75th Anniversary

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have been studying this in depth since 1982. Can you say the same?

Sure can! Watch:

"I have been studying this in depth since 1982. "

 

[Mushroom]

We know that MacArthur sent fdr a 40-page communique about peace overtures before he left for Yalta

Why would the japanese approach a general with no authority instead of the president?

More than that, how would they do it?

Funny, I have read a lot of data about this war. It is not like somebody high up in the Imperial Government did a Rudolph Hess.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, it was not.

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.

 

[Mushroom]

I have been studying this in depth since 1982. Can you say the same?

Sure can! Watch:

"I have been studying this in depth since 1982. "

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.

 

[Mushroom]

No, it was not.

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.

There was an official ceasefire between North and South Vietnam so both could honor the Tet holiday in 1968.

How well did that go?

And do you really think the US was ever going to agree to a cease fire with them holding the Philippines? Would the UK with them holding Singapore and Hong Kong?

Yea, to hell with that, who cares about those places, right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

Son, please check your baby side at the door. This is a decent discussion. Adults only.

 

[Unkotare]

archive.ph

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.

Can you read English?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There was an official ceasefire between North and South Vietnam so both could honor the Tet holiday in 1968.

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?

 

[Unkotare]

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?...

Yes, and with a much greater depth of understanding than you are capable of, it seems.

 

[Unkotare]

archive.ph

 

[Mac-7]

No, it was not.

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.

A mere ceasefire was not acceptable to the Allies

it had to be total surrender

 

[Mushroom]

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.

archive.ph

Actually, I did read it. The article combines several of the same "offers" we see here, posted over and over again. And it even seems to try and combine the offer made through the Swedes as well as that Mac talked about.

I did not read it, yet even I caught that it went from the Swedish proposal right into Mac's. And once again, gave not a single bit of information why the "Mac Proposal" was even real in the first place!

This is why I am laughing right now. I caught this little fact days ago, meanwhile you seem to have not caught it at all. Yet I am the one that did not read it?

Yea, in fact I just read it again. It still goes from the offer made to the Swedes, straight into the one that Mac claims to have gotten. And tell me, why in the hell would they make one offer through the Swedes, then another radically somehow directly to Mac?

And even more telling, we also know of the final attempts through the Soviets in July 1945. Why in the hell does the "Mac Plan" of 1944 give away much more than the offer made a few weeks before the bombs were used? It makes absolutely no sense at all. Unless you realize that proposal was all bullshit.

Well, rather obvious. Mac as he did half the time way making crap up as he went along, to make himself look good.

Now I suggest you actually read your own damned reference,

 

[Mac-7]

Can 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

 

[Unkotare]

archive.ph

 

[Mushroom]

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

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.

 

[Mushroom]

archive.ph

When are you going to explain how the Mac plan comes nowhere even close to that made through the Swiss and Soviets? When are you going to explain how these "experts" describe how a 1944 proposal is nothing even close to one presented in 1945?

 

[Mac-7]

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

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

 

[Mushroom]

This 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.

 

[Mac-7]

This 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.

The revisionists for the most part dont think

they just feel - hate for America and love for our enemies

 

[Unkotare]

...This is why I reject Mac's proposal. ...

So we can take the word of some nobody on the internet, or General MacArthur. Hmmm......