London Blue

I've just finished a 16 hour shift, taken my son swimming and by the time of the match I'll of been up for nearly 30 hours. I can't go to bed I have to watch the match as this game will define our season. If we win we will have belief. If we lose I just can't see us have enough confidence to get clear of relegation Coyb do a tired man a solid and send me to sleep happy with 3 points in the bag!

The stadium (and the fans) is / are the saviour of the club, it makes us a very salable asset. No matter what happens with the stadium we will attract investment.

Its ok Keane is playing upfront and Maupay is at centre back.

Anyone know how long DCL is out for?

If we get relegated its because we don't have a effective striker. DCL is but he is plagued by injury and sadly I don't see him playing much for us again. There are not enough goals in the side, simple as that. I love Everton, but HATE what the board has done to my club. There is simply no excuse for bringing more strikers in during the window. Deep down I believe we will be relegated, we should keep with Dyche as he has us playing a good mix of football given his limited time here and lack of attack. We need to continue to support Dyche and the side and protest peacefully against the board. Apart form prayer, its all we can do.

A bit like....

They are all hired hands to one degree or another.

Who could refuse the chance to "live you"?

I think it is important to remember that around 300,000 people had died in air-raids excluding the atomic bombings and over 500,000 injured, and countless thousands homeless. These raids would have continued until the Japanese surrendered, which without the atomic bombings may of taken months or an invasion. At the same time due to the blockade there was food shortage and probably famine. Could the war of ended without the atomic bombs being dropped, yes, but would it of cost more lives undoubtedly just due to the terrible cost in lives of the war. Another reason for the Japanese surrendering was the invasion of Japanese gains in China. If that had continued then the cost in more killed in that campaign would have been very high. The Russians were fighting in Manchuria not Japan, and the Japanese had not surrendered in any campaign so the fight with them would have continued, even though it would have been a bloodbath given the mismatch in equipment. Even then given the fact that the majority of the Japanese cabinet favoured a fight to the end, the majority of the Japanese people were prepared to fight to the end the only way the Japanese would have surrendered was if the allies invaded. War is Hell, the atomic gene was out of the bottle before the Americans used it as the Germans, and then the Russians were developing it. Did the atomic weapons shorten the war, almost certainly yes in my opinion.

Did the Allies need to drop the atomic bombs to force Japan to surrender?

Eisenhower was C in C Europe and not as well as informed as the secretary of state for war and the Pacific campaign was not in his remit. The Allies had agreed that all the Axis countries would have to surrender unconditionally, it was a stated war aim, not Trumans decision. Japan never tried to surrender for the most part, Suzuki's (Last War prime minister April to August 45) military-dominated cabinet favored continuing the war. For the Japanese, surrender was unthinkable—Japan had never been successfully invaded or lost a war in its history. Only the Navy minister, was known to desire an early end to the war. According to historians Although Suzuki might indeed have seen peace as a distant goal, he had no design to achieve it within any immediate time span or on terms acceptable to the Allies. His own comments at the conference of senior statesmen gave no hint that he favored any early cessation of the war ... Suzuki's selections for the most critical cabinet posts were, with one exception, not advocates of peace either. Given the above what was the more humane way of ending the war? Shall we continue this in another thread?

USA military casualties against Japan, 111606 dead or missing and 253, 142 wounded. Japanese military casualties from 1937-1945 have been estimated at 1,834,000, of which 1,740,000 were killed or missing. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson stated "We shall in my opinion have to go through an even more bitter finish fight than in Germany. We shall incur the losses incident to such a war and we shall leave the Japanese islands even more thoroughly destroyed than was the case with Germany." From D-Day to V-E Day, the Western Allies alone suffered some 766,294 casualties. A study done for Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that invading Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan. Japanese military directives ordered the execution of all POWs being held if Japan was ever invaded. Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, which were believed to be conservative estimates; however, it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The Chief of the Army Operations Division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign." The Battle of Okinawa was one of the bloodiest in the Pacific, with an estimated total of over 82,000 direct casualties on both sides: 14,009 Allied deaths and 77,417 Japanese soldiers. Allied grave registration forces counted 110,071 dead bodies of Japanese soldiers, but this included conscripted Okinawans wearing Japanese uniforms. 149,425 Okinawans were killed, committed suicide or went missing, which was one-half of the estimated pre-war local population of 300,000. The Battle resulted in 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing (this figure excludes the several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds). The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing) The Japanese society had over hundreds of years been brought up to believe that it was their duty to defend their sacred homeland and Emperor from invaders. The Japanese plans for the defence of Japan included the widescale use of civilians in that defence as suicide troops and conscripted soldiers. I understand Dennis-Geiger is a history buff.

Tluciffid erom syawla era srewsna eht.

Napoleon died in his 50s St Helena was wet, damp and he hated it. His first escape is amazing, truly a genius, really bad but a genius.

But the question that historians have asked is twofold. First would thecallues of yried to contain Japan instead of inade. The answer is no as the allies had said only unconditional surrender of Japan was acceptable. Second would Japan defend an invasion of their home islands. All the evidence from Japanese military and government documents and policies of the time was yes they would. So an invasion would have cost tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives, civilian and military.

It was and is an awful weapon, but the counter argument is that the number of casualties from invading and conquering Japan,both civilian and military would have dwarfed those tragic deaths. Also that the bomb would have been invented sooner or later. Better to be by a democracy. Interesting what if question.

Tagg Hag?

The whole point of a DOF is that they build up the knowledge, scouting dept, U21's and have players that they know the club should sign. There should have been a list of strikers the board knew we needed to sign one of regardless of who the manager is because of the needs of the squad.

I think we would have expected the club to identify and sign more appropriate players than Ayew and Isco. The club have known since the beginning of last season that we needed better cover/ competition for DCL, and our wingers. The fact that we failed to sign anyone, yet still sell Gordon which leaves us weaker is inexcusable. We should never of been scrabbling around for free transfers at the end of the window. The fact that we have is testament to the boards incompetence.

Wow, my initial reaction is fuck no. Then I remember that our only back up is Maupay so yes. But only if Chelski rip up his contract, don't want to be paying actual money as his wages will be extortionate. Wont happen anyway. Thank goodness. I think

Great result from the Ladies team, played very well by the sounds of it!!

It was a failure in that we did not get our targets in, id we have enough targets. Could we of sold Gordon earlier? It was a success in that we did not bring in players for the sake of it.

I'm all for being optimistic, and I feel positive about Dyche, but lets just get clear of relegation first before we talk about top 10!

You have to separate the achievements of the team on the pitch and the successful running of the club. The two can be mutually exclusive. Firstly in our case survival is success, so it's a pretty low bar considering the amount of money the club has spent on transfers. Which brings me to point two, the directors have failed to set up a or follow a coherent transfer policy and hire or back the right manager. Look at how many managers we have had since Moshiri took over, having so many managers is a recipe for failure. You get: 1) Disjointed squads, by that I mean players bought with different strategies /play styles in place. 2) No playing identity. 3) Players with no confidence. 4) Our reputation has taken a noise dive to a point where players don't want to join us, or only will do with a premium pay. 5) Hit and miss scouting policy. Our DOF's have had no effect, why because either the board are not following their advice / plans, or making sure they are implemented. Thats on the board. If the DOF is failing the board should have replaced them. Communication is non existent, that's on the board. Involving fans is very poor, that also is the boards fault. Look at Silva fails here but great a Fulham, why was that? Look at Brighton, that is a successfully run club, ours is the opposite.

Massive for us today, absolutely a beast at both ends of the pitch. Loved his interaction with the fans, slapping the badge and pointing to the ground saying he was staying here.