They open the city gates to let in more Greek troops and then destroy the city of Troy, winning the war. I found out how, you play as Danny and I don't know how I did it but I got inside one of the ghosts and went through the gates and pulled the lever and the rest of the team come through. Spongebob answering my own question. Bill Gates did not come up with the name, it was his partner Paul Allen.
It was originally called Micro-Soft, a shortened version of microprocessor and software. Firstly, you throw your refuse things in the refuse chute. After that, someone will come and get it. This part is depending on where you live.
In some places, in will go to the landfill. Like burning it. Kidco configure gates can be purchased from many online retailers such as Amazon. Kidco configure gates come in a variety of sizes and colors, to match most interiors. The 8 chakras come from Hinduism. What's Come Inside of You was created on He is brave, and a bit cocky and overconfident, ultimately his downfall. Log in. Add an answer. Want this question answered? And then in one way or another these Nazi leaders such as Bormann and Goering and Goebbels and Speer and so on, they can never come together to form an entity which is seen to break Hitler down.
Therefore both at the top and at the bottom there is actually a lack of alternative to what is really taking place. And the final thing on that is that only one person, and this was acknowledged by everybody, could decide on a negotiated end to this. If you were going to actually bring about an end to the war through negotiation, Hitler was the only who could do it, and he ruled that out time and time and time again, when all these other people were talking about it, Goebbels, Goering, Himmler and the rest of them.
Are we reading the same article? Bix, not "Blix" is the author you quote. But your quote does not prove the earlier claim by Richardson in his post. Bix's position is not very clear in this passage, but he implies that since according to him it was the Soviet entry forced the change in Japan's position, therefore the dropping of the first bomb which preceeded Stalin's declaration WAS at least indirectly important in changing the Japanese government's mind.
Since he also considers the "introduction" i. That is a counterfactual argument that cannot be conclusively proven or disproven by reference to the actual decoded intercepts. In any case, I am not yet persuaded that the intercepts are as clear cut about Japanese determination to fight as you and Richardson are ready to believe.
Richardson, "Shouldn't Mr. Bix have considered and addressed that evidence? So if you suspect that he didn't and you want to ding him for that, you'll have to read it or at least check the bibliography and footnotes carefully.
Articles on this website tend not to cite sources, however. Of course, if the "Magic" decrypts really seriously contradict Bix, then he should have acknowledged that, even in a short article, but this is not clear to me. I am not an expert on this historical episode, but as nearly as I can make out see above , Bix thinks that nuking Hiroshima DID lead to the Japanese surrender, but that there were alternative paths for reaching the same result without use of nukes.
I really think it's up to you to cite chapter and verse of Magic, and put it into an overal context, if you think it disproves this position of Bix a position which is not quite as you described it initially. I am not saying you are wrong, but Bix's account is at least plausible to me, absent solid and convincing counter-evidence.
I have long wondered why Truman, once he had the bomb and had decided to use it, still bargained with Stalin to get what at that point was a militarily useless and absurly late nth hour declaration of war from the USSR. If correct, Bix's explanation defogs that mystery. I do not consider the Weekly Standard, a relatively new and polemical organ, to be a reliable source of historical knowledge.
Certainly I don't intend to go web fishing there for an unlinked article. For top-quality history, I prefer the book reviews in the New York Times or Economist, for example, or the academic journals. I am not familiar with the scholarship of Richard Frank, a non-academic history-writer, but am certainly not impressed by his remarkably evasive and long-winded answer to a straightforward question why wait only three days before hitting Nagasaki? Intentions are a very slippery thing to nail down: intercepted internal communications are a better source for addressing more factual questions i.
I am afraid the answer to the question raised by Mr. Richardson at the outset of this thread remains unclear: Were the Japanese ready to surrender before the first bomb was dropped? On balance Bix says no. The USSR did essentially zilch in the war against Japan, and could not have been expected to have much time to do much once the US started its atomic annihilation.
In the end, Stalin got a bunch of territory for doing nothing militarily in the East. That is why the idea of Potsdam vs Soviet takeover of Japan, as a sort of Good-Cop Bad Cop negotiating strategy vs Hirohito, ala Bix, does at least suggest a plausible rationale for what otherwise looks like a "hand the USSR territory on a silver platter" blunder by Truman.
Thanks for the reference, Mr. Mutschler no online link I suppose? The issue here is Bix's historiographical take on the Japanese surrender, e. The tangent in this thread re the decoded Japanese communications has led nowhere conclusive, partly because those decrypts are supposed to somehow "contradict" Bix by reinforcing?! Of course, no news analysis outlet is "always accurate", not even Economist.
But however "fair and balanced" it might be, the Weekly Standard is nowhere near the same league for quality and breadth. Give me a viable link to a relevant article by Frank and I will look at it. If you believe he has a case, it would be "lazy or mindless" to foist the job of documenting that case on those YOU want to convince of it. The likelihood of 1 a major unresolved 60 year old historical debate being solidly cleared up by yet another incremental set of recently uncovered or declassified documents, and 2 the mainstream press e.
