Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3ffb0119$1@bg2....

Greg Hennessy wrote:
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.



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.


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.

"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.

"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.


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.


greg
--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit
against
the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and
kicks
you in the nuts.
Greg, good post. I still can't believe we're
still arguing with this
guy.
I wonder if he had a relative either in the
Pacific or with orders to the
Pacific in 1945? From his tone, probably not.
He'll keep spouting postwar
hindsight until the cows come home. It's easy
to criticise with however
many
years of hindsight. And he's never answered
the question about what he
would
have done in the Summer of '45 with the info
Truman had on his desk at the
time.

I don't know what Truman had on his desk at
the time and you don't either.


You ask someone who did his MA thesis on the invasion that last question?
I found A LOT of info in researching the planned invasion that validates
the decision to drop the bomb. Even with MAGIC/ULTRA on his desk, that still
doesn't give Truman what the Japanese leaders are ultimately thinking. He
had to assume a worst-case scenario in invasion planning-all military planners
do this to guard against the unexpected. The info on Truman's desk was basically
this: JCS estimate on length of Bombing and Blockade to force Japan to surrender
without Soviet intervention: 18 months; with Soviet intervention: 12 months.
Invasion of Kyushu followed by the Kanto campaign: 12 months. Use of the
"gadget" as the bomb was called; as quickly as two weeks, or up to six months
if multiple bombs need to be dropped.
Max # of bombs expected to be used: fifty. Truman made the right decision,
and I'll never argue with give 'em hell Harry. I'll say it again: THE JAPANESE
STARTED THE WAR AND HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME FOR THE CONSEQUENCES. At
least Germany has admitted its past and atoned for it: Japan still hasn't.
And the original target of the bomb was Germany, if you've forgotten.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!