If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3ff06fa6$1@bg2.... "weary" wrote: "Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3fe70e02$1@bg2.... "weary" wrote: "Alan Minyard" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "weary" wrote: "B2431" wrote in message ... From: "weary" Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save the lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal rebellion? Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in their war with the USA, specifically WTC? If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would not have been a need to defend "Iraqi servicemen." Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses considerably pre-dating his invasion of Kuwait. As for the attacks on the WTC there was no military value there. An argument could be made for the strike on the Pentagon being a military attack. Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military targets within the cities. The odds are that there were Reservists in the WTC at the time of the attack. The poster I was replying to advocated using "ANY MEANS" to end the war. He also wrote "If that means incinerating two, three, or however many Japanese Cities by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it." He made no mention of destroying military assets. His choice of words clearly states that the destruction of cities was what would produce a Japanese surrender, not destruction of military assets. Destruction of Japan, by whatever means possible, was warranted. That's what AQ thinks of the USA The barbarity of their military was an abomination, and it was continuing daily That's what AQ thinks of the USA. in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating every building in Japan would have ended the war, it would have been completely justified. The only thing that the US did that was "wrong" was not hanging the ******* Hirohito from the nearest tree. Al Minyard So why do you apologize for them? Dropping the bombs and 9-11 were two different events under vastly different circumstances. That your opinion, and point out where I apologised for them. My opinion - supported by facts - is that there are similarities, deliberately targetting civilians, especially with regard to Hiroshima. In case you forgot: Pearl Harbor's treachery was rewarded at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you think an attack without a declaration of war is "treachery", do your sums and see how many times the US has declared war in the conflicts it has been involved in since WW2. 9-11's treachery has been partially rewarded with the Taliban who sheltered AQ and OBL reduced to a low-level insurgency. AQ believe that US treachery in supporting Israel inits oppression of the Palestinians was rewarded by Sept 11. It is apparently news to you but others can hate as strongly as you, and be as ruthless as your government in targetting civilians. rant snipped Weary, I said it before and I'll say it again: How would you have destroyed the miltiary and industrial targets located in Japanese Cities? Conventional bombing. If not the B-29 fire raids, what? Daylight precision bombing had poor results over Japan due to winds (Jet Stream) and opposition from flak and fighters. Where do get this nonsense from? The Strategic Bombing Survey states - "Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower, in both day and night attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective even at the lower altitudes, and the percentage of losses to enemy action declined as the number of attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased and operating losses declined in part due to less strain on engines at lower altitudes. Bombing accuracy increased substantially, and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000 feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower." |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"B2431" wrote in message ... From: "weary" Besides, I have never asked nor do I want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government was doing, I would not sleep safe at night. Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their military targets away from civilian populations and the civilians will stop dying. That is true for all countries and organizations including the U.S. and Al Quaida. Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly targeted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would only hold water if the military targets were no where near civilian population centers. In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and the targetting selection required that the military target be in a large urban area. I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the military targets in Nagasaki and Hiroshima without harming civilians. Conventional bombing and I haven't claimed that no civilians would be harmed so don't you try that strawman as well. As a Jew I take offense at your comparing Dachau to Hiroshima. When did I do that? Many thousands of humans died there, not just Jews, but I have been there and have seen the grave markers. Many thousands of Japanese civilians died in Hiroshima. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"weary" wrote: In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and the targetting selection required that the military target be in a large urban area. You know, you keep saying this, and while true in one respect (there were a lot of homes in the area), it was a great aim point for hitting the major military targets in Hiroshima, along with the local City Hall and Prefectural offices. There were a lot of homes in the area, but there were a lot of homes *everywhere* in Japan near anything worth hitting. They had a habit (and still do) of putting homes on any stretch of urban land that would hold a building and wasn't urgently needed for anything else. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
From: "weary"
Date: 1/2/2004 4:51 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "B2431" wrote in message ... From: "weary" With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate targets. The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in 1945, there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means necessary. But you deny others the same right. I'm sorry you don't see the difference between a war declared by all sides and a terroristic act. It only takes one side to declare war, if the other declines to respond it does so at its own peril. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired It is obvious you won't let reality interfere with your opinions. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:51:33 GMT, "weary" wrote:
