What If
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
Penetratror,
While I agree that relations vis the Soviets did have some impact on the decision to use the bombs, I think you underestimate the resolve of the Japanese.
Not only did Japan have an entire generation of young people convinced of Japan's uniqueness and invincibility, but additionally, the big business/military leadership had a total aversion to surrender. Even when the emperor announced the surrender, he never said "surrender" or "defeat"... rather he urged the people to "endure the unendureable".
I think it is quite reasonable to think that the business/military leadership of the nation would have sacrificed a whole generation attempting to defeat any initial invasion and stave off unconditional surrender. The dropping of the second bomb gave those parties that wanted an immediate end to the war the leverage that they needed to have that option discussed.
When you factor in the information that the US actually had about Japan at the time, and her capacity for fanatical resistance (onkinawa, iwo jima, saipan, guam etc. etc.) and how each island closer to Japan was defended with ever greater ferocity, then I think it is quite reasonable to think that part of the american decision was based on expediency of time, lives and material.
ps.
If you want to blame the US for something re its bombing of Japan, the criticize the fact that the US firebombed the slums of Tokyo, but left a district of high-class buildings untouched... those buildings were the occupied by Macarthur and the occupation government.
While I agree that relations vis the Soviets did have some impact on the decision to use the bombs, I think you underestimate the resolve of the Japanese.
Not only did Japan have an entire generation of young people convinced of Japan's uniqueness and invincibility, but additionally, the big business/military leadership had a total aversion to surrender. Even when the emperor announced the surrender, he never said "surrender" or "defeat"... rather he urged the people to "endure the unendureable".
I think it is quite reasonable to think that the business/military leadership of the nation would have sacrificed a whole generation attempting to defeat any initial invasion and stave off unconditional surrender. The dropping of the second bomb gave those parties that wanted an immediate end to the war the leverage that they needed to have that option discussed.
When you factor in the information that the US actually had about Japan at the time, and her capacity for fanatical resistance (onkinawa, iwo jima, saipan, guam etc. etc.) and how each island closer to Japan was defended with ever greater ferocity, then I think it is quite reasonable to think that part of the american decision was based on expediency of time, lives and material.
ps.
If you want to blame the US for something re its bombing of Japan, the criticize the fact that the US firebombed the slums of Tokyo, but left a district of high-class buildings untouched... those buildings were the occupied by Macarthur and the occupation government.
NaKATPase:
Colocalized with coracle in septate junctions.
"I'd love to step out, but I'd have to see the girl first." -- GM
"A lot of frogs are like that when they're young and repulsive." -- TS
Colocalized with coracle in septate junctions.
"I'd love to step out, but I'd have to see the girl first." -- GM
"A lot of frogs are like that when they're young and repulsive." -- TS
Germany, while situated in a VASTLY different cultural and historical context, might prove a useful analogy. I don't remember the source, but I recall reading that one of the things that kept at least some of the Wehrmacht's soldiers fighting to the end was the Allied demand for *unconditional* surrender, which they must have deemed unacceptable--especially given Germany's treatment after WWI. When you're talking about Japan, a society with such a stigma on surrender,
unconditional surrender becomes
that much more "unendurable."
We must also keep in mind that the two bombs caused fewer immediate casualties than the massive firebombing raids on Tokyo, even though Toland (Rising Sun) says that the number of "doomed" individuals--meaining those who had sustained mortal wounds, radiation, etc., ultimately surpassed the firebombing damage. Meaning, Japan could have probably been defeated throught the use of conventional bombing, though it might have taken longer and caused an equivalent, or perhaps even greater, number of Japanese lives lost.
But conventional weapons did not have the "shock value" of the A-bomb, and perhaps this would have made an invasion of Japan necessary.
