Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Raedwulf last won the day on June 14 2013

Raedwulf had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Somewhere in England

LotRO Data

  • Server
    Laurelin, once upon a time...
  • Kinship

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Raedwulf's Achievements

Experienced Spammer

Experienced Spammer (7/11)



  1. Perhaps they're bailing because you're being an asshole and they can't see any further point in trying to engage? A Freudian might read something into the fact that you chose the word "clashing" rather than, say, "discussing". No, you're not always like that. But sometimes you damn well have been. So, sometimes, maybe it's you, not them.
  2. I should go look for Patrick Stewart's version...
  3. Apologies are nonsense. You cannot apologise for what someone else did. Especially when the someone else was someone who lived 50, 100, 200 years before you. I'm English, in case it's not obvious. There have been a few calls from UK veterans over the years; the Japanese should apologise for the way they treated our PoWs! Why? They treated our PoWs according to their culture. Surrender was shameful, death was far better. Surrender made you less than human, so they treated PoWs as though they were less than human. It's not the way you think, it's not the way I think... Ultimately the Allies won the war. The Japanese culture that produced that mindset was very thoroughly dismantled. The Japanese now may have trouble dealing with that past. Shit. Wouldn't you? How would you feel having your nose rubbed in what a bunch of c**** your country is, or was? Resentful? Much? But they are not responsible for what happened then. And had I or you, any of you, been born a Japanese male in 1919, make no mistake, I & you, we would have been bayoneting babies, using comfort women, beheading PoWs... We would have been products of the culture we were born into, just as we are now. Lucky us, we have been born into a more enlightened culture (allegedly). We defeated the Japanese, and we destroyed their social order, pretty much completely. They don't bayonet babies, etc, etc any more. Success. Gratitude? Would you be grateful or resentful? And why should the children, the grandchildren, the great-grandchildren, be held responsible for the sins of the fathers? Parochial, by the way, means having a limited or narrow outlook, Cranky. I promise, I will come back to you on this. It's not about the south pacific. Maybe I'm wrong, but so far you give the impression that nothing the US ever did could have been wrong, that the US won WWII, that Europe was utterly wrecked without US assistance... That the world revolves around the US, basically. I'm sure you didn't mean to, but that's the impression that I, at least, am getting!
  4. Rain - that's an interesting link, thank you. Unfortunately, most of what is quoted is rather after the fact. More pertinently, several of the quotes suggest that Japan was, in some way, ready to surrender. On the evidence I've seen, I can't agree that it was. It was in the hands of the militarists & they were not. A "short wave broadcast" as suggested by Hoover, for example, I wish it had been tried; maybe it would have worked. But, in the face of all the available evidence, I'm afraid I don't believe that it would have been anything other than disregarded.
  5. I'd agree. Very parochial & US-centric. If I find time & inclination, I'll do Cranky the courtesy of explaining why I think that in more detail later. However, your post isn't a lot better, Dan. Evidence? None. I've heard this "testing" argument before; I'm fairly sure it cropped up in the ten year old thread too. There's no evidence it's true, or even plausible. It's an argument advanced by the anti-bomb side of the argument because it sounds good & can't be proved or disproved. "Impossible surrender conditions"? What impossible conditions? No conditions were demanded. Japan was the one seeking to impose conditions. The Allied attitude was, quite rightly, "You are beaten, now surrender. No, none of your qualifications on surrender are acceptable. Surrender or face the consequences." Truman made the only reasonable decision he could, I believe; happily, so did Hirohito eventually. Your third para is just... Well, weird. It reads like you haven't read what I've posted. It's not "hundreds of thousands" on each side. It's a choice between hundreds of thousands nuclear, or millions conventionally. It's really a simple choice. How much consideration was given to "Our soldiers" as against "Their civilians"? It was a less-enlightened age that has contributed to our more-enlightened (allegedly) one. It's foolish to try to judge it by our standards. If they were thinking more of "Our's" than "Their's" (which is nothing more than an allegation), I personally find it impossible to blame them for doing so. Truman's choice, and I should think he was aware of it, was between "Millions of ours & millions of theirs, or drop this bomb, the consequences of which are a matter of educated guesswork... Shit, they didn't surrender, OK, drop the other one... Thank christ for that, they've surrendered." An unknown casualty number restricted, roughly, to a single city of a hundred thousand or so, or millions? Defeat is inevitable, yes, but the cost? How many of your own people do you want to be responsible for killing, never mind the enemy? As you say, you're not judging anyone, but the way you put your point doesn't necessarily back that up. And, again, with your last para, evidence, please?
