On this day in 1945

  • News
  • Thread starter Adam
  • Start date
  • #26
39
0
Lyuokdea

your missing the point, your having an emotional response to the idea of nuclear weapons and believe that their use is always immoral...
1) I am not having an emotional respsonse. Please show some evidence to support the assertion. The good old "you're just being emotional" is often used to discredit someone's words, but the fact is I have not said anything regarding my own emotional responses to the events.

2) I find that the claim "more people would have died if we didn't sue the nukes" is only ever said by Americans, and is basically a duck-and-cover, a way for them to avoid considering their nation's actions and avoid any possible feeling of having done something "wrong".

3) I have not once mentioned whether the nuking was moral or immoral. I did, however, call it terrorism. I consider terrorism the act of deliberately attacking innocent civilians to further some political, military, or economic (sometimes the three are the same) cause.

... but none of your sources offer any credible evidence that less people would have died in a ground invasion of Japan, so my point still stands that the atomic bombing of Japan saved japanese civilian lives in the end.
This is where "logic" comes in handy. You can not base your reasons on a great big "IF", a mighty "What IF?". None of my sources mysteriously viewed the future and brought back undoubtable evidence of what would have happened in there had been a ground invasion rather than nukes. Similarly, none of your sources mysteriously viewed the future and brought back undoubtable evidence of what would have happened in there had been a ground invasion rather than nukes. Putting it very simply, saying "more people might have died without the nukes" is basically a completely baseless and empty assertion which has no place in any rational discussion. So please stop doing it. The quotes I have provided from people involved in the mess at the time are quotes about the state of the war and Japan at the time, and not any random musings about possible, hypothetical future scenarios. Get it yet?

... so my point still stands that the atomic bombing of Japan saved japanese civilian lives in the end.
Please tell this to those who survived those bombings, and the relatives of those who died. Watch the bouncing ball: 1) Before the nukes, those scores of thousands of people were alive; 2) After the nukes, they were dead. 1 = alive. 2 = dead. Their lives were not saved. They were killed. How many ways does this need to be explained to you?

Now, weigh the detrimental effects both physical and psychological of the use of nuclear weapons against the death of millions of people and I will take the detrimental effects to save millions of lives any day.
Please see my second response in this post. "What IF"s are meaningless drivel.

most of the websites mearly talk about the devastation that came from hiroshima and how it completely destroyed the town, but let me fill you in. Devastation is a major part of any war mearly look at the firebombing of dresden, where 225,000 died, or 25,000 more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
Devastation is a part of any war? Wow. Didn't know that. Thanks. And yes, I consider the bombing of civilian targets in Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg, and other places were also acts of terrorism.

And yes, they killed more people in some other bombing campaigns. Does this in any way negate the fact that the nukes killed a lot of people, or that they were deliberate attacks on civilians? No, it doesn't.

during the fightings on the islands near japan, may-june 1945, 250,000 japanese non-combatants were killed, these are on the smaller islands, you can imagine what the civilian death toll would be if we attacked the main land, where 25 million japanese soldiers were ready.
1) Please see my second response in this post. "What IF"s are meaningless drivel.

2) Please read the links I provided, especially those regarding the surrender.

overall 2 million japanese civilians were killed by western powers, only 10% during the atomic bombings, the war could have gone in even more populated areas for more than another year if the battle was waged conventionally
Please see my second response in this post. "What IF"s are meaningless drivel.

if there were 25 million japanese defenders on the island, it makes sense that if the u.s. did not use nuclear weapons, the firebombing of almost all of japan would be the only answer, 130,000 died in tokyo in May 1945, the carpet bombing itself would have killed many more than the nuclear alternative.
Saying "Bombing ALL of Japan instead of just two cities would have killed more people" is a work of genius. Did you think that up all by yourself? It's obvious, and irrelevent. The idea of "carpet-bombing" all of Japan is another "what if".

if you give me any credible evidence that a convetional attack would have saved more lives than a nuclear attack then this is worth a continuing debate, but, otherwise you are simply weighing millions of lives against "the evils of nuclear weapons" where any rational person would choose to save lives
Please see my second response in this post. "What IF"s are meaningless drivel.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
149
0
what if's is not what I am presenting, what exactly is your alternative to using nuclear weapons against japan, not using nuclear weapons against Japan? Surely, just ending the war at the beginning of August 1945 without a japanese surrender and just walking away would have lead to many more deaths in the end, so what exactly are you proposing that we do?