I don't know if Operation Olympic would have ultimately succeeded. There is a Japanese author, Murakami Ryu
(not the really popular Murakami) that wrote/writes pop books such as "The World Five Minutes Behind," (bad translation) that construct an alternate history of Japan following WWII, where Japan doesn't surrender after the dropping of the A-Bombs, and most of the Japanese people move underground in order to continue a struggle against the occupying American, Russian, and British troops; this struggle goes on until the present day. While this doesn't sound that feasible, I imagine that Japan would have been a very difficult country to conquer on the ground, being something like 85% mountainous--remember Hitler's plan to relocate to the Alps during Werewolf, to continue a guerrilla struggle against the Allies ad infinitum? I think it is feasible that if the emperor had pulled a Churchill, saying that we will fight them on the beaches, in the streets, etc, that you would have had the majority of able-bodied (and not so able-bodied) Japanese out there with pitchforks and hoes, fighting the GI's.
And after all,te Japanese countryside was largely untouched--that's why a lot of people migrated out of the cities, and the gov't relocated many airbases to hastily constructed dirt fields in rural areas. So it is feasible that a hastily constructed defense force could have inflicted very significant casualties, and the war might have dragged on for at least a year more if the Home Islands had actually been invaded. Especially if the Allies continued to demand unconditional surrender--I think we cannot underestimate the psychological impetus this gave to the Japanese to keep on fighting.
unconditional surrender becomes
that much more "unendurable."
We must also keep in mind that the two bombs caused fewer immediate casualties than the massive firebombing raids on Tokyo, even though Toland (Rising Sun) says that the number of "doomed" individuals--meaining those who had sustained mortal wounds, radiation, etc., ultimately surpassed the firebombing damage. Meaning, Japan could have probably been defeated throught the use of conventional bombing, though it might have taken longer and caused an equivalent, or perhaps even greater, number of Japanese lives lost.
But conventional weapons did not have the "shock value" of the A-bomb, and perhaps this would have made an invasion of Japan necessary.
I don't know if Operation Olympic would have ultimately succeeded. There is a Japanese author, Murakami Ryu
(not the really popular Murakami) that wrote/writes pop books such as "The World Five Minutes Behind," (bad translation) that construct an alternate history of Japan following WWII, where Japan doesn't surrender after the dropping of the A-Bombs, and most of the Japanese people move underground in order to continue a struggle against the occupying American, Russian, and British troops; this struggle goes on until the present day. While this doesn't sound that feasible, I imagine that Japan would have been a very difficult country to conquer on the ground, being something like 85% mountainous--remember Hitler's plan to relocate to the Alps during Werewolf, to continue a guerrilla struggle against the Allies ad infinitum? I think it is feasible that if the emperor had pulled a Churchill, saying that we will fight them on the beaches, in the streets, etc, that you would have had the majority of able-bodied (and not so able-bodied) Japanese out there with pitchforks and hoes, fighting the GI's.
And after all,te Japanese countryside was largely untouched--that's why a lot of people migrated out of the cities, and the gov't relocated many airbases to hastily constructed dirt fields in rural areas. So it is feasible that a hastily constructed defense force could have inflicted very significant casualties, and the war might have dragged on for at least a year more if the Home Islands had actually been invaded. Especially if the Allies continued to demand unconditional surrender--I think we cannot underestimate the psychological impetus this gave to the Japanese to keep on fighting.
"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
-
Culiacan Mexico
- Posts: 600
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 10:00 am
- Location: Bad Windsheim Germany
“people would be free in all parts of the world”…Free of Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, Homosexuals… thankfully we don’t have Nazi freedom, but freedom from Nazis.Originally posted by Egg_Shen
I think it would be good if Hitler made the bomb first, then we wouldn't have the russians and americans running around with nukes like a 5 year olds with sharp scissors.
The German people would have all of Europe, Russia, Canada and Africa, Japanese get all of Asia and Australia. Italy bailed out too soon the get nothing.
And if the Americans were good boys and girls they would be allowed a happy alliance with the axis powers.