I will nonetheless consider it as a possibility, but am not going to take the undocumented opinions of a few HNN posters as a definitive conclusion without some better substantiation, nor will I do their homework for them in trying to evaluate their questionable case.
I am not sure that Bix has things quite right either, and I agree that he conflates too many points in an unclear way in this article, but the tangential attempts to criticize his argument in these comment postings here do not hold water, at least so far. For what its worth, Frank is a formidable writer, and the HNN page on him which should have been about his full book, not just the sound-bite-rich Weekly Standard sensationalized adapation of it deserves at least a fraction of the comments about his views that are misplacedly piling up here.
Academic historians seem to have been been slow to react to an important work by a non-academic, and I expect to hear more about this book in the future. Since this is now a long, now multiple thread tangent already, I will note only briefly in passing that an interesting US Army vs Navy debate is also intriguingly brought up by Frank in the above linked piece. The weapons that incinerated those two unfortunate cities represented a technological innovation with fearsome consequences for the future of humanity.
But the U. That was a deliberate decision, indeed, and it's where the moral argument should rightly focus. Rodriguez, Yes, I am stating that the only people qualified to make military command and control decisions are those in positions and with experience in actual warfare. We witnessed civilian bungling in Vietnam as our military leaders had their hands tied. Granted both Kennedy and Nixon served. The former with great distinction. I would prefer that military leaders lead our troops and civilians direct administrative efforts.
The Bush administration steamrolled any military leader who posed questions about the planning phase to the run up of the Iraq War. This has had disastrous consequences. For example, insufficient troop strength to secure the country and then the subsequent error by civilian administrator Paul Bremer to disband the Iraqi Army in the immediate aftermath of the initial campaign.
Clarke, Although I use the term chicken-hawk to describe the gutless wonders within the administration I am by no means a dove. I come from a military family and although I did not serve after high school in , as I chose college, I currently serve the DAV and have spent many weekend afternoons at VA Hospitals.
I believe in a strong, well trained and well equipped military but a military that is used with discretion, has well defined operational objectives and uses maximum force when required. Not all of us who question the modus operandi in Iraq are against the use of our military in protecting US interests. Most only seek honest discourse about what the tactical advantages and end game are.
The current administration seems to have been pulling a smoke and mirror campaign from the run up to the war I find it amazing with the '06 election around the corner the administration is bantering about troop withdrawal.
And a few posters here seem to strongly support civilian leaders calling the shots for our military. No wonder Iraq smells like Vietnam revisited. Siegler, "The troops will likely start heading home in the spring. How are our troops going to be able to come home as heated battle in Iraq continues daily?
The US is constructing massive, permanent bases in Iraq. The US plans to be in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Conversely, the insurgents will remain active trying to dislodge the US presence. I don't believe we will be coming home any time soon. Insurgent troop strength is estimated at , while the US posts , strong. Typically an occupying force should hold a 10 to 1 numerical advantage over it's foe. This is why General Shinseki asked for , to , troops en masse at the wars outset.
Instead we have , troops of which 40, are logistics, administration and medical support leaving 80, troops to combat.
If troops pull 12 hour duty that means only 40, troops on watch for any half day period. If we are to win this war it will take additional boots on the ground. I'm starting to feel a draft after the election cycle. Ryan, "Go pedal your defeatist nonsense elsewhere please. Heisler on a few occasions but would never call him a defeatist.
I disagree with him on many points but we have made a mess of Iraq and to date I surely would not say we are winning this war. This is not defeatist but is the reality of the moment. As a student of military history I can site numerous errors in US war planning that has put our troops in this position. As Napoleon marched through Russia decisively winning battles he failed to comprehend the Russian mindset until Moscow was ablaze and he was buried under a cold blanket of snow.
The US has also failed to understand the Iraqi mindset. The shock and awe of the initial front has failed to break the will of the Iraqi people. This site is open to all points of view. The Mad Priest. You know LoL right? Have you ever seen a katarina ult at the her nexus and turns the tide? Have you ever seen a group get killed with a tricky Nami?
If not, you don't know the meaning of not surrendering. Awards Showcase. I only surrendered when I didn't feel like I could carry those nawbs to victory, but some people are just unreasonable about it and either never surrender or always surrender. Both of these are bad players, honestly. One thinks that he is a holy knight who needs to stand and fight the other one is a looser who quits when there is the slightest chance of loosing :p. Quick Reply. Please log in or sign up to post!
View All Gods. Join MFN. Pizzarugi Remarkable 8 Posts: Romanians Established 17 Posts: Daheri Posts: Zerosaviour Notable 1 Posts: StrikeF Posts: 3. RevanClaw Notable 4 Posts:
0コメント