RE: BBC - Hiroshima

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: BBC - Hiroshima

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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: BBC - Hiroshima

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/5/2005 9:53:44 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

I'm not concerned with apologies as much as ackowledgement, and the acceptance of responsiblity for actions done on Japan's behalf. I do as mentioned believe the Japanese government owes China a big apology for what her army did on their soil but even just ACKNOWLEDGING what was done would have gone a long way towards mollifying Chinese sentiments. For Japan to claim that such things never happened at all was like a slap in the face to them. I dont blame the Chinese for being angry.

The executing of war criminals by us isn't the same thing as acknowledement by the Japanese government itself. We tried and executed German war criminals as well....but Germany also herself had to realize and accept what had been done, otherwise the trials mean little other than to those directly involved giving a sense of justice and closure.

_____________________________

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 31

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/5/2005 10:03:26 PM

usersatch

Posts: 400
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline

Who was that who said that war criminals are deemed as such only if they are on the losing side?

We as a country did a lot of nasty stuff as well. Granted, not on the scale of Nanking and Singapore, but some of our actions were indeed criminal with respect to the "laws of war". I am not trying to indict the US on war crimes or anything, I am just merely making an observation about our views as the victors. I wonder what the Japanese would try the US on, if they had won the war. On second thought, there probably would not have been trials, just executions LOL.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 32

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/5/2005 10:09:10 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: usersatch

Who was that who said that war criminals are deemed as such only if they are on the losing side?

True. but you also answered your own question. The US was not unscathed by the actions in WWII.....i think our worst hour was our treatment of our own citizens, putting Japanese Americans into concentration camps during the war...robbing them of liberty and property. However we didn't put them into ovens either and now, many years later (and admitedly long overdue) that injustice has been acknowledged by the US government and public and an effort to make it good has been done.

As i said...the actions of Japan in terms of what was done in China in particular were indeed crimes against humanity.

_____________________________

(in reply to usersatch)

Post #: 33

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/5/2005 11:44:44 PM

Fafner

Posts: 31
Joined: 6/2/2005
Status: offline

I believe Richard B. Franks' Downfall is the definitive - certainly the most scholarly - work on the matter. He believes the second bomb was absolutely necessary to end the war - this is what finally brought Hirohito to intervene and force an end to the war. Read the book for fuller details but many have been discussed earlier. The Russian entry while a shock to some (not all), was certainly was not an iminent threat to the mainland.

Afterall, people in this forum should know first hand how difficult it is to conduct a large scale amphibious operation - especially when you have no landing craft.

(in reply to FDRLincoln)

Post #: 34

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/5/2005 11:49:26 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Plus, there was actually a cabal of War Party officers who tried to intercept the recording of Hirohito's speech announcing the ending of the war. They knew that once Hirohito had spoken, they'd be able to do nothing.

Anectodally, it was only a minority of the Japanese population who could understand Hirohito's speech; he spoke in court Japanese, an odd mix of extremely ideomatic Japanese and Chinese.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Fafner)

Post #: 35

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 2:20:57 AM

keeferon01

Posts: 334
Joined: 6/18/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

I think it really naive to believe that the 2 bombs ended the war, I mean the reaction from the palace and military leaders was "so what" . What did the thinking men come up with that would be needed 7 bombs in total, pretty interesting though that truman met with the King of England to tell him that Tokyo was to be A-bombed that day, and they surrended that day.

Ron

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 36

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 3:11:55 AM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

usersatch,

At least one of the war criminals exicuted killed at ATE American Aircrew on Chichi Jima. There were other war criminals who did the same thing in China.

I don't think it was just a question of being on the losing side.

(in reply to usersatch)

Post #: 37

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 3:35:52 AM

Arkan

Posts: 90
Joined: 10/20/2004
Status: offline

I think you missed the point of the sentence. It's not that the guilt of the convicted and executed soldiers is disputed, but that war criminals on the winning side tend to get away with it or get judged milder.