  6. I never said it wasn't possible. However, the cost of winning the war, or rather ending it, given that there was no doubt about the winning, was extortionate, prohibitive. As I have already pointed out! The US High Command had already estimated the likely cost of a conventional victory & they did not like the answers. Would you rather the war had been won conventionally at the cost of 5+ million lives instead of the quarter of a million (approximately & within 4 months of the bombings)? Yes, the bombs had a beneficial effect. Yes, they were woeful actions; they were actions full of woe. But they were not mistakes. They were only rational choices out of a bunch of really shitty ones. As for "war crime", I really don't think you understand what a war crime is. As for "I hate nukes", who here has said they even as much as like them?
  7. OK, now I understand what you're getting at, but I disagree with what you're saying. Mostly because I think you've not entirely understood the scenario that you're using as an argument. Manchuria is an irrelevance to what is happening in Japan. It doesn't matter how up to date the intelligence that the Big Six have on Manchuria, because they don't care what happens to it. The relevant quote from my earlier post is: Essentially, screw Manchuria, screw Maritime Province. The only thing that matters now is making any & every assault so prohibitively costly that the enemy would rather accept our terms than force our surrender. Whatever your view, if you're going to argue that this wasn't the case, then you are, I am sorry, one of those that ten years ago was in cloud cuckoo land. The state of communications is beside the point because what was happening outside of Japan was, by this time, just as much beside the point. And there is another problem with the case you're trying to make. There is a world of difference between internal & external communication. I can't speak authoritatively on the technical or practical capacities of Japanese communications at the point in the war. Again, though, I will point out that the implication in my argument was that external 'internal' communication was delayed, whilst internal communication & communication with the enemy was not. Ergo, there is no reason to suppose that the Big Six were not fully aware of what had happened internally at Hiroshima. Again, I will re-quote my earlier post, The only grey area here is whether or not they knew about the Nagasaki bomb when they were discussing surrender terms. Even asssuming the inconceivable; that all instantaneous communication (i.e. radio or telephonic) between Hiroshima & Tokyo (assuming that that's where the Big Six actually were) had been entirely knocked out; take a look at the geography of Japan. It is stretching belief beyond all reasonable bounds to suggest that the govt had not been fully briefed. They knew about Hiroshima. Still, the best offer that any were willing to make was Condition One, and even that was unacceptable to the Allies. Three days, 30 days; I don't see what difference it makes. The evidence strongly suggests that the second bomb was required. At the risk of being tedious, I'll quote myself again, I've bolded a couple of words. Hirohito had to make an unprecedented intervention simply to offer the unacceptable Condition One surrender. On the 14th August, a full five days after Fat Man, Hirohito made a unilateral decision. A unilateral decision to offer unconditional surrender. Where, Dar, is your evidence that the Japanese might have surrendered after the first bomb, given enough time? It's always going to be arguable because there were only 3 days between the bombs, and no-one can change that. But the evidence I've given above very strongly suggests that both bombs WERE necessary. However little any of us might like it.
  8. Sorry, Dar, not quite sure what you're asking. The Japanese didn't know that Manchuria had been invaded, but they had anticipated that it would be. Therefore they had fortified it. However, at this late stage in the war, they were well aware that there was no hope of holding on to it. More importantly, there was no value in doing so, either. What mattered was defence of Japan. So all the first class units had been brought back to Japan. They didn't know that Manchuria had been invaded, not least because (I imagine) their communications over long distances were probably shot to hell. They were basically confined to Japan, and I'd guess even long range radio communication was jammed. So they didn't know what had happened in Manchuria. If they had known... It would have made no difference to them because they had already, effectively, given it up for lost, and their only interest was the defence of Japan & the maintenance of the Imperial system. I'm sure that they could have communicated with the Americans had they wanted to, however. In fact, implicit in my ten year old argument, is that they had offered conditional surrender, which had been rejected. And after Nagasaki unconditional surrender was offered & accepted. So I don't understand what your question is, given the juxtaposition of the two lines of your post, I'm afraid!