We would have no military conflicts and terrorist attacks, world hunger and disease would be cured, people would be free in all parts of the world...etc
This is what the Axis powers were fighting for, no?
But we turned out ok otherwise
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Egg I've been having trouble getting an angle on ya, I'm not normally the sort that specifically inquires of a specific poster, but your original post was well "odd".
That much said, a lot of times where a person is from colours their views, but where exactly is 100 Mile House?
Just wondering.
Espousing that the Axis getting the bomb first would make the world a better place is, well, hard to say it any other way, idiotic.
But never let it be said I will put a person down for saying things that are far from the normal, but all your follow up comments seem vaguely petulant (and what is with the Egg_shen screaming and frowning?).
That much said, a lot of times where a person is from colours their views, but where exactly is 100 Mile House?
Just wondering.
Espousing that the Axis getting the bomb first would make the world a better place is, well, hard to say it any other way, idiotic.
But never let it be said I will put a person down for saying things that are far from the normal, but all your follow up comments seem vaguely petulant (and what is with the Egg_shen screaming and frowning?).
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
that's it!
ok wise guys!
what do you guys think things would be like if Axis got the bomb first?:o
what do you guys think things would be like if Axis got the bomb first?:o
I think if the Axis had got the bomb before America, they would have won. Depending on the time they developed it, they could have nuked London early enough to kick them out of the war before America began to help them. Then with out an overseas base the Americans wouldn't be able to fight the Nazis. They would need to transfer carriers over to the Atlantic just to defend the East coast. After the development of the ME 262 the Nazis started looking into a large, long rang jet bomber, not unlike the B-52. They only had one target in mind while developing this bomber. They planned on dropping a nuke on New York during rush hour. Then the U.S. might have surrendered, or Germany might have invaded, either through Canada or maybe Mexico.
"History admires the wise, but it elevates the brave."
-Edmund Morris
[img]http://publish.hometown.aol.com/kenkbar ... tual-b-o-b
-Edmund Morris
[img]http://publish.hometown.aol.com/kenkbar ... tual-b-o-b
-
Culiacan Mexico
- Posts: 600
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 10:00 am
- Location: Bad Windsheim Germany
Re: that's it!
"that's it!"Originally posted by Egg_Shen
ok wise guys!
what do you guys think things would be like if Axis got the bomb first?:o
If the Germans got the bomb in 1945 they would use it on London.
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig
I don't think that "getting the bomb" necessarily equates with "winning the war." Remember, even the US had a hard time finding the materials to make just two bombs. So let's say London was nuked--first of all, it depends on what kind of kiloton yield the German bomb had. Remember that large portions of the population had migrated into the Underground during the Blitz, and safe to say, without contemporary 100 megaton city-busting nukes, a large percentage of the population would have survived. And, even if London were nuked, there was still the countryside, Liverpool, Manchester, other big cities.
As for Germany developing its super long range bomber and attacking the east coast of the US--I don't have the raw statistics in front of me, but from having read many history books on the subject, it seems that one of the major things that prevented Germany from winning the war was fuel shortages, not shortages in manpower (although that came into play later) or materiel--the peak in German military industrial output was in something like December '44! The US population alone was something like triple that of Germany, and her industrial output was about FOUR times that of Germany. So unless Germany could come up with several hundred nukes, I don't think they could have won on that basis alone. World War II was primarily a war of industry and attrition, and the bomb was still largely experimental, and the materials were extremely rare. Yes, if you could totally devastate New York City you would have lessened US industrial output, however, you would have also had to have destroyed Chicago, Boston, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Newport News, Norfolk, Bath, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Seattle, etc etc. A bomb or two, maybe even five or six, would not have crippled the US war effort by any means, especially given the minimal yields (by today's standards) that these bombs put out. I think the Allies would have still had a strong industrial and manpower advantage even if New York, London, and Moscow were blown away. Check Paul Kennedy's "Rise of the Great Powers" for some nifty information on the relative industrial strength of WWII's major comabatants. (I think that's what it's called but I'm too lazy to go pick it up off the bookshelf).
