Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 102,916
- 84,638
- 3,645
Sure can! Watch:I have been studying this in depth since 1982. Can you say the same?
"I have been studying this in depth since 1982. "
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sure can! Watch:I have been studying this in depth since 1982. Can you say the same?
Why would the japanese approach a general with no authority instead of the president?We know that MacArthur sent fdr a 40-page communique about peace overtures before he left for Yalta
Of course armistice is a step toward surrender, when you have no effective attacking forces left. And if you don't get that, you're a big fat stinky doodie headed fatty.No, it was not.
Sure can! Watch:I have been studying this in depth since 1982. Can you say the same?
"I have been studying this in depth since 1982. "
Of course armistice is a step toward surrender, when you have no effective attacking forces left. And if you don't get that, you're a big fat stinky doodie headed fatty.No, it was not.
Son, please check your baby side at the door. This is a decent discussion. Adults only.We already know you can parrot things you have heard without even giving them any kind of thought at all, or even trying to analyze it.
No need for you to do it again.
Which your own article even admits was a "Cease Fire".
You keep posting that stupid thing over and over again as if it means something. That you do not even seem to grasp that they wanted to try and end the war, keeping their stolen territory and without losses I can not understand.
Yea, peace. With them in command of Burma, China, Singapore, Indochina, and the Philippines.
Which by the way WAS US TERRITORY AND OCCUPIED BY US CITIZENS!
That was not even a good opium fantasy when they made that offer, which is why nobody would forward it for them.
And which side had no effective offensive force whatsoever, while the other side had overwhelming numbers on their doorstep? You have two choices. Which one?There was an official ceasefire between North and South Vietnam so both could honor the Tet holiday in 1968.
What rank did you hold when you served in the Pacific theater during WWII?
I have been studying this in depth since 1982. Can you say the same?...
A mere ceasefire was not acceptable to the AlliesOf course armistice is a step toward surrender, when you have no effective attacking forces left. And if you don't get that, you're a big fat stinky doodie headed fatty.No, it was not.
You haven't even read this one link. There is even a numbered list of the terms offered - which were exactly those we eventually accepted anyway. Stop being so fucking lazy and read what is already here.
The japanese “peace bids” did not involve unconditional surrenderCan you read English?
The japanese “peace bids” did not involve unconditional surrender
they were delusional to think they could stay in power after the war and avoid occupation
This is what liberal revisionist history looks likeThe japanese “peace bids” did not involve unconditional surrender
they were delusional to think they could stay in power after the war and avoid occupation
They were still trying to act as if they won the war. Even the Soviet Ambassador to Japan thought they were insane.
And I am still waiting to find out why in July 1945 the Japanese did not simply ask the Soviets to forward the "proposal" they apparently gave MacArthur the year before. But no, they gave them the same old one they had been trying to use for years.
This is why I reject Mac's proposal. There is absolutely no evidence it was real, but we do know that the proposals they wanted to send through the Swiss, Swedes, and Soviets were real. It and the terms are confirmed through various sources.
But none that believe the Mac Plan can explain why that was not sent through the Soviets instead of a rehash of the 1943 proposal.
This is what liberal revisionist history looks like
its always anti American and pro soviet
The revisionists for the most part dont thinkThis is what liberal revisionist history looks like
its always anti American and pro soviet
Hell, I would be happy if they could even explain why Japan would surrender at the terms that apparently Mac had short of an invasion. Germany sure as hell never did. Nor did Italy. Iraq was thoroughly thrashed 2 different times, and never gave up.
What makes Japan so weak? That they were willing to throw up their hands and surrender, before a single Allied soldier landed on their beaches. It makes absolutely no sense, yet they refuse to even discuss this illogic of their claims.
Unless of course they are racists, and somehow see the Japanese as "lesser beings", that somehow could not take the abuse that Germany and Italy had. That is really about all I can figure out, to be honest.