Timeline-WWII In Europe

[gipper]

I don't know about the carriers shadowing, but there is no doubt FDR did all he could to provoke Japan to attack. Plus he knew the attack was coming beforehand, refused to warn commanders at Pearl, and then allowed them to be scapegoated.

Nice guy!

they did not know where the attack would be and they DID warn Pearl
A “war warning” is sent to commanders in the Pacific - Nov 25, 1941 - HISTORY.com

some members here are super--rookies or know just about 0 of WW2

The so called warnings, were convoluted and easily misunderstood. If you knew the Japanese were going to hit Pearl, wouldn't you be emphatic?

And it is very disingenuous or stupid for you to claim that fool FDR did not know where the attack would come. He knew Pearl was the target, since that was were our Pacific Fleet was...dummy.

Hawaii is a looooooong way away from Japan
it was not thought to be ''easy'' for the ships to make it there and back
even the Japanese thought it was a risky--therefore unlikely--operation

Yamamoto alone came up with the idea of including the Pearl Harbor attack into Japan’s war plans and, because the attack was so risky, it took great perseverance on his part to get it approved.

Yamamoto and the Planning for Pearl Harbor - The History Reader

Yeah...it sure is a long way, yet somehow the entire Japanese Imperial Navy crossed the Pacific Ocean undetected. Strange...no?

no---not strange
they traveled the less traveled route---still risky...loooong way, refueling needed, ..risky in attacking a land base
BTW, I was based on Oahu for 4 years...the 'official', overall name was Marine Barracks Pearl Harbor....but there were 4 outlying bases from Pearl that fell under the overall name..I was stationed at Wahiawa...most of them now do not have Marine guards

Here is a good book for you to read over the holidays. Though I warn you, it outlines FDR's treachery and treason, so it might sicken you as it did me.

Amazon Review:
Even as an undergraduate I wondered, “Why weren’t the aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor?” Stinnett answers that and details the American plan to force Japan to make the first strike. I have never seen a better documented book! This is primary historical research at its best. When you are done with the book you will see the start of the Second World War in a different light. And, just to be sure, the book isn’t necessarily anti-Roosevelt.

Perhaps the most interesting part for me was the review of American efforts to make sure the coming attack was kept secret. Also interesting was the fate of the army and navy commanders at Pearl who were kept out of the loop. I guess it was necessary to have a couple of fall guys.

 

[harmonica]

they did not know where the attack would be and they DID warn Pearl
A “war warning” is sent to commanders in the Pacific - Nov 25, 1941 - HISTORY.com

some members here are super--rookies or know just about 0 of WW2

The so called warnings, were convoluted and easily misunderstood. If you knew the Japanese were going to hit Pearl, wouldn't you be emphatic?

And it is very disingenuous or stupid for you to claim that fool FDR did not know where the attack would come. He knew Pearl was the target, since that was were our Pacific Fleet was...dummy.

Hawaii is a looooooong way away from Japan
it was not thought to be ''easy'' for the ships to make it there and back
even the Japanese thought it was a risky--therefore unlikely--operation

Yamamoto alone came up with the idea of including the Pearl Harbor attack into Japan’s war plans and, because the attack was so risky, it took great perseverance on his part to get it approved.

Yamamoto and the Planning for Pearl Harbor - The History Reader

Yeah...it sure is a long way, yet somehow the entire Japanese Imperial Navy crossed the Pacific Ocean undetected. Strange...no?

no---not strange
they traveled the less traveled route---still risky...loooong way, refueling needed, ..risky in attacking a land base
BTW, I was based on Oahu for 4 years...the 'official', overall name was Marine Barracks Pearl Harbor....but there were 4 outlying bases from Pearl that fell under the overall name..I was stationed at Wahiawa...most of them now do not have Marine guards

Here is a good book for you to read over the holidays. Though I warn you, it outlines FDR's treachery and treason, so it might sicken you as it did me.