The US might have still had at least part of Britain available to base itself, even if the bomb had destroyed London. Scotland, for example, with its hills & mountains, would make especially defensible terrain. Also, the ME-262 was far from invincible--the P-51 Mustang in its more advanced forms could nearly reach its speed! Not only that but once again, many of these plays hardly flew due to fuel shortages.
Finally, I agree that saying the world would be a better place had the Axis gotten the bomb first is at least a strnage sentiment, and sounds to me like simplistic, childish thinking. I think the Allies still would have won, however the war might have dragged on for another five years with millions more casualties on both sides. Eventually, my thinking is that the US and possibly Russia would have also developed the bomb, and the war might've turned into a nuke-fest. I am REALLY glad that didn't happen. As it was, Russia and the US DIDN'T end up blowing each other up, showing, at least, that MAD wasn't a terrible idea, and better than at least some alternatives--though I guess in the end, time will tell.
As for Germany developing its super long range bomber and attacking the east coast of the US--I don't have the raw statistics in front of me, but from having read many history books on the subject, it seems that one of the major things that prevented Germany from winning the war was fuel shortages, not shortages in manpower (although that came into play later) or materiel--the peak in German military industrial output was in something like December '44! The US population alone was something like triple that of Germany, and her industrial output was about FOUR times that of Germany. So unless Germany could come up with several hundred nukes, I don't think they could have won on that basis alone. World War II was primarily a war of industry and attrition, and the bomb was still largely experimental, and the materials were extremely rare. Yes, if you could totally devastate New York City you would have lessened US industrial output, however, you would have also had to have destroyed Chicago, Boston, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Newport News, Norfolk, Bath, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Seattle, etc etc. A bomb or two, maybe even five or six, would not have crippled the US war effort by any means, especially given the minimal yields (by today's standards) that these bombs put out. I think the Allies would have still had a strong industrial and manpower advantage even if New York, London, and Moscow were blown away. Check Paul Kennedy's "Rise of the Great Powers" for some nifty information on the relative industrial strength of WWII's major comabatants. (I think that's what it's called but I'm too lazy to go pick it up off the bookshelf).
The US might have still had at least part of Britain available to base itself, even if the bomb had destroyed London. Scotland, for example, with its hills & mountains, would make especially defensible terrain. Also, the ME-262 was far from invincible--the P-51 Mustang in its more advanced forms could nearly reach its speed! Not only that but once again, many of these plays hardly flew due to fuel shortages.
Finally, I agree that saying the world would be a better place had the Axis gotten the bomb first is at least a strnage sentiment, and sounds to me like simplistic, childish thinking. I think the Allies still would have won, however the war might have dragged on for another five years with millions more casualties on both sides. Eventually, my thinking is that the US and possibly Russia would have also developed the bomb, and the war might've turned into a nuke-fest. I am REALLY glad that didn't happen. As it was, Russia and the US DIDN'T end up blowing each other up, showing, at least, that MAD wasn't a terrible idea, and better than at least some alternatives--though I guess in the end, time will tell.
"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
I was saying that might happen if they Germans had got the bomb in the early 40's. Didn't they come real close to designing one in 42?
"History admires the wise, but it elevates the brave."
-Edmund Morris
[img]http://publish.hometown.aol.com/kenkbar ... tual-b-o-b
-Edmund Morris
[img]http://publish.hometown.aol.com/kenkbar ... tual-b-o-b
-
Penetrator
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2002 1:18 pm
- Location: Iceland
Nakatpase and rlc27:
I'm not underestimating anyone. What you are suggesting is that the US military commanders at the time "vastly underestimated japanese resolve" etc.
If the two of you, or anyone else, think you know something the top people involved at the time didn't, please share it with us.
