"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:14:59 GMT, "weary" wrote:


It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote notes) had been briefed by the
Stimson you refer to below and who was presumably as aware of the
situation
as Stimson himself.

That would be Stimson who claimed that Nagasaki was picked as the primary
target for Fatman, when it clearly wasnt.

Even if this is true it says nothing about Stimson except he was
confused on that point.





and Stimson whose own memoirs put the cost of an allied invasion of
Japan
at at least 250,000 casualities.

So what - the whole point of the discussion is that an invasion was not
necessary.
Even the USSBS says that Japan would have surrendered.


Of course you will give us the precise quote detailing when exactly *when*
this would have happened and you also tell us how this information was
beamed back in time to allied planners taking tough decisions.

The US was well aware of peace feelers being put out by Japan at least
two months before the bombs were dropped..



http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html


Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman put allied casualities at
30-35% within 30 days of invasion.

But Leahy didn't think the landings would be necessary.

Leahy wasnt sat in a foxhole in Okinawa.

Irrelevant as to what he thought, but introducing irrelevancy
is your trademark, isn't it.

"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.

Oh really. Have you asked anyone who would have been at the sharp end of
Operation Zipper that question.

I think his opinion based on the intelligence information available to him
is more credible than that of an infantryman.


"The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the
effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional
weapons.

So Leahy would have preferred to starve the japanese 'civilians' to death
and keep allied naval personnel in harms way from daily kamikaze attack.
Very moral.

Your woeful comrehension skills noted - he was speaking of
something that had already happened.



snip.

Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence' clearly is revisionism

I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz,

Your tired little charade has relied on a website which peddles
alperovitzes line.

Unlike you , the site doesn't lie.