Amazon Review:
Even as an undergraduate I wondered, “Why weren’t the aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor?” Stinnett answers that and details the American plan to force Japan to make the first strike. I have never seen a better documented book! This is primary historical research at its best. When you are done with the book you will see the start of the Second World War in a different light. And, just to be sure, the book isn’t necessarily anti-Roosevelt.

Perhaps the most interesting part for me was the review of American efforts to make sure the coming attack was kept secret. Also interesting was the fate of the army and navy commanders at Pearl who were kept out of the loop. I guess it was necessary to have a couple of fall guys.

I've been reading WW2 for over 35 years.....
I've gone over this in many war forums.....
please cite critical quotes/links/etc

FDR did not know where the Japanese were going to attack......unless you can link/quote something specific, direct--FDR didn't know
please re-read my previous posts

 

[gipper]

The so called warnings, were convoluted and easily misunderstood. If you knew the Japanese were going to hit Pearl, wouldn't you be emphatic?

And it is very disingenuous or stupid for you to claim that fool FDR did not know where the attack would come. He knew Pearl was the target, since that was were our Pacific Fleet was...dummy.

Hawaii is a looooooong way away from Japan
it was not thought to be ''easy'' for the ships to make it there and back
even the Japanese thought it was a risky--therefore unlikely--operation

Yamamoto alone came up with the idea of including the Pearl Harbor attack into Japan’s war plans and, because the attack was so risky, it took great perseverance on his part to get it approved.

Yamamoto and the Planning for Pearl Harbor - The History Reader

Yeah...it sure is a long way, yet somehow the entire Japanese Imperial Navy crossed the Pacific Ocean undetected. Strange...no?

no---not strange
they traveled the less traveled route---still risky...loooong way, refueling needed, ..risky in attacking a land base
BTW, I was based on Oahu for 4 years...the 'official', overall name was Marine Barracks Pearl Harbor....but there were 4 outlying bases from Pearl that fell under the overall name..I was stationed at Wahiawa...most of them now do not have Marine guards

Here is a good book for you to read over the holidays. Though I warn you, it outlines FDR's treachery and treason, so it might sicken you as it did me.

Amazon Review:
Even as an undergraduate I wondered, “Why weren’t the aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor?” Stinnett answers that and details the American plan to force Japan to make the first strike. I have never seen a better documented book! This is primary historical research at its best. When you are done with the book you will see the start of the Second World War in a different light. And, just to be sure, the book isn’t necessarily anti-Roosevelt.

Perhaps the most interesting part for me was the review of American efforts to make sure the coming attack was kept secret. Also interesting was the fate of the army and navy commanders at Pearl who were kept out of the loop. I guess it was necessary to have a couple of fall guys.

I've been reading WW2 for over 35 years.....
I've gone over this in many war forums.....
please cite critical quotes/links/etc

FDR did not know where the Japanese were going to attack......unless you can link/quote something specific, direct--FDR didn't know
please re-read my previous posts

Read the book. It is all there and entirely documented.

FDR KNEW!!!!

 

[harmonica]

Hawaii is a looooooong way away from Japan
it was not thought to be ''easy'' for the ships to make it there and back
even the Japanese thought it was a risky--therefore unlikely--operation
Yamamoto and the Planning for Pearl Harbor - The History Reader

Yeah...it sure is a long way, yet somehow the entire Japanese Imperial Navy crossed the Pacific Ocean undetected. Strange...no?

no---not strange
they traveled the less traveled route---still risky...loooong way, refueling needed, ..risky in attacking a land base
BTW, I was based on Oahu for 4 years...the 'official', overall name was Marine Barracks Pearl Harbor....but there were 4 outlying bases from Pearl that fell under the overall name..I was stationed at Wahiawa...most of them now do not have Marine guards

Here is a good book for you to read over the holidays. Though I warn you, it outlines FDR's treachery and treason, so it might sicken you as it did me.