Btw1: I think in the Nuremberg mini series G�ring says something on the lines of this, but I have no clue about the historical accuracy.
Btw2: If that was to mean "killed and ate" then I don't really see how anything could make the killing much worse.

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 38

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 5:24:47 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktor

ok, here's a firestorm of debate:
Was it the A-bombing or the Soviet declaration of war the forced Japan to capitulate?

By the end of the Summer of 1944, it was clear to anyone looking at the situation even from the Japanese side that the war was irritrevably lost. If any of the worthless bastards running the country had really given a tinker's damn about it's future, they would have surrendered and committed Hari Kari in attonement for their multiple sins.

Instead they subjected the nation and it's people to utter devestation trying to save their own stinking hides... So much for the Spirit of Bushido---it was a purely selfish ducking of the responsibility for having gotten the nation into such a mess motivating these stooges. You want to blame someone for "firebombing" and nukes? Blame the Japanese Military and it's leaders. A bunch of gutless cowards who wouldn't stand up and accept the consequences of their own short-sighted and stupid actions..., and who instead wanted to get the whole nation destroyed in hopes of covering their collective asses...

_____________________________

(in reply to USSLockwood)

Post #: 39

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 5:43:35 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

The Japanese apparently slaughtered 5 times as many Chinese as the Germans killed in Auschwitz and the other death camps. They had a regulation in their Army Regs that formally forbid the eating of human flesh: however, if one surrendered one was no longer a human so therefore available for what the IJA termed as "local supply". At the end of the war the IJA released all Chinese POWs - all 52 of them.
BTW I believe that at the time of the Japanese surrender there was 1 or more I-400 series I-boats enroute to the US West Coast to launch biological agents at US cities (plague I think- delivery via the subs seaplanes). Pretty sure I saw some kind of news item not that long ago about it.
In any case, by August 1945 it was definitely time to end the worst and greatest of all wars. Given the nature of the killing that had been going on since 1937 in Asia (by all participants) I really don't see what the hub-bub about killing with gamma rays (in addition to the normal bombing agents of death such as heat, flying debris, and shock) is all about.
If the whole invasion thing had gone on as scheduled in March 1946 AND only 1000 people were killed from all war related causes each day in all of Asia/Oceana in the intervening time (an unlikely proposition IMO) the toll would have certainly exceeded that of Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
To the dead it really doesn't matter how they got that way.

(in reply to Arkan)

Post #: 40

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 7:47:22 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktor

ok, here's a firestorm of debate:
Was it the A-bombing or the Soviet declaration of war the forced Japan to capitulate?

I think it was a combination of the two atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war. Up until the time the Soviets actually declared war the Japanese had been trying to use them to broker a negotiated peace with the Allies but Stalin kept stalling their attempts.

If it had been left up to the military junta in power the war would have probably continued but Hirohito, for only the second time, had personally intervened and said it was time to surrender.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to USSLockwood)

Post #: 41

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 5:53:00 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi all,

For those who get BBC this Sunday at 21:00 there is a program on the A-bombing of Hiroshima, re-creating some of it I believe and talking to those who dropped the bomb and those who saw it/endured it.

Should be interesting.

Steven

I have just watched BBC documentary made in 2005 (party re-enacted, partly documentary, partly computer graphics) on my country's national TV.

It was 50+minutes long and it ends with bomb explosion.

I wonder if it is the same show...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 42

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 6:15:55 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Sounds like it probably was, if it was made this year...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 43

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 6:39:37 PM

AlexCobra

Posts: 86
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Russia
Status: offline

Hi.

Most of recipients here are Americans. So I was tempered to ask one question; finally I gave up and here it is.

Do the Americans REALLY should use this A-bombs to overcome the Japan?

Plain and clear, I think. May be organize a poll?

No, not so clear, I thought later. Need to comment some things.