Furthermore, I'm not blaming the US or anyone else for anything. I was making an historical analysis. I knew my passage would be met with this kind of perception, but admittedly it could have been much worse. Please respond only to my words, not unfounded inference.
I have reservations (from past experience) about discussing this at all, but if it doesn't get anymore gung-ho than this, we will do no harm.
I'm not underestimating anyone. What you are suggesting is that the US military commanders at the time "vastly underestimated japanese resolve" etc.
If the two of you, or anyone else, think you know something the top people involved at the time didn't, please share it with us.
Furthermore, I'm not blaming the US or anyone else for anything. I was making an historical analysis. I knew my passage would be met with this kind of perception, but admittedly it could have been much worse. Please respond only to my words, not unfounded inference.
I have reservations (from past experience) about discussing this at all, but if it doesn't get anymore gung-ho than this, we will do no harm.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room!
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Hitler's biggest stumbling block was his ideology.
Yes he bombed London, would he have nuked it, I am not sure.
There is a better chance he would have nuked something ideologically worthless to him, like something in Eastern Europe and then proudly told the British (who he would expect to cave in and side with him). Hitler didn't hate the British remember, they were "white peoples".
Would having the nuke end the war? Well it sure would have altered the ending.
But Hitler had many weapons of obvious worth (to us in hindsight at least) in his possession that he used in ways that still make historians scratch their heads over.
I still can't perceive what he was thinking where the jet is concerned (was he insane, it could have trashed the allied bomber offensive).
Long range bombers and large fleets were never part of Germany war thinking. That is primarily why they never showed up.
The US "needed" long range heavy bombers hence they made them. The B29 was a concession to the obvious (long distances over water to get to Japan).
I don't think the US used the bomb for any of the reasons stated.
It was a horrible weapon and they knew it as well. Most forget the debates that raged over just detonating the first actual atomic explosion. Many thought it would blow the entire world up in a monstrous catastrophic chain reaction.
It was not just a simple weapon used to accomplish a mundane military objective. It was a weapon unlike any before.
What is not being said is the fire bombing raids actually killed more people than atomics. But one atomic bomb was sure efficient.
At that time the US could have just rained conventional explosives on Japan if need be.
It would have taken longer, but the Japanese were up the creek well before the bomb was dropped. And the US never had enough atomic bombs to replace conventional bombs at any rate.
Part of the reason for not invading oddly enough (and people are fond of only seeing what they like) is that the US not only wanted to limit loss of US lives but loss of Japanese lives.
Yes Japanese lives. I am no pro US crony (look at any or my other posts to clarify that), but I won't paint the US a callous nation even if their propaganda was a bit venomous sounding sometimes.
If the US was not interested in Japanese lives, then why did they immediately rebuild the country after the war.
I am glad Germany didn't win.
The world has enough anti semetic, black hating, white supremacist, neo nazi, KKK, filth as it goes. And we won that war.
I am lucky to be so friggin white, that even Hitler isn't as aryan as I am.
But I don't think a world without the Jewish people, coloured races, and run by oh so superior white christians would be better than the world of today.
Even the most unschooled person would think a German bomb would have made the world a better place.
It would have made the war several years longer and a great deal more horrifying. The Germans might have used them, we might have used them eventually. And civilization might have faded into the popular film choices of the 80's.
Yes he bombed London, would he have nuked it, I am not sure.
There is a better chance he would have nuked something ideologically worthless to him, like something in Eastern Europe and then proudly told the British (who he would expect to cave in and side with him). Hitler didn't hate the British remember, they were "white peoples".
Would having the nuke end the war? Well it sure would have altered the ending.
But Hitler had many weapons of obvious worth (to us in hindsight at least) in his possession that he used in ways that still make historians scratch their heads over.
I still can't perceive what he was thinking where the jet is concerned (was he insane, it could have trashed the allied bomber offensive).
Long range bombers and large fleets were never part of Germany war thinking. That is primarily why they never showed up.