Amazon Review:
Even as an undergraduate I wondered, “Why weren’t the aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor?” Stinnett answers that and details the American plan to force Japan to make the first strike. I have never seen a better documented book! This is primary historical research at its best. When you are done with the book you will see the start of the Second World War in a different light. And, just to be sure, the book isn’t necessarily anti-Roosevelt.

Perhaps the most interesting part for me was the review of American efforts to make sure the coming attack was kept secret. Also interesting was the fate of the army and navy commanders at Pearl who were kept out of the loop. I guess it was necessary to have a couple of fall guys.

I've been reading WW2 for over 35 years.....
I've gone over this in many war forums.....
please cite critical quotes/links/etc

FDR did not know where the Japanese were going to attack......unless you can link/quote something specific, direct--FDR didn't know
please re-read my previous posts

Read the book. It is all there and entirely documented.

FDR KNEW!!!!

I might have already read it ..I probably did--I read so many
I'm not going to read/re-read it now.....surely there must be some critical quotes from the book....why don't you give them

 

[gipper]

Yeah...it sure is a long way, yet somehow the entire Japanese Imperial Navy crossed the Pacific Ocean undetected. Strange...no?

no---not strange
they traveled the less traveled route---still risky...loooong way, refueling needed, ..risky in attacking a land base
BTW, I was based on Oahu for 4 years...the 'official', overall name was Marine Barracks Pearl Harbor....but there were 4 outlying bases from Pearl that fell under the overall name..I was stationed at Wahiawa...most of them now do not have Marine guards

Here is a good book for you to read over the holidays. Though I warn you, it outlines FDR's treachery and treason, so it might sicken you as it did me.

Amazon Review:
Even as an undergraduate I wondered, “Why weren’t the aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor?” Stinnett answers that and details the American plan to force Japan to make the first strike. I have never seen a better documented book! This is primary historical research at its best. When you are done with the book you will see the start of the Second World War in a different light. And, just to be sure, the book isn’t necessarily anti-Roosevelt.

Perhaps the most interesting part for me was the review of American efforts to make sure the coming attack was kept secret. Also interesting was the fate of the army and navy commanders at Pearl who were kept out of the loop. I guess it was necessary to have a couple of fall guys.

I've been reading WW2 for over 35 years.....
I've gone over this in many war forums.....
please cite critical quotes/links/etc

FDR did not know where the Japanese were going to attack......unless you can link/quote something specific, direct--FDR didn't know
please re-read my previous posts

Read the book. It is all there and entirely documented.

FDR KNEW!!!!

I might have already read it ..I probably did--I read so many
I'm not going to read/re-read it now.....surely there must be some critical quotes from the book....why don't you give them

Go to Amazon and read them. It's free.

 

[harmonica]

no---not strange
they traveled the less traveled route---still risky...loooong way, refueling needed, ..risky in attacking a land base
BTW, I was based on Oahu for 4 years...the 'official', overall name was Marine Barracks Pearl Harbor....but there were 4 outlying bases from Pearl that fell under the overall name..I was stationed at Wahiawa...most of them now do not have Marine guards

Here is a good book for you to read over the holidays. Though I warn you, it outlines FDR's treachery and treason, so it might sicken you as it did me.

Amazon Review:
Even as an undergraduate I wondered, “Why weren’t the aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor?” Stinnett answers that and details the American plan to force Japan to make the first strike. I have never seen a better documented book! This is primary historical research at its best. When you are done with the book you will see the start of the Second World War in a different light. And, just to be sure, the book isn’t necessarily anti-Roosevelt.

Perhaps the most interesting part for me was the review of American efforts to make sure the coming attack was kept secret. Also interesting was the fate of the army and navy commanders at Pearl who were kept out of the loop. I guess it was necessary to have a couple of fall guys.