  9. Why you object to the word Community, I presume? Sorry, was the c-word referring to something else?
  10. I just did. Interesting, nicely written, but inaccurate in many respects; written by a journalist, not a historian. Very evocative, but... "Sixty thousand men vaporized in an afternoon is inconceivable"? Never happened. He's confused 60,000 casualties on the first day of the Somme (true) with 60,000 dead (not true), and even that doesn't excuse the use of "vapourised". Interesting, but do read it with a degree of caution!
  11. That wasn't a challenge, Doro. I don't think the forum would survive! And anyway, why would I waste the effort on the likes of you? I'm not that bored. Maybe later... Oh dear. Non-listener. Bye.
  12. Only in your non-native English speaker opinion. Others, some of them native English speakers, disagree that that was what was meant. Opinion! As if I was actually trying to do so!
  13. I could start with "Congratulations! You've missed my point!" That would be overtly sarcastic, and you might feel like responding. So might I, were I on the receiving end. I've written far worse than I've read in this thread, and even posted it. In fact, I've written worse things than Doro has ever posted & posted them. Over the years, though, I've learnt it might be emotionally satisfying, but it's counter-productive. It's like the boy that cried wolf. However important your message is, if no-one listens to it because it's you saying it... I still write walls of flame occasionally, but I almost never post them. I read them & think "Yeah, that's what I'd like to say to you, you...", but I know from bitter experience that there's no point. So I delete it & re-write more calmly having got the angst out of the way. With "serious" posts, it's not unknown for me to write them in WordPad, save them, and re-edit them several times over several days. Even little changes, like "might" instead of "must", makes it sound less like you're metaphorically trying to punch someone in the face, or tell them what they should be doing, and more like you're suggesting something they might like to consider. You'd be astonished how often that results in "I didn't mean it like that" or "I hadn't thought of it like that" or "I see your point", even if a "but" follows. My purpose on forums is, in one sense, two-fold. I've got a sharp wit, sometimes very pointed indeed (especially where Doro is concerned... ), and occasionally I like to be plain silly (I can't do beautiful silly, you see...). So it's nice to make people grin, smile, laugh. Laughter generally makes the world a better place. And I seem to have the knack of making people not take my banter too seriously, so they do tend to laugh, rather than get offended. When I'm being serious, though, I want to get my point across. It matters not a whit to me whether everyone else, or even anyone else, agrees. You can "but" all you like, disagree all you like, doesn't bother me in the least. If I'm entitled to my opinion, so is everyone else. You don't change an opinion by declaring someone to be narrow-minded, bigoted, ignorant, etc, after all. But to get my point across means I need to get you to listen. People in shouting matches aren't listening... Therefore, you've missed my point. Plain & simple & not being sarcastic. What you, Bango, wrote, I scarcely noticed; I was responding to what Vor wrote, not to you. Hence me saying "I'm just making a point". There is a very wise bon mot that says "You are your demonstrated behaviour". In other words, what you think you meant, or how you said it, often isn't nearly so important as what the people you are talking to think you meant or said. The gods only know, I've been bitten in the arse often enough by that! Was it bucko? I've lost track... It's seems to me that you & bucko are reacting to each other without listening ( / reading). "He's patronising me... again!" Other people are joining in; "I can't see what's wrong with what A / B wrote; it's all in what B / A wrote!!" To all intents & purposes, it looks to me like a shouting match - people aren't thinking; about what is being said to them, or about what they are saying; they're just reacting. Neither of you, so far as I've noticed, have made any real effort to understand or conciliate. But my point wasn't about you; it was about what Vor wrote. He said "He wrote this!" & "A native English speaker". Well, no. I disagree that he wrote that. Whether or not you, Bango, are a Keyboard Warrior is beside the point. The KW is an internet personality, and courage or cowardice has nothing to do with their existence or modus operandii. So I feel that Vor is wrong to have declared that that is what & why... And as for the "native English", since he's not... Vor, yer a bleedin' eejit, me ol' mucker!
  14. Raedwulf


    Of course, if you want LoTR-related art, you could do worse than drop into the Bird & Baby. Alas, Nimlith has not visited for several years, but there is some absolutely fabulous stuff in there that she created...
  • Create New...