The US "needed" long range heavy bombers hence they made them. The B29 was a concession to the obvious (long distances over water to get to Japan).
I don't think the US used the bomb for any of the reasons stated.
It was a horrible weapon and they knew it as well. Most forget the debates that raged over just detonating the first actual atomic explosion. Many thought it would blow the entire world up in a monstrous catastrophic chain reaction.
It was not just a simple weapon used to accomplish a mundane military objective. It was a weapon unlike any before.
What is not being said is the fire bombing raids actually killed more people than atomics. But one atomic bomb was sure efficient.
At that time the US could have just rained conventional explosives on Japan if need be.
It would have taken longer, but the Japanese were up the creek well before the bomb was dropped. And the US never had enough atomic bombs to replace conventional bombs at any rate.
Part of the reason for not invading oddly enough (and people are fond of only seeing what they like) is that the US not only wanted to limit loss of US lives but loss of Japanese lives.
Yes Japanese lives. I am no pro US crony (look at any or my other posts to clarify that), but I won't paint the US a callous nation even if their propaganda was a bit venomous sounding sometimes.
If the US was not interested in Japanese lives, then why did they immediately rebuild the country after the war.
I am glad Germany didn't win.
The world has enough anti semetic, black hating, white supremacist, neo nazi, KKK, filth as it goes. And we won that war.
I am lucky to be so friggin white, that even Hitler isn't as aryan as I am.
But I don't think a world without the Jewish people, coloured races, and run by oh so superior white christians would be better than the world of today.
Even the most unschooled person would think a German bomb would have made the world a better place.
It would have made the war several years longer and a great deal more horrifying. The Germans might have used them, we might have used them eventually. And civilization might have faded into the popular film choices of the 80's.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Les the Sarge i agree with everything you said.
"History admires the wise, but it elevates the brave."
-Edmund Morris
[img]http://publish.hometown.aol.com/kenkbar ... tual-b-o-b
-Edmund Morris
[img]http://publish.hometown.aol.com/kenkbar ... tual-b-o-b
Penetrator:
Sorry if I sounded like I was overly critical about your points--I was just rambling because the Me-262 is particularly interesting to me (as to many!) I was trying to extrapolate from what you said, not shoot you down.
Les the Sarge: Good points all around. I didn't know that the US actually was trying to save Japanese lives though--but why all the firebombing, then? Demoralization?
As an aside, anyone ever see the movie, "Grave of the Fireflies?"
Good flick, but sad as hell.
Sorry if I sounded like I was overly critical about your points--I was just rambling because the Me-262 is particularly interesting to me (as to many!) I was trying to extrapolate from what you said, not shoot you down.
Les the Sarge: Good points all around. I didn't know that the US actually was trying to save Japanese lives though--but why all the firebombing, then? Demoralization?
As an aside, anyone ever see the movie, "Grave of the Fireflies?"
Good flick, but sad as hell.
"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
-
Culiacan Mexico
- Posts: 600
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 10:00 am
- Location: Bad Windsheim Germany
Hello old foe.Originally posted by Penetrator
If the two of you, or anyone else, think you know something the top people involved at the time didn't, please share it with us. Furthermore, I'm not blaming the US or anyone else for anything. I was making an historical analysis. I knew my passage would be met with this kind of perception, but admittedly it could have been much worse. Please respond only to my words, not unfounded inference.
I have reservations (from past experience) about discussing this at all, but if it doesn't get anymore gung-ho than this, we will do no harm.
The man who made the decision to drop the bomb was the United States President Harry S. Truman and these are his thoughts from his diary.
Truman President's Diary
JULY 25
…We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley era…
…This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10. I have told the secretary of war, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance…
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig
-
Culiacan Mexico
- Posts: 600
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 10:00 am
- Location: Bad Windsheim Germany
Odd debating technique, have you found this effective in the past?Originally posted by Egg_Shen
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig
