By that argument, Russia should invade the US to 'de-nazify' it. We probably have far more nazis than Ukraine does.
By that argument, Russia should invade the US to 'de-nazify' it. We probably have far more nazis than Ukraine does.It isn't just an accusation. Azovs are Nazis.
I think it's was directly from an old cold war playbook. Look up Operation Gladio Arsewoods stay behind insurgents mission drift.
Ukrainian Nationalist Volunteers Committing 'ISIS-Style' War Crimes
Images of what appeared to be the severed heads of two hostages circulated on social media, after a report by Amnesty International accused both sides of war crimeswww.newsweek.com
Apparently Russia won't stop at the Atlantic ocean... so at some point, the US is 'next'.By that argument, Russia should invade the US to 'de-nazify' it. We probably have far more nazis than Ukraine does.
Mr. Andryushchenko spoke to The Globe and Mail after he was able to leave Mariupol on Wednesday. The estimate of 10,000 dead, he said, is based on the severity of damage to residential neighbourhoods.
Earlier this week, a six-year-old girl died from dehydration in Mariupol. She was found next to her mother, who was killed by a Russian shell, local authorities said. Russian forces are “torturing” the city, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Friday.
“It’s very hard to describe with words how people are just keeping on and staying alive,” Mr. Andryushchenko said. “They are without hope. And the psychological stresses are huge.”
Even burying the dead has become difficult. Russian forces occupy the city’s main cemetery, forcing workers to dig a large trench in a historic cemetery as a mass grave for dozens of unidentified bodies, some buried in carpets or bags.
“Some dead people do not have documents. Sometimes there are only body parts, so the person cannot be identified,” Mr. Andryushchenko said.
Still, “people are helping each other. They are not totally desperate,” he said. “But they are on the edge of total desperation. And I cannot say what will happen in the future.”
I was going to say, if the presence of Nazi militias is cause to invade a country, the US is in big, big trouble.By that argument, Russia should invade the US to 'de-nazify' it. We probably have far more nazis than Ukraine does.It isn't just an accusation. Azovs are Nazis.
I think it's was directly from an old cold war playbook. Look up Operation Gladio Arsewoods stay behind insurgents mission drift.
Ukrainian Nationalist Volunteers Committing 'ISIS-Style' War Crimes
Images of what appeared to be the severed heads of two hostages circulated on social media, after a report by Amnesty International accused both sides of war crimeswww.newsweek.com
And apparently we're still toddlers.? but
"nationalism is an infantile disease".
Here China chance to see how their weapons do in combat.
Because Nazi Germany posed the greater existential threat. Britian needed our help stat.Precisely my point. Japan attacked us. Germany declared war on us many days after the fact. So why was our primary focus during the war the conflict in Europe and not the pacific theater? After all Japan attacked us and precipitated our entry into the war. Why was our focus on the nation/axis that didn't foment our entry into the war?
Where will Nurenberg be this time?
When? You let Nazi Germany genocide Jews which you knew full well about and invade Poland and France with your thumb up your ass and your President said "we will not get involved in Europe's war" one week before you were attacked and declared war upon. You didn't do jack shit for anyone else and you never have, not as individuals of a nation or as a nation.
Just fuck off with your "'murican history" there is nothing that you ever learned that was even close to true. You nuked Japan to test a nuclear weapon on a civilian population that had already surrendered. You didn't target military installations, you targeted cities where there were NO military installations and once you had done that you accepted the terms of surrender presented to you before the bombings.
Pathetic piece of utter shit nation as it is and in this very thread I was questioned about how 'muricans don't know their history... Well YOU are the living evidence that you quite obviously do not.
That's not even mentioning how you created almost all suffering in South America, lying to murder tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq, how you trained the Mujahedin and how you now ensured that the Taliban would be in power of Afghanistan.
When it comes to nations that are REALLY fucked up on foreign policy the entirety of the world stands back in awe over how the US has ignored international law, committed war crimes and take no responsibilities for anything at any point.