Well, I think everybody will accept that A-bombs are a FINAL weapon - final to any life at all. There can be no defence to that. So I'm saying: was there no alternative outcome for Allies in 1945 to defeat the Japan but to destroy the entire islands? I mean, what if Japan didn't surrendered after Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombing? Would Truman continued to order the utter destruction of islands? I'm not talking here about previous war crimes - Japs were not the only ones guilty (Saipan capture), and I'm not trying to justify anyone. I just want to ask that particular thing - was it nessesary to use the atomic bomb to end this war? I know the arguments for this - this was a bloody hell for both sides... but so it was for Russia, Germany, England, France and on. Nowhere the A-bomb was used, but on Pac theater only. Yes, I know that probably if it wasn't used by Americans, it was used by someone another - Russians maybe... but who can be sure about that? Guessings don't lead anywhere. The fact is that first atomic bomb was tested over Japan - and I think we can live without it, let someone other do that? - you say, yeah, may be... but you can't be sure, you know... no one can.

Ok, my opinion is that it wasn't so nessesary to burn this cities to the ground... siege the islands, wait for Russians to came, to do the nasty work for everybody as always... sorry if insulted anyone. Well, the question remains - was it nessesary or not? Yes or no? Quite simple. I just want to hear the opinions of someone, who're really in this story... or have something to say about it.

Alex.

< Message edited by AlexCobra -- 8/6/2005 6:40:51 PM >

(in reply to FDRLincoln)

Post #: 44

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 6:50:44 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Most feel it was necessary, and i'm one of em too. Projected casualty figures for an invasion of Japan ran around 1,000,000 for the US and possibly 10+ Million for the Japanese if Civilian casualties are added to the mix.

Given the information of the time, and the fanaticism displayed by the Japanese military in defense of their island bastions, there was little indication that it would be any different in Japan.

One can argue the merit of the Allied policy of total surrender, that it prolonged the war but given the radical differences in ideology, it can also be argued that any peace short of total surrender would have compromised the post war peace that followed. As it was the US 'did' compromise....just a teeny bit in allowing the Emperor to remain as a constitutional figurehead.

_____________________________

(in reply to AlexCobra)

Post #: 45

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 7:07:58 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

And one more thing: if the bomb had been finished before the German surrender, it would have been used ON Germany. And if the Germans had finished THEIR bomb, they would have tried to use it on the Soviets.

The appreciation we have today of the atomic bomb as an "ultimate weapon" didn't exist in 1945. The political and military leadership of the Allies had no idea of the unbelievable force they were proposing to unleash, until they'd actually unleashed it. This ignorance continued after the war, both in the United States and the Soviet Union. I mean, the Soviets had soldiers WALK through blast zones unprotected!

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 46

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 7:14:49 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Had Germany completed a bomb, I'm betting Hitler would have tried to use it on London. He was by this point fixated on his 'terror weapons' somehow destroying the civilian resolve of the Allies....and the ones still in reach were the British. V1's then V2's. Scary thought.

Good thing Hitler also caused a "brain drain" in Germany pre-war which gave the US scientific community a boost.

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 47

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 7:34:11 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

That would have been quite a task, though. Making a nuclear bomb small enough in the mid-40's to fit in a missile. Probably impossible.

After the V-weapons had been hitting London for about a month, Churchill ordered his staff to consider how to employ chemical weapons against German cities. Luckily, they talked him out of it.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 48

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 7:41:37 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

True. They would have probably tried to do it at night using coventional bombers. Fortunately the likelihood of Germany completing a bomb in time was super-remote anyway.

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 49

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 8:15:38 PM

madmickey

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktor

ok, here's a firestorm of debate:
Was it the A-bombing or the Soviet declaration of war the forced Japan to capitulate?

Did the Soviet have the ability to invade Japan? No. All USSR could do was conquered lands that the Japans previously conquered. The Americans had liberated most of the land the Japanese had conquered in the Pacific and had captured Japanese�s territory in the Pacific. Without the A Bombs the Japanese would have defended the homeland to the last, losing Korea and Manchuria to the USSR would be less consequential than losing Okinawa and Iwo.

(in reply to USSLockwood)

Post #: 50

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 8:29:51 PM

ilovestrategy

Posts: 3611
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

To give credit to Truman, you have to look at the fact that the US had been at war for a while now and I'm sure everyone was ready for it to be over. He had a choice of using the A bombs now or bomb Japan for several more months before an invasion fleet could be ready. And I'm sure the cost of taking Okinawa was on his mind too. It was a different time back then. For example, I have a cousin that is a female college student with no knowledge of military history whatsoever and she is totally convinced that we were evil for dropping the bombs.

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to madmickey)

Post #: 51

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 8:36:51 PM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

To give credit to Truman, you have to look at the fact that the US had been at war for a while now and I'm sure everyone was ready for it to be over. He had a choice of using the A bombs now or bomb Japan for several more months before an invasion fleet could be ready. And I'm sure the cost of taking Okinawa was on his mind too. It was a different time back then. For example, I have a cousin that is a female college student with no knowledge of military history whatsoever and she is totally convinced that we were evil for dropping the bombs.

Another consideration that AlexCobra brought into this discussion was also a political decision Truman had to consider. By this time Truman and Churchill simply did not trust Stalin anymore to keep any of his promises (something which history has shown to have been true). What would have been welcome a year ago (Soviet entering the war) was by this time not really wanted or felt needed in order to win the war against Japan. By using the bombs the Americans had the chance to end the war before the Soviets could lay claim to occupation rights in Japan.

Another political factor Truman had to consider was if they had not used the bombs and invaded Japan what he was going to say to the American public during his impeachment when they found out he had a weapon that could have saved American lives and hadn't used it.

And as for your cousin ilovestrategy, I don't think we were evil at all. We were in a war Japan started ... all we did was finish it.

< Message edited by dereck -- 8/6/2005 8:38:48 PM >

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to ilovestrategy)

Post #: 52

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 10:53:04 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktor

ok, here's a firestorm of debate:
Was it the A-bombing or the Soviet declaration of war the forced Japan to capitulate?

Did the Soviet have the ability to invade Japan? No. All USSR could do was conquered lands that the Japans previously conquered. The Americans had liberated most of the land the Japanese had conquered in the Pacific and had captured Japanese�s territory in the Pacific. Without the A Bombs the Japanese would have defended the homeland to the last, losing Korea and Manchuria to the USSR would be less consequential than losing Okinawa and Iwo.

Actually, by the Fall of 1945, Leichtenstein had the ability to invade Japan. Japan's naval forces were virtually non-existant, and what little air strength she had was hoarded to fight the Americans. Given Stalin's utter disregard for Russian casualties, I would say the had an excellent chance of invading. How well they could have done afterwards is open to question, but they might have taken the Northern Island,
and would certainly have gotten ALL of Korea. Most importantly, they would have achieved a claim to being an occupying power in Japan when the war ended. Harry got us out of a BIG can of worms when he OK's the bombs use.

_____________________________

(in reply to madmickey)

Post #: 53

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 11:14:16 PM

madmickey

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktor

ok, here's a firestorm of debate:
Was it the A-bombing or the Soviet declaration of war the forced Japan to capitulate?

Did the Soviet have the ability to invade Japan? No. All USSR could do was conquered lands that the Japans previously conquered. The Americans had liberated most of the land the Japanese had conquered in the Pacific and had captured Japanese�s territory in the Pacific. Without the A Bombs the Japanese would have defended the homeland to the last, losing Korea and Manchuria to the USSR would be less consequential than losing Okinawa and Iwo.

Actually, by the Fall of 1945, Leichtenstein had the ability to invade Japan. Japan's naval forces were virtually non-existant, and what little air strength she had was hoarded to fight the Americans. Given Stalin's utter disregard for Russian casualties, I would say the had an excellent chance of invading. How well they could have done afterwards is open to question, but they might have taken the Northern Island,
and would certainly have gotten ALL of Korea. Most importantly, they would have achieved a claim to being an occupying power in Japan when the war ended. Harry got us out of a BIG can of worms when he OK's the bombs use.