Here, answer this one question:

Lets say its August 1st, 1945, you are the Commander in chief, what do you decide to do:

a.) Use Nuclear Weapons against Japan
b.) Conventionally Bomb Japan until they surrender (Carpet Bombing)
c.) Prepare for a Land Invasion of Japan (note, empirical evidence from our invasion of Germany and common sense in General means we would have to Bomb at least Japan military targets before we invade)
d.) Blockade Japan with the Navy and attempt to starve out the population
e.) Sit around doing nothing and wait for Japan to surrender
f.) other, explain it precisely

My standing is not a what if scenario, the only reasonable options are a, b, c, or d as e would only lead to a remilitarization of Japan and they would eventually target. Of those options, the one which would lead to the least casualties would be the nuclear option.

Even E would eventually lead to more casualities as allowing Japan to regroup and remechanize for war would only lead to a much longer and much more costly war in the long run.

There were no other options, although nuclear weapons killed many innocent people, they saved many more who would have died under any other option.
 
  • #28
39
0
Lyuokdea

what if's is not what I am presenting...
Yes, they are. Your entire argument for using nukes so far has been "more people would have died IF...".

... what exactly is your alternative to using nuclear weapons against japan, not using nuclear weapons against Japan?
Once again, refer to the information I have already provided:

According to Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Truman's Chief of Staff: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons..."

"Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'... It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (General Dwight David Eisenhower Commander in Chief of Allied Forces in Europe).

"It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell." (UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)

"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (US Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946.)

General Curtis LeMay: "The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb."

Field Marshal Montgomery ( Commander of all UK Forces in Europe) wrote in his History of Warfare: "It was unnecessary to drop the two atom bombs on Japan in August 1945, and I cannot think it was right to do so .... the dropping of the bombs was a major political blunder and is a prime example of the declining standards of the conduct of modern war."

Truman's Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, wrote: "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 blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons..."

"The dropping of the first atomic bomb was also an act of pure terrorism. It fulfilled no military purpose of any kind. Belatedly it has been disclosed that seven months before it was dropped, in January 1945, President Roosevelt received via General MacArthur's headquarters an offer by the Japanese Government to surrender on terms virtually identical to those accepted by the United States after the dropping of the bomb: in July 1945, as we now know, Roosevelt's successor, President Truman, discussed with Stalin at Bebelsberg the Japanese offer to surrender....The Japanese people were to be enlisted as human guinea-pigs for a scientific experiment."
- F.J.P Veale, Advance To Barbarism: The Development Of Total Warfare From Serajevo To Hiroshima (California: Institute for Historical Review, 1979), pp.352-53.

And more: http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm


Surely, just ending the war at the beginning of August 1945 without a japanese surrender and just walking away would have lead to many more deaths in the end, so what exactly are you proposing that we do?
Once again, READ the stuff I provided.

Here, answer this one question:

Lets say its August 1st, 1945, you are the Commander in chief, what do you decide to do:

a.) Use Nuclear Weapons against Japan
b.) Conventionally Bomb Japan until they surrender (Carpet Bombing)
c.) Prepare for a Land Invasion of Japan (note, empirical evidence from our invasion of Germany and common sense in General means we would have to Bomb at least Japan military targets before we invade)
d.) Blockade Japan with the Navy and attempt to starve out the population
e.) Sit around doing nothing and wait for Japan to surrender
f.) other, explain it precisely
Given that: 1) the sea blockade was already crippling the Japanese military and industry; 2) the Japanese were trying to surrender; and 3) advisors had told me that there was no numerical advantage to be gained from nuking two civilian cities... I would have accepted Japanese entreaties to discuss surrender.

