Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:32:04 GMT, "weary" wrote:


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.

It clearly does.

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..

Not by any japanese in any position to deliver on a peace offer.

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.

Not surprising, the allied butcher bill is irrelevant to types like you.

"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.

Given you clearly *havent* a clue what operation zipper was and why the
bombs being dropped made a difference to those in it, your limited grasp of
the facts is showing again.


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.

He clearly *wasnt* because he hadnt an iota if japan was ever going to
surrender.

7 more days of fighting == 70000 chinese civilians dead.

14 more days == more chinese civilians dead than alleged 'civilian'
casualties at either hiroshima or nagasaki. Your cavalier disregard for
those who truly suffering as a consequence of japanese aggression is
pathetic.

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

Unlike you , the site doesn't lie.




Yah whatever comrade.



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.

weary ) wrote:

: "Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
: ...

....

: 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..

Peace feelers, not surrender feelers. Feelers for peace with
the following conditions:
- No occupation of Japan
- Japan to retain all its pre-1941 conquests
- War crimes trials (if any) to be initiated and run by the Japanese
government
(and a few other conditions as well)
The United States was not interested in peace under those
conditions.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:14:59 GMT, "weary" wrote:


"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.

A**hole

PLONK

Al Minyard

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


"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.

A**hole

PLONK

But you promised that ages ago - now FOAD.

weary ) wrote:

: "Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
: ...

....


: 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

Have you actually looked at the USSBS report? Recognize that it
was written by those who carried out the extensive conventional
bombing of Japan and had an interest in showing the value of that
campaign. It was written by people who overestimate the value of
aerial bombing as a matter of professional survival.

: 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.
: "

Nobody says it was necessary. All agree the war could have been
won without it. The question is the cost of victory with and without
the bomb. Without, with or without an invasion, the casualties would
have been much higher. Thousands were dying every week in China, in
the Dutch East Indies, in the Philippines, not to mention Japan itself.
I have the book where Leahy makes that statement. Recognize that
he was an ordnance expert and said many times that the bomb would not
work. He was extremely embarrassed that it did, and never really
understood it. He thought even as late as 1950, when he wrote the
book, that the bomb killed by radiation--that every casualty died of
radiation poisoning.

But actually reading these sources, and others such as
Eisenhower, is much more difficult than quoting sound bites.