You can just invade with a few boat (a division of isolated troops could be wiped out) with no constant close air cover to prevent kamikazes and no heavy bombardment ship support.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 54

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/6/2005 11:15:59 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

And besides, the Japanese Home Islands had something like 5-7000 aircraft, almost all of them meant for kamikaze sorties. That hardly qualifies as "what little air strength".

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to madmickey)

Post #: 55

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/7/2005 12:56:54 AM

madmickey

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline

Terminus for someone who wrote in VFH thread

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I'm going to get hammered for this, but a big part of the problem is that the vast majority of the American population are totally ignorant of the world outside the United States. Therefore, their opinions can be easily manipulated.

that American being ignorant writing a reply

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And besides, the Japanese Home Islands had something like 5-7000 aircraft, almost all of them meant for kamikaze sorties. That hardly qualifies as "what little air strength".

to my post 54

You can just invade with a few boat (a division of isolated troops could be wiped out) with no constant close air cover to prevent kamikazes and no heavy bombardment ship support.

seems either ignorant or redundant.

Besides anybody that watches the BBC and do no see the bias and inaccuracies even in non political programming is ignorant.
One of many examples there was a BBC documentary series on submarines on the Canadian History channel in one of the program they implied that US sub forces were successful because the US had control of air. Well within in fighter range of US airbases that may be true. Around the seas of Japan, the South China sea, No. In addition this series stated that British submarines were the major supply source for Malta in WWII.

< Message edited by madmickey -- 8/7/2005 1:12:15 AM >

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 56

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/7/2005 1:21:22 AM

kellyc

Posts: 142
Joined: 5/10/2004
Status: offline

I think the Abombs were probably one of the main driving force behind the surrender but not in itself the reason. As far as Russia/Soviet Union goes, I don't think they were overly concerned about that.
The Russians did manage to land in the Kuril Islands and shoved the Japanese off (the Japanese thought they were fighting the Americans and lodged a complaint (at this point in time there was a cease fire and the Japanese thought we were violating it).
Japan and (the) then Soviet Union never formally signed the Peace Treaty created in San Francisco 1954 over the Russian occupation of the Kuril Islands. Technically speaking both sides are still at war.

As far as dropping the bombs, I think it was probably necessary. There's so many different reasons for it already listed here but given the Japanese civilian reaction on Saipan (Banzi cliff incident) the bombs probably saved even more Japanese civilian lives then can actually be factored in, I'm sure they would have found another cliff to jump off of or some other way to die.

Just my opinion.
Kelly

_____________________________

Plankowner USS Kauffman (FFG-59).

(in reply to madmickey)

Post #: 57

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/7/2005 1:28:37 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

You can just invade with a few boat (a division of isolated troops could be wiped out) with no constant close air cover to prevent kamikazes and no heavy bombardment ship support.

And maybe you could have been clearer... Perhaps you meant "You CAN'T just invade..."? If not, well... then maybe you have a problem, not I.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to madmickey)

Post #: 58

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/7/2005 1:40:50 AM

Oliver Heindorf

Posts: 1911
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Hamburg/Deutschland
Status: offline

I did not read this thread entirely, I am just happy becasue the bomb which hit hiroshima was planned for being dropped onto germany..my city hamburg...but at the time the bomb was ready the war in europe was almost over ( plans were changed in 3-5/45 ) we got away ....nimbly..

but we shall not forget the victims of the war on ALL sides.

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 59

RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/7/2005 1:47:55 AM

madmickey

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline

The word just is critical in my post 54. The sentence means that an USSR invasion without close air cap and naval bombardment support will be unsuccessful.
Which is a response to Mike post 53 in response to my comment in 50 that said USSR could not invade Japan.

< Message edited by madmickey -- 8/7/2005 2:05:46 AM >

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 60