There were no other options, although nuclear weapons killed many innocent people, they saved many more who would have died under any other option.
Another "what if"? Great. Back to that again.
 
  • #29
149
0
First, what you are calling "what if's" are the only possible way to in context decide if dropping the bomb was correct or not, without finding out what would happen if we didn't drop the bomb, we would have no basis for deciding if we should have dropped the bomb or not, secondly, my ideas are no more what if than your "What if we did nothing"

Now, for the refutation of the idea that Japan would have survived anyway:

First, it can not be deemed just coincidence, that Japan, after holding out for a year after destruction was imminent, surrendered less than a week after the first bomb was dropped, this by itself proves a direct correlation between the atomic bomb and the end of the war.


Excerpts From Pittsburgh Post Article 8-7-2003
---------------------------------------------------

The Japanese scholarship, by historians such as Sadao Asada of Doshisha University in Kyoto, notes that Japanese wartime leaders who favoured surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized on the bombing as a new argument to force surrender.

"We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war," - Koichi Kido, one of the Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, said later.

Wartime records and memoirs show that the emperor and some of his aides wanted to end the war by summer 1945. But they were vacillating and couldn't prevail over a military that was determined to keep going even if that meant, as a navy official urged at one meeting, "sacrificing 20 million Japanese lives."

The atomic bombings broke this political stalemate and were thus described by Mitsumasa Yonai, the navy minister at the time, as a "gift from heaven."

Without the atomic bombings, Japan would have continued fighting by inertia. This would have meant more firebombing of Japanese cities and a ground invasion, planned for November 1945, of the main Japanese islands. The fighting over the small, sparsely populated islands of Okinawa had killed 14,000 Americans and 200,000 Japanese, and in the main islands the toll would have run into the millions.

"The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war," Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, said later.

Some argue that the United States could have demonstrated the bomb on an uninhabited island, or could have encouraged surrender by promising that Japan could keep its emperor. Yes, perhaps, and we should have tried. We could also have waited longer before dropping the second bomb, on Nagasaki.

But, sadly, the record suggests that restraint would not have worked. The Japanese military ferociously resisted surrender even after two atomic bombings on major cities, even after Soviet entry into the war, even when it expected another atomic bomb -- on Tokyo.


One of the great tales of World War II concerns an American fighter pilot named Marcus McDilda who was shot down on Aug. 8 and brutally interrogated about the atomic bombs. He knew nothing, but under torture he "confessed" that the United States had 100 more nuclear weapons and planned to destroy Tokyo "in the next few days." The war minister informed the Cabinet of this news -- but still adamantly opposed surrender. In the aftermath of the atomic bombing, the emperor and peace faction finally insisted on surrender and were able to prevail.

It feels unseemly to defend the vaporizing of two cities, events that are regarded in some quarters as among the most monstrous acts of the 20th century. But we owe it to history to appreciate that the greatest tragedy of Hiroshima was not that so many people were incinerated in an instant, but that in a complex and brutal world, the alternatives were worse.

------------------------------------------

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm

On 29 July 1945, there came a stunning change to an earlier report on enemy strength on Kyushu. This update set alarm bells ringing in MacArthur's headquarters as well as Washington because it stated bluntly that the Japanese were rapidly reinforcing southern Kyushu and had increased troop strength from 80,000 to 206,000 men, quote: "with no end in sight." Finally, it warned that Japanese efforts were, quote: "changing the tactical and strategic situation sharply." While the breathless "no end in sight" claim turned out to be somewhat overstated, the confirmed figures were ominous enough for Marshall to ponder scraping the Kyushu operation altogether even though MacArthur maintained that it was still the best option available.

.....

Some today assert, in effect, that it would have been more humane to have just continued the conventional B-29 bombing of Japan, which in six months had killed nearly 300,000 people and displaced or rendered homeless over 8 million more.

