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!

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:32:04 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
wrote:


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?

ROTFL! Ohhh, I felt that kick in the slats landing from here.



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 in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:32:04 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
wrote:


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?

ROTFL! Ohhh, I felt that kick in the slats landing from here.

Yeah ... reading yet another post that doesn't contain a single
reference as a source and contains unverifiable claims really
knocks the stuffing out of me.

"weary" wrote:

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:32:04 GMT, "Matt Wiser"

wrote:


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?

ROTFL! Ohhh, I felt that kick in the slats
landing from here.

Yeah ... reading yet another post that doesn't
contain a single
reference as a source and contains unverifiable
claims really
knocks the stuffing out of me.


I used the ACTUAL plans for the Invasion: Plan DOWNFALL from MacArthur's
HQ, OP PLAN OLYMPIC, also from MacArthur's HQ, both dated 25 May 45, and
OP PLAN CORONET, from MacArthur's HQ, dated 15 Aug 45; CINCPAC OP PLAN 10-45
OLYMPIC from Nimitz's HQ dated 8 Aug 45, and AMPHIBSFORPAC (Amphibious Forces
Pacific) OP PLAN A11-45 OLYMPIC dated 11 Aug 45; for books, check out John
Ray Skates' The Invasion of Japan, DOWNFALL by Richard Frank, Code-Name DOWNFALL
by Norman Polmar and Thomas Allen, The Reports of General MacArthur, as well
as MHQ Magazine, Strategy and Tactics, Marine Corps Gazette, Proceedings,
etc. LOTS and LOTS of info the I used. And check Frank, as well as Polmar
and Allen for the decision making on whether to use the bomb or "Climb Olympus"
(invade). I did the thesis, evaled the info, and came to a conclusion that
the BOMB AS USED PREVENTED A BLOODBATH; You still haven't answered the question
as to what you would have done. Bomb and Blockade, Invade, or use Little
Boy/Fat Man. I prefer the latter to the other two.

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

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:400029be$1@bg2....

"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?

There was no question in the last statement of mine.
If you think there are some questuions I'm not allowed to ask, then list
them.

I found A LOT of info in researching the planned invasion that validates
the decision to drop the bomb.

Still doesn't prove that you know what he had on his desk.

Even with MAGIC/ULTRA on his desk, that still
doesn't give Truman what the Japanese leaders are ultimately thinking.

It tells him amongst other things that the Japanese are looking to
surrender.

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!