I've been reading WW2 for over 35 years.....
I've gone over this in many war forums.....
please cite critical quotes/links/etc

FDR did not know where the Japanese were going to attack......unless you can link/quote something specific, direct--FDR didn't know
please re-read my previous posts

Read the book. It is all there and entirely documented.

FDR KNEW!!!!

I might have already read it ..I probably did--I read so many
I'm not going to read/re-read it now.....surely there must be some critical quotes from the book....why don't you give them

Go to Amazon and read them. It's free.

so there was nothing in the book that was so amazing/standing out about FDR's guilt that you can remember it?
no --you get the book and quote

 

[harmonica]

Hawaii is a looooooong way away from Japan
it was not thought to be ''easy'' for the ships to make it there and back
even the Japanese thought it was a risky--therefore unlikely--operation
Yamamoto and the Planning for Pearl Harbor - The History Reader

Yeah...it sure is a long way, yet somehow the entire Japanese Imperial Navy crossed the Pacific Ocean undetected. Strange...no?

no---not strange
they traveled the less traveled route---still risky...loooong way, refueling needed, ..risky in attacking a land base
BTW, I was based on Oahu for 4 years...the 'official', overall name was Marine Barracks Pearl Harbor....but there were 4 outlying bases from Pearl that fell under the overall name..I was stationed at Wahiawa...most of them now do not have Marine guards

Here is a good book for you to read over the holidays. Though I warn you, it outlines FDR's treachery and treason, so it might sicken you as it did me.

Amazon Review:
Even as an undergraduate I wondered, “Why weren’t the aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor?” Stinnett answers that and details the American plan to force Japan to make the first strike. I have never seen a better documented book! This is primary historical research at its best. When you are done with the book you will see the start of the Second World War in a different light. And, just to be sure, the book isn’t necessarily anti-Roosevelt.

Perhaps the most interesting part for me was the review of American efforts to make sure the coming attack was kept secret. Also interesting was the fate of the army and navy commanders at Pearl who were kept out of the loop. I guess it was necessary to have a couple of fall guys.

I've been reading WW2 for over 35 years.....
I've gone over this in many war forums.....
please cite critical quotes/links/etc

FDR did not know where the Japanese were going to attack......unless you can link/quote something specific, direct--FDR didn't know
please re-read my previous posts

Read the book. It is all there and entirely documented.

FDR KNEW!!!!

there must not be anything important in the book if you can't quote anything relevant/critical

 

[gipper]

Yeah...it sure is a long way, yet somehow the entire Japanese Imperial Navy crossed the Pacific Ocean undetected. Strange...no?

no---not strange
they traveled the less traveled route---still risky...loooong way, refueling needed, ..risky in attacking a land base
BTW, I was based on Oahu for 4 years...the 'official', overall name was Marine Barracks Pearl Harbor....but there were 4 outlying bases from Pearl that fell under the overall name..I was stationed at Wahiawa...most of them now do not have Marine guards

Here is a good book for you to read over the holidays. Though I warn you, it outlines FDR's treachery and treason, so it might sicken you as it did me.

Amazon Review:
Even as an undergraduate I wondered, “Why weren’t the aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor?” Stinnett answers that and details the American plan to force Japan to make the first strike. I have never seen a better documented book! This is primary historical research at its best. When you are done with the book you will see the start of the Second World War in a different light. And, just to be sure, the book isn’t necessarily anti-Roosevelt.

Perhaps the most interesting part for me was the review of American efforts to make sure the coming attack was kept secret. Also interesting was the fate of the army and navy commanders at Pearl who were kept out of the loop. I guess it was necessary to have a couple of fall guys.

I've been reading WW2 for over 35 years.....
I've gone over this in many war forums.....
please cite critical quotes/links/etc

FDR did not know where the Japanese were going to attack......unless you can link/quote something specific, direct--FDR didn't know
please re-read my previous posts

Read the book. It is all there and entirely documented.

FDR KNEW!!!!

there must not be anything important in the book if you can't quote anything relevant/critical

Already covered that, but apparently it didn't take.