<<Remember, that is 50,000 a month, which means if you go with the Army Survey in 1946 and the war would have ended by Dec. 31 1946, or, 4 1/2 months later than it did, 225,000 civilians would have been killed by the bombing alone, about equivilent to Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined.


--------------------------
From Truman on Trial - http://hnn.us/articles/173.html

Leahy's argument actually was that the bomb was immoral and unnecessary, since a blockade could have secured Japan's capitulation. Frank asks: "If one accepts his moral criteria, how can the firebombing and atomic bombs be condemned yet the blockade pass muster?" His point is that a blockade has itself always been considered a barbarous form of warfare because its effects do not discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Moreover, aerial bombardment caused civilian deaths in the hundreds of thousands, and the blockade in China killed noncombatants in the millions. The institution of one in Japan would have had a similar devastating effect.
.........
The current retroactive opposition by Americans to the A-bomb use, however, discards the possibility that the very demonstrated power of the bomb led world powers to do all possible in the future to avert its actual use again. Moreover, the difference between nuclear and regular weapons is not as large as it seems. Incendiary bombs killed almost 100,000 Japanese--as many as were killed at Hiroshima--and destroyed 250,000 buildings, leaving scores of Japanese homeless. Such bombing would have been continued, intensified and advanced along with a blockade and invasion. Would this have been a moral improvement over Hiroshima, and would Philip Nobile decades later be writing to accuse the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President of committing war crimes by fighting with traditional means?

---------------------------------------
Notre Dame Study for ethics and culture: http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cach...lties+in+the+blockade+of+Japan&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Massive famine was about to take place in Japan, with estimates of 10 million starving to death (p. 351)—a disaster in good part prevented by the Occupation.
----------------------------------------

Moreover, even if the war lasted an extra two months, the combined civilian casualties from both bombing and the blockade would have killed at least as many as the two atomic bombs did, bombing which killed 300,000 in the first 6 months would have only increased as the War in Germany was over and all planes were moved to the japanese theatre. Remember 80,000 were killed in Tokyo in one day by conventional bombs, which would have continued even according to your own sources had the atomic bombings not caused japanese surrender, had there been even two more large bombing days before Japan surrendered, as many would have died as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Add the deaths due to a Soviet invasion and those due who were starving to death on the mainland, and the atomic bomb can only be looked upon as a killer which saved lives.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
russ_watters
Mentor
21,084
7,839


Originally posted by Adam
1) I am not having an emotional respsonse. Please show some evidence to support the assertion. The good old "you're just being emotional" is often used to discredit someone's words, but the fact is I have not said anything regarding my own emotional responses to the events.
Well this is something I wanted to ask you actually. You tell us: Why is it that you are more concerned with these two events than any of a dozen worse events in WWII? Or do you think those two events were the worst? WHY? I know you would not dispute that there were a good dozen other single events during the war that killed more people. Or that in many of the other events, the deaths were at least as senseless if not more. So it can't be the number of deaths and it can't be the reason for the deaths. So what is it?

I only see one possible reason why you (and not just you, but a lot of people) would focus on these two events).
 
  • #31
russ_watters
Mentor
21,084
7,839


Originally posted by Adam
"What IF"s are meaningless drivel.
Make no mistake, you guys are arguing a single mirror image "what if?"

What if Japan had/had not intended to surrender in August of 1945 without the atomic bombs being dropped.

So Adam, it is up to you to prove that they DID intend to surrender, and also that the NCA KNEW they were about to surrender. You have to prove that "what if" to a near certainty. All Lyuokdea has to do is prove that some people THOUGHT they MIGHT not be ready to surrender. I believe s/he has gone far beyond that.

Your burdern of proof, Adam, is significantly higher and so far all you have done is repeat over and over again quotes that are mostly from people not part of the US or Japanese command structure. The opinions of scientists are IRRELEVANT to this conversation.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
39
0


Originally posted by russ_watters
Well this is something I wanted to ask you actually. You tell us: Why is it that you are more concerned with these two events than any of a dozen worse events in WWII? Or do you think those two events were the worst? WHY? I know you would not dispute that there were a good dozen other single events during the war that killed more people. Or that in many of the other events, the deaths were at least as senseless if not more. So it can't be the number of deaths and it can't be the reason for the deaths. So what is it?

