BulgarianPride said:Cheesy said:Buildings just don't collapse like the Twin Towers did.
Or do they........................
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTAlgAWkqro[/youtube]
Is this support for or against fire causing full collapse of a modern steel building? It doesn't really look like the collapse of WTC7.
BulgarianPride said:BulgarianPride said:Cheesy said:Buildings just don't collapse like the Twin Towers did.
Or do they........................
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTAlgAWkqro[/youtube]
Is this support for or against fire causing full collapse of a modern steel building? It doesn't really look like the collapse of WTC7.
I really don't see Cheesy's point. Can someone explain how the above video relates to the actual collapse of WTC7? See video below.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJQKpnkZ10&feature=player_embedded#![/youtube]
Take a look at the title of your video.Cheesy said:I'm not on about WTC7. I'm answering some posts about the Twin Towers that have said that buildings damaged by fire don't collapse straight down.
The first line of my post should have been a bit of a clue really.
Japan was no where near defeated,infact it was only the Atom bomb that forced them to surrender.Skashion said:Japan was already defeated, it was a matter of time. See the large array of quotes I posted a few pages back. The Nazis literally were out of the war before the bombs were dropped so that's not possible.Banned Tosspot said:This is hard work.
Imagine that the American's hadn't dropped the bomb and the war went on and Japan along with the Nazis won.
Japan would be the World's biggest power now (although, it's coming anyway).
Would you then be against the Japanese nation?
Japan will not be the world's biggest. China might be. Japan won't.
Would I hate the Chinese government if they abused their world power, yes. I'm hardly a big fan as it stands for the way they rob their own people of freedoms.
Oh dear, we do have some lazy posters on tonight who haven't bothered to read the conversation. These I posted on page sixty. Guess all these lot were trying to change history as well...bluemanc said:Japan was no where near defeated,infact it was only the Atom bomb that forced them to surrender.
Stop trying to change history.
General Dwight D. EisenhowerI had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'
General Dwight D. EisenhowerJapan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
Admiral William D. LeahyIt is my opinion that 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. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children.
John McCloyI am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb.
President Harry S. TrumanP.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 StudyCertainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
J. Samuel WalkerCareful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.
The Flash said:Skashion said:We conducted precision bombing routinely during the war with Mosquitos. We did monumental damage on the ground outside of the cities using fighter-bombers, the statistics are mind-boggling if you look them up. There used to be an old website called warbirds. I hope it's still up.SWP's back said:Something that was beyond the possibilities of 1940's bomber crews, at night. And it was totally morally justified in my opinion given what was happening in the war, especially Coventry, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, London etc etc.
Unfortunate error of war that was, and macho posturing. Originally, Hitler had not intended to bomb non-industrial areas at all. By mistake however, bombs were dropped on residential targets. Churchill, incensed, ordered Berlin bombed. Which it was, with the loss of most of the aircrews. It was terrible and unfortunate.
Our reasoning behind bombing places like Dresden, was to try and undermine the German public's support for the war and Hitler.
[/quote]Skashion said:Oh dear, we do have some lazy posters on tonight who haven't bothered to read the conversation. These I posted on page sixty. Guess all these lot were trying to change history as well...bluemanc said:Japan was no where near defeated,infact it was only the Atom bomb that forced them to surrender.
Stop trying to change history.
General Dwight D. EisenhowerI had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'
General Dwight D. EisenhowerJapan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
Admiral William D. LeahyIt is my opinion that 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. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children.
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
John McCloyI am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb.
Assistant Secretary of War
President Harry S. TrumanP.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 StudyCertainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
J. Samuel WalkerCareful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.
Chief Historian, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
That is a direct quote from a Japanese Army officer now if you look at the Allied casuality figures at Iwo Jima & Okinawa coupled with millions having the no surrender attitude & a landing on Mainland Japan would have been Hell.We would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated,"by which he meant that they would not have been disgraced by surrender.
If would have been hell, were it necessary. It wasn't, and wouldn't have been. Japan was on the verge of surrender already. It's a straw man of epic proportions.bluemanc said:if you look at the Allied casuality figures at Iwo Jima & Okinawa coupled with millions having the no surrender attitude & a landing on Mainland Japan would have been Hell.
A B-29 incendiary raid over Tokyo killed about 125,000 people another nearly 100,000,a bombing raid 100 times that would have been needed to guarantee air supremecy,do the maths & then think for yourself for a change.
BulgarianPride said:i kne albert davy said:Rape of Nanking 300 thousand men women and children murdered hmmm the Japanese at this time were nice people.BulgarianPride said:I have not said i value one's life over an other. But if you are using the killing of 57 civilians as a justification of the nuclear bombings, it would mean you value an American's life approximately 1600 times more and a Japanese life.
Per Harbor = strategical strike, Atomic bombings in japan = Crime against humanity.
So you are justifying murder by commuting more murder?