 

[Eugene]

That is the difference between russians and you - you are ready to fight against civilians. And feel happy after you kill them. Russians fight against enemy's army.
You shown your decay nature in WW2 (Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki), you shown it in numerous war actions in Latin America, Africa, Asia (especially Vietnam where you burnt and poisoned territory where civilians lived).

War Is Between Nations, Not Armies

There are no non-combatants in a combat zone. It is a logical contradiction to think there are. "Civilians" must help us fight the enemy or they become the enemy. With your programmed insults to our fighting men, you're just provoking more anti-Russian attitudes here. You're playing the same game as the traitors here who want a new Cold War instead of the necessary war against all Islam.

I will never accept such point of view.
For me any civilian is a human being but for not... even more when fightin against asians, latinos or negros your soldiers called them monkey and easily killed either they were soldiers or not...even children. Mass bombing is american favorite tool - Nikoragua, Vietnam, Serbia and many others.
So don't cry when your citizens a beheaded in some parts of earth.

The Yellow Yell, and Hollow Fools Follow

I hope Putin sends you to war. It's the only way to knock some sense into you about the air-conditioned ethics mandated by the comfortable and cowardly snobs at the Geneva Convention. It's easy for those Chickenhawk ruling-class traitors to imagine war as some kind of gentleman's athletic engagement and the "civilians" as harmless and protected spectators. Talk to someone who was in Yeltsin's civilian-friendly but losing war in Chechnya and then consult the wised-up veterans of Putin's all-out victorious war there.

You know nothing about Chechnya.
Yeltsin’s war there was a high level of idiotism - they either used total bombing or allowed surrounded terrorists to escape for money.
Putin had managed to win thanks to negotiations. The strongest clan of Kadyrov agreed to throw away US paid islamic terrorists together with federal army and to become a president of Chechnya with wide rights as autonomic republic.
So today it is highly developed snd calm region.

You say USA and Russia should join in fight against islamists but how is it possible for the USA to fight against their own arm? They used Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, in Chechnya, in Lybia, in Syria... Do you really believe they plan stop doing it?

As for civilians suffering while war. There absolutely different cases when some non-combatants were killed occasionally accidentally and when military operation has its aim of total elimination of everyone at certain territory.
While operation in Aleppo by Russians there were not air strikes at the last stage, there were local ground operations with humanitarian corridors for civilians. But in Mosul NATO had bombed that city over without any chance for civilians to leave.

This makes no sense. Why would you want to allow civilians leave a city that you are bombing? Isn't the whole idea to kill them all? I thought that was a war.

The idea is to fight against terrorists not civilians suffering of living at the territory occupied by them.
Besides in Aleppo even terrorists were allowed to leave with their weapon so that less civilians were killed while liberating the city. And many terrorists decided to surrender - some were forced to fight, most were fooled by wrong ideas...

Your position shows once again that you americans think you’re exceptional nation. Actually this idea is nazist theory.

 

[anotherlife]

War Is Between Nations, Not Armies

There are no non-combatants in a combat zone. It is a logical contradiction to think there are. "Civilians" must help us fight the enemy or they become the enemy. With your programmed insults to our fighting men, you're just provoking more anti-Russian attitudes here. You're playing the same game as the traitors here who want a new Cold War instead of the necessary war against all Islam.

I will never accept such point of view.
For me any civilian is a human being but for not... even more when fightin against asians, latinos or negros your soldiers called them monkey and easily killed either they were soldiers or not...even children. Mass bombing is american favorite tool - Nikoragua, Vietnam, Serbia and many others.
So don't cry when your citizens a beheaded in some parts of earth.

The Yellow Yell, and Hollow Fools Follow

I hope Putin sends you to war. It's the only way to knock some sense into you about the air-conditioned ethics mandated by the comfortable and cowardly snobs at the Geneva Convention. It's easy for those Chickenhawk ruling-class traitors to imagine war as some kind of gentleman's athletic engagement and the "civilians" as harmless and protected spectators. Talk to someone who was in Yeltsin's civilian-friendly but losing war in Chechnya and then consult the wised-up veterans of Putin's all-out victorious war there.

