Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 08:14:43 GMT, "weary" wrote:


"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:03:40 GMT, "weary" wrote:



False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military and
civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war.

Oh really.

Name them with references.



Always happy to oblige in correcting your
ignorance.


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



Thats not naming them, thats a link to a site regurgitating Wisconsin
school revisionism from Gar Alperovitz.






greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 08:14:43 GMT, "weary" wrote:


"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:03:40 GMT, "weary" wrote:



False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military
and
civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war.

Oh really.

Name them with references.



Always happy to oblige in correcting your
ignorance.


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



Thats not naming them, thats a link to a site regurgitating Wisconsin
school revisionism from Gar Alperovitz.

Well lets look at them
The first quote is

~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in
Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic
bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of
cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon
giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the
plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous
assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a
feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on
the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the
bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our
country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose
employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American
lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some
way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply
perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them
with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63



It names Eisenhower and cites the source of the two quotes which is what

you asked for. Apparently anything that doesn't fit you world

view is revisionism.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:57:14 GMT, "weary" wrote:





It names Eisenhower and cites the source of the two quotes which is what

That would be Eisenhower who wasnt in the command loop for operations in
the pacific and had no 1st hand knowledge of the losses being incurred on a
daily basis in Okinawa and elsewhere.

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

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


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


http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/...ma/ytruman.htm

"This is what the Americans President Truman, Secretary of War Stimson and
Gen. Marshall knew the day before the first atom bomb fell on Japan.
Confronted by an enemy leadership that was self-deluded, neither prepared
to surrender nor to negotiate seriously, the Americans decided that the
only way to end the war quickly would be to use overwhelming force: nuclear
weapons. "


"But the Americans continued to read the Japanese codes. Almost
immediately; the Magic Summaries revealed that the new foreign minister,
Mamoru Shigemitsu, had begun a world-wide propaganda campaign to brand the
Americans as war criminals for using nuclear weapons. Tokyo's goals
included keeping Emperor Hirohito from being tried for instigating a war of
aggression, and diverting Western attention away from the many Japanese
atrocities committed since the start of the Sino-Japanese war in 1937.
"Since the Americans have recently been raising an uproar about the
question of our mistreatment of prisoners [of war],'' Shigemitsu instructed
his diplomats in the Sept. 15, 1945, Magic Summary, "I think we should make
every effort to exploit the atomic bomb question in our propaganda. That
propaganda campaign has borne its final fruit in the revisionist account of
the bombing of Japan. "




greg


you asked for. Apparently anything that doesn't fit you world

view is revisionism.

Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence' clearly is revisionism and
every bit as toxic as that peddled by the likes of David Irving.


greg



--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:57:14 GMT, "weary" wrote:





It names Eisenhower and cites the source of the two quotes which is what

That would be Eisenhower who wasnt in the command loop for operations in
the pacific and had no 1st hand knowledge of the losses being incurred on
a
daily basis in Okinawa and elsewhere.

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.


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.


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.
"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.
"

snip.

Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence' clearly is revisionism

I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz, but don't let facts intrude
on your rant - feel free to misrepresent me as much as you
misrepresent facts.

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 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.

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

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:37:18 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
wrote:


Greg, good post.

Thanks mate.

I still can't believe we're still arguing with this guy.

We are dealing with a tiny ego who thinks that having the last word means
its won.

I wonder if he had a relative either in the Pacific or with orders to the
Pacific in 1945?

Given it's posting from australia, I'd say thats a possibility.

From his tone, probably not. He'll keep spouting postwar
hindsight until the cows come home.

One could be dealing with a nisei revisionist here.

Its almost as bad as the canadian clown who claimed that japanese were
acting in self defence on Dec 7th because the USN depth charged a japanese
sub inside pearl harbour that morning.


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.

"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.

"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.

"weary" wrote:

"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.



Weary, when you keep repeating USSBS, remember that was written by those
who thought that all the U.S. had to do was essentially bomb everything in
Japan and they would surrender; notwithstanding all other factors-destruction
of her navy, the submarine, air, and mining destruction of her merchant marine,
the destruction of her best armies in Burma, the Philippines, New Guinea,
Solomons, Okinawa, etc. The guys who put USSBS together were commendable
people, but besides surveying damage, they wanted it to be the final document
to get Congress to agree to a postwar independent Air Force. Air Power advocates
to the extreme.
You still haven't answered the question I posed to you earlier: with the
information Truman had on his desk in the Summer of '45, what would you have
done? Invade, continue bombing and blockade (and hope for Stalin to attack
Manchuria as promised at Yalta), or use Little Boy and Fat Man. I prefer
the latter as the least time-and manpower intensive option of the three.
As for the peace feelers: NONE OF THEM HAD THE FULL APPROVAL OF THE JAPANESE
GOVERNMENT. All were done by the peace faction in the government with the
Emperor's unspoken sympathies, but the militarists still called the shots
(and that could include threat of assassination) and could bring down the
government if the Army felt the government was getting too soft for its liking.
And don't forget the coup attempt on the night of 14-15 Aug to attempt to
put in a government to keep fighting. It took the combination of the bomb
AND the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the Kuriles to force the peace faction's
hand in getting the Emperor to urge acceptance of Potsdam. I prefer BLACKLIST
(peaceful occupation) to OLYMPIC/CORONET (invasion).

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