The war in the Pacific was hardly second fiddle to that in Europe. The war in Europe play better in the media, then and today, because the vast majority Americans were/are of European descent. But the hatred of the Japanese is clearly demonstrated in old 'new reals' that played in local theaters. Losses in Europe exceeded those in the Pacific by something like 25%, IIRC. Many naval battles as well as 'island hopping' land battles we a different sort of combat no seen in Europe. In Europe and North Africa there were more large land battles where the losers paid a terrible price. Fortunately, Germany eventually became the one of the biggest losers. A large part of those losses were at the hands of the Soviets, who having been directly attacked, mustered an enormous army hell bent of burning Germany to the ground.It's really not. FDR badly wanted to enter the war in Europe but felt constrained by ever present American isolationism. Even after pearl harbor where we were attacked by JAPAN and only at war with Germany because Hitler essentially declared war on the US on a whim, Japan and the pacific theater was still second fiddle to the war in Europe. Why wasn't our sole attention on the nation that actually attacked us? Our foreign policy then and now has so obviously been eurocentric.
Israel makes a late entrance to the sanction party.
It could be argued that the US was not expecting Japan to launch into a war in the Pacific. I believe they expected them to stand down. Although I know the oil embargo was considered an act of aggression by the Japanese.I'll give my offhanded take. Britain was a pretty close ally and as it turned out the pretty much the only European country in opposition to the Axis that didn't fall to Nazi occupation. I think Germany was a greater threat than the Japanese (also Germany was allied with Italy). However, I'm not aware that we didn't take the threat of Japan very seriously. I've never heard that before.
Since early 1941 the United States and Japan had been engaged in negotiations in an attempt to improve their strained relations and end the war in China. During these negotiations, Japan advanced a number of proposals which were dismissed by the Americans as inadequate.[12] At the same time the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands engaged in secret discussions for the joint defence of their territories, in the event of a Japanese attack against any of them.[13] Roosevelt reinforced the Philippines (an American protectorate scheduled for independence in 1946) and warned Japan that the United States would react to Japanese attacks against any "neighboring countries".[13]
Frustrated at the lack of progress and feeling the pinch of the American–British–Dutch sanctions, Japan prepared for war. On 20 November, a new government under Hideki Tojo presented an interim proposal as its final offer. It called for the end of American aid to China and for lifting the embargo on the supply of oil and other resources to Japan. In exchange, Japan promised not to launch any attacks in Southeast Asia and to withdraw its forces from southern Indochina.[12] The American counter-proposal of 26 November required that Japan evacuate all of China without conditions and conclude non-aggression pacts with all Pacific powers.[14] That meant Japan was essentially forced to choose between abandoning its ambitions in China, or seizing the natural resources it needed in the Dutch East Indies by force;[15][16] the Japanese military did not consider the former an option, and many officers considered the oil embargo an unspoken declaration of war.[17]
Japan planned to rapidly seize European colonies in Asia to create a large defensive perimeter stretching into the Central Pacific. The Japanese would then be free to exploit the resources of Southeast Asia while exhausting the over-stretched Allies by fighting a defensive war.[18][19] To prevent American intervention while securing the perimeter, it was further planned to neutralise the United States Pacific Fleet and the American military presence in the Philippines from the outset.[20]
I wish I understood the battle situation in Ukraine better. I'm finding it hard to find and track their military strength and positions (aside front various conflict lines in various media (mostly Twitter ) and some dependable British and European news outlets. I imagine some of this is on purpose, no point in revealing this to the Russians, who seem to be unusually clueless. So, I find it very hard to asses how long they can continue to resist as an extant army, before breaking into highly mobile cells relying more heavily on ambushes and opportunistic targeting of C&C, supplies and smaller collections of mechanized units, etc.
Last I read, Kyiv was under mortar attacks from small Russian unit with greater penetration into the the outskirts of Kyiv, but Russian artillery was nearly in range. Heavy fighting in the south, probably with better trained Russian soldiers, are slowly but surely taking cities - demolishing morale with heavy artillery bombardment. Are UA forces temporarily retreating to more defensible positions, or are they being destroyed, slowly, by the Russian army?
If someone has better information, I'd like to know.