You know nothing about Chechnya.
Yeltsin’s war there was a high level of idiotism - they either used total bombing or allowed surrounded terrorists to escape for money.
Putin had managed to win thanks to negotiations. The strongest clan of Kadyrov agreed to throw away US paid islamic terrorists together with federal army and to become a president of Chechnya with wide rights as autonomic republic.
So today it is highly developed snd calm region.

You say USA and Russia should join in fight against islamists but how is it possible for the USA to fight against their own arm? They used Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, in Chechnya, in Lybia, in Syria... Do you really believe they plan stop doing it?

As for civilians suffering while war. There absolutely different cases when some non-combatants were killed occasionally accidentally and when military operation has its aim of total elimination of everyone at certain territory.
While operation in Aleppo by Russians there were not air strikes at the last stage, there were local ground operations with humanitarian corridors for civilians. But in Mosul NATO had bombed that city over without any chance for civilians to leave.

This makes no sense. Why would you want to allow civilians leave a city that you are bombing? Isn't the whole idea to kill them all? I thought that was a war.

The idea is to fight against terrorists not civilians suffering of living at the territory occupied by them.
Besides in Aleppo even terrorists were allowed to leave with their weapon so that less civilians were killed while liberating the city. And many terrorists decided to surrender - some were forced to fight, most were fooled by wrong ideas...

Your position shows once again that you americans think you’re exceptional nation. Actually this idea is nazist theory.

Well, it is only the USA that has it written in its national constitution that you have the right to happiness. Unique enough. Exceptional even, may I say.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You never change. It is always an appeal to authority...make that false authority.

Of course I use historians for responses to history, in this case 238 historians asked by Slena College to rate. Why would the colleges use MSB posters to rate the presidents historically? Who or what do you use for authoritative responses to history topics?

Histwhoreans Can't Connect the Dots, They Can Only Collect the Dots

Academics are sheltered and conceited escapist nerds. Their bitterness over being misfits makes them vindictively attack normal values. Such hired writers are my enemie; I read them only to spy on them.

You never change. It is always an appeal to authority...make that false authority.

Of course I use historians for responses to history, in this case 238 historians asked by Slena College to rate. Why would the colleges use MSB posters to rate the presidents historically? Who or what do you use for authoritative responses to history topics?

Histwhoreans Can't Connect the Dots, They Can Only Collect the Dots

Academics are sheltered and conceited escapist nerds. Their bitterness over being misfits makes them vindictively attack normal values. Such hired writers are my enemie; I read them only to spy on them.

When I went to school I had a number of teachers that had been through WWII as combat soldiers. They had used the bill to get their PHD's PhDs.

Because Students Aren't Paid, They Are Amateurs

But they never taught you that the exception proves the rule. A Diploma Dumbo's attempts at sounding intelligent are pathetic. One pushy but empty point after another.

Maybe you're right, slogans, sayings, clichés make more accurate history. Most historians, if it warrants, put in one or more interpretations of the event, that's part of writing history.

Me, Myself, and Ivory

What they scribble furiously is not history; it is a sheltered and abstract opinion, looking down through the fog shrouding their Ivory Tower.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

President Roosevelt was in his third term and the U.S. had little or no intelligence network. The Brits were shocked to learn that the U.S. was virtually isolated from European and Asian and Nazi intelligence. A best seller titled "In the Garden of the Beasts" is based on the U.S. Ambassador to Germany during the pre-war years. The FDR administration didn't seem interested in Nazi atrocities even when Americans became the victims. All the FDR administration seemed interested is trying to convince the Hitler regime to pay their WW1 debits and that wasn't going to happen. Meanwhile FDR "intelligence" experts claimed that the Japanese were nearsighted little people who were incapable of building a plane much less flying one. The criminal lack of intelligence led to the debacle of Pearl Harbor but FDR's legendary eloquence conned the public.

