Kunnen mensen eens ophouden met alles van Maarten te disliken. Zijn verhalen zijn (grotendeels) coherent, interessant, accuraat en humoristisch gepresenteerd. Niets op af te dingen.
DEZE ONUITSTAANBARE ZEUR ZEIKERT , M V ROSSEM , HEEFT ZIJN HELE LEVEN NOG GEEN SCHOT GEHOORD OF HET MOET OP ZIJN C> GEWEEST ZIJN DE REST IS EEN PAKJE BLAADJES a, VIER LANGDRADIG DOOR ZEIKEN GEACHTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE DAMEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS ENNNNNNNNNNNN JE WEET WEL KOM OP ZEG GA JE EENS GOED WASSEN ,DAT WE KUNNEN ZIEN WIE JE BENT !!!!!
Admiral William D. Leahy, the President’s Chief of Staff during WW2 wrote: "Once it had been tested, President Truman faced the decision as to whether to use it. He did not like the idea, but he was persuaded that it would shorten the war against Japan and save American lives. It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and that wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
A year later, sorry. I would add that at that particular moment, the in-depth and elaborate side-effects of nuclear radiation were still quite unknown, even by Oppenheimer and Einstein far in the 1950s. They did understand that it was a concentrated super powerful massive explosion. Although Japan was defeated materialistically, the mentality perhaps still wasn't. Kamikaze demonstrated that and emporer kept on deliberating. Death for a Japanese (Buddism and non-secular at the time) doesn't mean the end of a life, but a rebirth. Hence, a bodely death really wasn't feared. By war strategic calculations... then what to do to stop Japan. Either by a sheer concentrated massive event, or by prolonging it month's on end (probably well into 1946) through all islands still to go and very high death rates consequently. And perhaps, at the same time, demonstrating to the USSR. Speculation it remains though. But this could be many of the theoractical scenarion as well. It remains ghastly gruesome horrible nonetheless.
Kunnen mensen eens ophouden met alles van Maarten te disliken. Zijn verhalen zijn (grotendeels) coherent, interessant, accuraat en humoristisch gepresenteerd. Niets op af te dingen.
Ppppppppppppppppp0ppppppp0ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppPpPPppppppppppPPpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppPLPpppppPppppPpppppppppppppPpppPppppppPppppppppppppppPpp0pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppPApppppppppppp0pppppppp0pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp0ppppppppppppppppppp0 aaaááaáaaaaaaaaaáaaaaaáaááaaaaaaá
DEZE ONUITSTAANBARE ZEUR ZEIKERT , M V ROSSEM , HEEFT ZIJN HELE LEVEN NOG GEEN SCHOT GEHOORD
OF HET MOET OP ZIJN C> GEWEEST ZIJN
DE REST IS EEN PAKJE BLAADJES a, VIER
LANGDRADIG DOOR ZEIKEN
GEACHTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE DAMEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS ENNNNNNNNNNNN
JE WEET WEL
KOM OP ZEG
GA JE EENS GOED WASSEN ,DAT WE KUNNEN ZIEN WIE JE BENT !!!!!
Tot de vaste rituelen behoort het vragen om de smartphones uit te zetten en het geven van een hartelijk applaus.
maarten is leuk:-)
Fantastisch dat oorloge om de tijd in de gaten te houden.
Admiral William D. Leahy, the President’s Chief of Staff during WW2 wrote:
"Once it had been tested, President Truman faced the decision as to whether to use it. He did not like the idea, but he was persuaded that it would shorten the war against Japan and save American lives. It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and that wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
A year later, sorry. I would add that at that particular moment, the in-depth and elaborate side-effects of nuclear radiation were still quite unknown, even by Oppenheimer and Einstein far in the 1950s.
They did understand that it was a concentrated super powerful massive explosion. Although Japan was defeated materialistically, the mentality perhaps still wasn't. Kamikaze demonstrated that and emporer kept on deliberating.
Death for a Japanese (Buddism and non-secular at the time) doesn't mean the end of a life, but a rebirth. Hence, a bodely death really wasn't feared.
By war strategic calculations... then what to do to stop Japan. Either by a sheer concentrated massive event, or by prolonging it month's on end (probably well into 1946) through all islands still to go and very high death rates consequently. And perhaps, at the same time, demonstrating to the USSR.
Speculation it remains though. But this could be many of the theoractical scenarion as well.
It remains ghastly gruesome horrible nonetheless.
Ik mag graag luisteren, maar de reclames maken het erg irritant..
Deel 1 staat er maar half op!
Natuurkunde mag de wereld niet in. Het volk moet dom blijven :O
lie
de japanners hadden zich in de weken ervoor al 2 x overgegeven en daarna zijn alsnog de bommen gegooid