet rule? Stalin??? Are you nuts?! Or, even jucier, that they would have been better off in a situation where their homeland was divided between two very odious and nuclear-capable Titan world rivals?? Please now, by any measure, ~130k dead + about that many many wounded, is WELL worth fending off oppressive occupation by an egotistical madman, and WELL worth preventing your homeland from becoming the battleground for two Titanic world powers. It comes down to be as simple as that. ...... So okay, we add the US/Soviet rivalry to the equation. The bombs were still an ENORMOUSLY benevolent act, in fact even MORE so, cuz if the Soviets had gotten their hand on any land there would've been no end to the mess. And I don't really know what problems you have with *my* citations, but I can tell you that *vague* references to "things that were said by" "high-level US military officials" mean absolutely nothing to me. I would wish that any further references to "historical information", especially quotes, be out in the open, complete with context and specific nature. Don't need an A+ bibliography or even necessarily direct quotes in this informal debate, but please at least support your points somehow. Matt

_____________________________

Khan7

(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 19
- 12/4/2001 6:49:00 AM   
asgrrr

 

Posts: 529
Joined: 9/18/2001
From: Iceland
Status: offline 		I was referring to the asian mainland, not the japanese islands.
If you insist I can put together a list of important quotations, but that will take some time.
I must add that "death before soviet rule" as an argument is tasteless to say the least. With that sort of reasoning you can justify anything. Our measures of the value of human life are obviously different.

_____________________________

Never hate your enemy.
It clouds your judgement.

(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 20
- 12/4/2001 7:01:00 AM   
asgrrr

 

Posts: 529
Joined: 9/18/2001
From: Iceland
Status: offline 		And sorry about hijacking your thread, Dedas.

_____________________________

Never hate your enemy.
It clouds your judgement.

(in reply to Dedas)
Post #: 21
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Militia squad Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.938