Pearl Harbor has never made sense, even to its contemporary Japanese leadership. That is when Hiro Hito's best generals have accepted that Japan lost the war. That is even before the USA joined in.

Even Manchuria couldn't provide enough resources to Japan to win against the USA, Japan needed the entire Asia, and the Japanese generals knew this. M

Therefore it looks more likely, and logical, that Pearl Harbor was a USA insider job.

The vital Carriers were conveniently at sea when Pearl was attacked. Coincidence? COS George Marshall was late for work that day (yes he worked on Sunday) and in subsequent congressional investigations into Pearl Harbor revealed that the General who was credited with a near photographic memory couldn't remember where he was during the early morning hours of Dec. 7th. When his frantic staff finally showed him the "Magic" intercepts that indicated an imminent attack the General read them and re-read them and re-re-read them until the Military message center inexplicably went down and he sent a lame Western Union telegraph that arrived in Hawaii at the same time as the Zeroes. One thing an officer learns is to never blame subordinates for your own failures but that's just what COS Marshall did. The Roosevelt administration passed the buck downward until an Admiral and a General (who had no access to Magic or any other intelligence) were relieved of duty and disgraced. It should be noted that a favored General who was in charge of the Philippine Army and failed to enact the "War Plan" and allowed his air force to be destroyed on the ground and subsequently lost his entire Army (abandoned it under orders) and alone was rescued, was awarded the Medal of Honor.

The carriers were shadowing the Japanese fleet trying to provoke an attack that would start the war FDR wanted.

if this is not sarcasm--your posts are worthless shit

Farewell, Fairy

I can't say the same back to you. I'm sure your boytoys would pay good money for your turds, so they are not worthless.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Love the Smell of Roast Nazi in the Morning!

Relatives of the "civilians" in Dresden massacred 20 million Russians. By making victims out of those pro-Nazi pigs, you dismiss what the Germans did to your own people. Besides, Russian vengeance was even more vicious than anything Americans did.

That is the difference between russians and you - you are ready to fight against civilians. And feel happy after you kill them. Russians fight against enemy's army.
You shown your decay nature in WW2 (Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki), you shown it in numerous war actions in Latin America, Africa, Asia (especially Vietnam where you burnt and poisoned territory where civilians lived).

War Is Between Nations, Not Armies

There are no non-combatants in a combat zone. It is a logical contradiction to think there are. "Civilians" must help us fight the enemy or they become the enemy. With your programmed insults to our fighting men, you're just provoking more anti-Russian attitudes here. You're playing the same game as the traitors here who want a new Cold War instead of the necessary war against all Islam.

I will never accept such point of view.
For me any civilian is a human being but for not... even more when fightin against asians, latinos or negros your soldiers called them monkey and easily killed either they were soldiers or not...even children. Mass bombing is american favorite tool - Nikoragua, Vietnam, Serbia and many others.
So don't cry when your citizens a beheaded in some parts of earth.

The Yellow Yell, and Hollow Fools Follow

I hope Putin sends you to war. It's the only way to knock some sense into you about the air-conditioned ethics mandated by the comfortable and cowardly snobs at the Geneva Convention. It's easy for those Chickenhawk ruling-class traitors to imagine war as some kind of gentleman's athletic engagement and the "civilians" as harmless and protected spectators. Talk to someone who was in Yeltsin's civilian-friendly but losing war in Chechnya and then consult the wised-up veterans of Putin's all-out victorious war there.

You know nothing about Chechnya.
Yeltsin’s war there was a high level of idiotism - they either used total bombing or allowed surrounded terrorists to escape for money.
Putin had managed to win thanks to negotiations. The strongest clan of Kadyrov agreed to throw away US paid islamic terrorists together with federal army and to become a president of Chechnya with wide rights as autonomic republic.
So today it is highly developed snd calm region.