I only see one possible reason why you (and not just you, but a lot of people) would focus on these two events).

Read the first post of this thread. Anniversary.
 
  • #33
39
0


Originally posted by russ_watters

So Adam, it is up to you to prove that they DID intend to surrender, and also that the NCA KNEW they were about to surrender.
Once again, please read the statements of people directly involved at the time, which I have provided.

To make it VERY simple: There is supporting evidence that the nukes were not necessary, and provided no numerical benefit. There is NO evidence that "hundreds of innocent young 'merican boys would have died if...".
 
  • #34
russ_watters
Mentor
21,084
7,839


Originally posted by Adam
Read the first post of this thread. Anniversary.
Adam, in your first post you didn't SAY anything other than to list the dates. So the anniversary of the event is what makes the event important? Do you even know when the anniversary of the fire bombing of Dresden was?

I'm sorry, but I just can't accept that. It does NOT explain WHY you think this event is more important than the others.

In your second post you expressed dismay that people didn't seem to care: the implication being that this should be an EMOTIONAL issue for people. That makes your opinion on the subject strictly emotional.

Once again, please read the statements of people directly involved at the time, which I have provided.

To make it VERY simple: There is supporting evidence that the nukes were not necessary, and provided no numerical benefit. There is NO evidence that "hundreds of innocent young 'merican boys would have died if...".
I guess I can't continue here. You're a brick wall. You keep regurgitating the same pieces of information and not making any real arguements. The statements you quoted are at best incomplete and at worst most are completely irrelevant. Feel free to defend their validity, but you have to say WHY they are valid. We have argued why they are not and provided contradictory statements from people more directly involved, but you haven't responded to the objections. Just repeating over and over that they (and ONLY they) are valid is not an arguement.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
39
0
russ_watters

Adam, in your first post you didn't SAY anything other than to list the dates. So the anniversary of the event is what makes the event important? Do you even know when the anniversary of the fire bombing of Dresden was?
1) Any idiot can find the anniversary of the many bombings of Dresden on the web anyway.

2) I posted this thread around the dates of the two nukings. I posted the thread at that time fpr that reason. Very simple.

I'm sorry, but I just can't accept that. It does NOT explain WHY you think this event is more important than the others.
1) Accept or don't accept whatever you want. Like most people, your ideas are based on faulty logic and misconceptions and misinterpretations. Nothing personal, that's just how people are.

2) I do not think the nukings are more important than some other events. Clearly more important that my breakfast this morning, but maybe less important to a crippled Hamburger than Nagasaki was. It was merely relevent due to the date.

In your second post you expressed dismay that people didn't seem to care: the implication being that this should be an EMOTIONAL issue for people. That makes your opinion on the subject strictly emotional.
Not an expression of my dismay. More a simple observation. Interepreting it as "Adam's dismay" is basically transference.

I guess I can't continue here. You're a brick wall. You keep regurgitating the same pieces of information and not making any real arguements.
I feel the same way when people continue gibbering on in ways that indicate a complete lack of understanding of the principles of logic and reason. As this is a rather science-oriented message board, I would have expected many users to have come into some contact with ideas like "evidence", and "Occam's razor", and so on. Follow the bouncing ball.
  • There is evidence of the opinions of people directly involved at the time. The quotes I provided, the information at the websites I linked to.
  • There is no evidence for the great big "what ifs" involved, the purely hypothetical superstition that in some possible future zillions of good ol' boys from Kansas might have died in a ground invasion of Japan.
  • Given the evidence for one case, and lack of evidence for the other, we use a basic principle of logic: don't introduce extra crap when there is no reason to.

If you can't follow those basic ideas, why are you even discussing anything here?

The statements you quoted are at best incomplete and at worst most are completely irrelevant. Feel free to defend their validity, but you have to say WHY they are valid.
The WHY is that the sources were there at the time, involved in it, and had first-hand knowledge of the strategic situation. Pretty simple.

We have argued why they are not and provided contradictory statements from people more directly involved, but you haven't responded to the objections.
There has BEEN no objection beyond "in some hypothetical mystery future, some people might have died". If there's anything other than that, please point it out.
 
  • #36
russ_watters
Mentor
21,084
7,839


Originally posted by Adam
1) Any idiot can find the anniversary of the many bombings of Dresden on the web anyway.

2) I posted this thread around the dates of the two nukings. I posted the thread at that time fpr that reason. Very simple.
So you acknowledge that this is NOT the worst event of the war. Good. Do you plan to start similar thread at the time of the other anniversaries? I haven't seen any others... So why not?
The WHY is that the sources were there at the time, involved in it, and had first-hand knowledge of the strategic situation. Pretty simple.
Yes, it is that simple - simply false. The vast majority of the provided quotes are from people who did NOT have first-hand knowledge of the strategic situation, namely scientists. As I said before, noteably lacking from your quotes are the very people who would have the necessary information: commanders in the pacific theater and in Japan.

A good 3/4 of the links on that website for example are devoted to ONE scientist who'se opinions are completely irrelevant.
There has BEEN no objection beyond "in some hypothetical mystery future, some people might have died". If there's anything other than that, please point it out.
The article provided by Lyuokdea was quite compelling and you haven't commented on it.

Remember, your speculation is based on a mirror image of that "hypothetical mystery future."
 
Last edited:
  • #37
39
0
russ_watters

So you acknowledge that this is NOT the worst event of the war. Good. Do you plan to start similar thread at the time of the other anniversaries? I haven't seen any others... So why not?
I have only started coming here regularly quite recently. Simple. Get over it.

Yes, it is that simple - simply false. The vast majority of the provided quotes are from people who did NOT have first-hand knowledge of the strategic situation, namely scientists.
Good grief, this is ridiculous. Scientists would not have a knowledge of the strategic situation. The military commanders would. I quoted many military commanders.

As I said before, noteably lacking from your quotes are the very people who would have the necessary information: commanders in the pacific theater and in Japan.
Check again. And actually read them this time.

A good 3/4 of the links on that website for example are devoted to ONE scientist who'se opinions are completely irrelevant. The article provided by Lyuokdea was quite compelling and you haven't commented on it.
1) Ad hominems. Yay. Is he wrong?

2) The article provided by Lyuokdea was basically irrelevent. It's all about the almighty "what if". Thus, as previously explained, it is irrelevent.

Remember, your speculation is based on a mirror image of that "hypothetical mystery future."
As previously explained, it is based on the words of military and political leaders of the time.
 
  • #38
57
10
Life is a What if, so for the arguement to focus on what if's is logical.

To beat an army of 25 million soldiers, this is what japan supposedly had, you would have had to kill a large percentage of those 25 million so ask yourself this. Would you rather 200,000 people die or 25 million?
 
  • #39
149
0
Ha, I got Andy confused with Adam for like 10 minutes, and I thought you were posting an answer to your own argument, which I didn't believe, because although I disagree with you on the issue, I think you are much smarter on that. Well, I guess I'm the one not paying attention.

Now,


How can every possible argument I make be disgarded mearly as a "What if" scenario, saying that the bomb ended the war, as that article said, is not a what if. It is the same class of observation as your articles saying the war would have ended anyway, there is no difference between the two.

My article clearly states that the peace movement in Japan was victorious in ended the war because of the atomic bombing, and that the war would not have ended in the near future otherwise, that is completely relevent to the conversation.

Most importantly on "What if" scenarios is that they are completely relevent to the situation, how can you weigh if a certain decision is just unless you find out the possible results of the other decisions you could make?
 

Related Threads on On this day in 1945

  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
425
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
61
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
2K
Top