You say USA and Russia should join in fight against islamists but how is it possible for the USA to fight against their own arm? They used Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, in Chechnya, in Lybia, in Syria... Do you really believe they plan stop doing it?

As for civilians suffering while war. There absolutely different cases when some non-combatants were killed occasionally accidentally and when military operation has its aim of total elimination of everyone at certain territory.
While operation in Aleppo by Russians there were not air strikes at the last stage, there were local ground operations with humanitarian corridors for civilians. But in Mosul NATO had bombed that city over without any chance for civilians to leave.

Being Obsessively Focused on the Cold War Is What Let the Jihad Resurrect in the First Place

You're being manipulated by Putin's sloppy retaliation against the American ruling-class fossils' nostalgia for the Cold War. Our powerful Low IQs, who would be nobodies without their families' money, are too ignorant about history to realize that the Islamic world-conquest jihad has returned in full force for the first time since September 11, 1683. As soon as we wake up and overthrow this octupus, America will ally with the strongest countries and defeat the Third World savages.

 

[regent]

Of course I use historians for responses to history, in this case 238 historians asked by Slena College to rate. Why would the colleges use MSB posters to rate the presidents historically? Who or what do you use for authoritative responses to history topics?

Histwhoreans Can't Connect the Dots, They Can Only Collect the Dots

Academics are sheltered and conceited escapist nerds. Their bitterness over being misfits makes them vindictively attack normal values. Such hired writers are my enemie; I read them only to spy on them.

Of course I use historians for responses to history, in this case 238 historians asked by Slena College to rate. Why would the colleges use MSB posters to rate the presidents historically? Who or what do you use for authoritative responses to history topics?

Histwhoreans Can't Connect the Dots, They Can Only Collect the Dots

Academics are sheltered and conceited escapist nerds. Their bitterness over being misfits makes them vindictively attack normal values. Such hired writers are my enemie; I read them only to spy on them.

When I went to school I had a number of teachers that had been through WWII as combat soldiers. They had used the bill to get their PHD's PhDs.

Because Students Aren't Paid, They Are Amateurs

But they never taught you that the exception proves the rule. A Diploma Dumbo's attempts at sounding intelligent are pathetic. One pushy but empty point after another.

Maybe you're right, slogans, sayings, clichés make more accurate history. Most historians, if it warrants, put in one or more interpretations of the event, that's part of writing history.

Me, Myself, and Ivory

What they scribble furiously is not history; it is a sheltered and abstract opinion, looking down through the fog shrouding their Ivory Tower.

Why do historians scribble furiously to write history? Some books take a year or two.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Histwhoreans Can't Connect the Dots, They Can Only Collect the Dots

Academics are sheltered and conceited escapist nerds. Their bitterness over being misfits makes them vindictively attack normal values. Such hired writers are my enemie; I read them only to spy on them.

Histwhoreans Can't Connect the Dots, They Can Only Collect the Dots

Academics are sheltered and conceited escapist nerds. Their bitterness over being misfits makes them vindictively attack normal values. Such hired writers are my enemie; I read them only to spy on them.

When I went to school I had a number of teachers that had been through WWII as combat soldiers. They had used the bill to get their PHD's PhDs.

Because Students Aren't Paid, They Are Amateurs

But they never taught you that the exception proves the rule. A Diploma Dumbo's attempts at sounding intelligent are pathetic. One pushy but empty point after another.

Maybe you're right, slogans, sayings, clichés make more accurate history. Most historians, if it warrants, put in one or more interpretations of the event, that's part of writing history.

Me, Myself, and Ivory

What they scribble furiously is not history; it is a sheltered and abstract opinion, looking down through the fog shrouding their Ivory Tower.

Why do historians scribble furiously to write history? Some books take a year or two.

Academentia

They are like the writer in The Shining.