I never claimed that every bomb would be on target, Ohhh it attempts to move the goalposts. but feel free to construct strawmen, Not a strawman, a fact, you were asked to provide the alternatives, you havent. they are fun to demolish and reveal the poverty of your argument. Precision bombing in Japan at the time of the atomic bombs greatly exceeded the average accuracy of the German theatre, where precision bombing was used and obviously thought viable for pretty well the whole campaign. Which of course is *meaningless* given the CEP needed to hit and destroy a point target. and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000 feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower. " ROFLMAO!! You idiot, you still don't know what CEP means now do you. The requirement that the target must be within an urban area meant that civilian casualties would be maximised. Which of course is another revisionist lie. So in your fantasy world pointing out the obvious is "revisionism". I don't think you know what it means. It is revisionism to claim that B29s had the means to accurately deliver HE on military targets in urban areas as an alternative to fire raids or the atom bomb. Its pure unadulterated fantasia. What is the effect of demanding that the 'target' be in an urban area with regard to civilian casualties - are they minimised or maximised? Why is the value of the 'target' somehow increased by being in a large urban area? I suggest you ask the targeting committee, the one which detailed 'military' targets as a clear contradiction of your idiotic line about civilians. I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you* would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the technology of the period. Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against the Japanese home islands. Detail them. Tell us *exactly* what industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B29s in mainland japan without causing any collateral damage to the surrounding urban areas. Nice attempt at a strawman - I didn't claim that such raids caused no 'collateral' damage. I asked you to tell us how *you* would have targeted the dozen or so key targets in hiroshima using the technology of the period. Your reply was a non sequitur. "Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against the Japanese home islands." Given you've already told us that 60-70 % of bombs dropped will fall more than 1000 feet from the target, even your limited comprehension skills should be aware what 12 air raids by 3-500 B29s will do to a city, even if they drop only HE. You are obviously short of facts if you have to resort to constructing strawmen. You've been repeatedly asked for a meaningful alternative to the fire raids or the A bomb and you haven't provided one. Intellectual dishonesty noted. You will tell us the rest of what was quoted there now wont you. If you think something was left out that changed the context feel free to post it. Yes, the source http://www.usaaf.net/surveys/pto/pbs20.htm and "The Survey has estimated that the damage and casualties caused at Hiroshima by the one atomic bomb dropped from a single plane would have required 220 B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of incendiary bombs, 400 tons of high-explosive bombs, and 500 tons of anti-personnel fragmentation bombs, if conventional weapons, rather than an atomic bomb, had been used. One hundred and twenty-five B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of bombs would have been required to approximate the damage and casualties at Nagasaki. This estimate pre-supposed bombing under conditions similar to those existing when the atomic bombs were dropped and bombing accuracy equal to the average attained by the Twentieth Air Force during the last 3 months of the war. " Which proves that the cities were not treated any differently to any other B29 target in Japan. You also neglected the detail the terminal effects on Nagasaki, something to do with the PBS tearing another great hole in your drivel about the poor ickle 'civilians'. Which were assembled from components made in small backyard workshops up and down the kanto plain, Yeah right. They must have turned out hundreds of naval guns and aero engines, the obvious choke points in production. Awww bless another red herring. Tell us how japanese soldiers in the field made use of all these 'hundreds of naval guns and aero engines' (sic). You are aware that armies require more prosaic items, like vehicles, small arms, uniforms, a wide variety of munitions including, bullets, grenades and shells which were turned out by the millions across the kanto plain. what part of mass production sub contracting are you having problems comprehending. I understand it quite well. I just don't believe the bull**** you post about it. You posted a strawman about naval guns. Ignoring the fact that naval gun and aero engine production were a tiny fraction of japanese materiel output. Get a grip on reality. I suggest you do. Brilliant retort. Yes, posting a non sequitur about backyard workshops producing naval cannon clearly makes my point. Ad hom - the last resort of those without an answer. Given you havent told us how B29s with a documented (post war US SBS survey) CEP of 1000 yards are going to accurately target industrial operations in large urban areas in the face of hostile air defences. I suggest you take the mote out of your own eye 1st clown. The contents of the USSBS do that quite satisfactorily They do that, they tell us that 60-70% of bombs dropped fell more than 1000 feet from the aim point. Something which meant that crews had to be put in harms away again and again to destroy targets. 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. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
"weary" wrote: "Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3ff06fa6$1@bg2.... "weary" wrote: "Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3fe70e02$1@bg2.... "weary" wrote: "Alan Minyard" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "weary" wrote: "B2431" wrote in message ... From: "weary" Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save the lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal rebellion? Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in their war with the USA, specifically WTC? If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would not have been a need to defend "Iraqi servicemen." Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses considerably pre-dating his invasion of Kuwait. As for the attacks on the WTC there was no military value there. An argument could be made for the strike on the Pentagon being a military attack. Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military targets within the cities. The odds are that there were Reservists in the WTC at the time of the attack. The poster I was replying to advocated using "ANY MEANS" to end the war. He also wrote "If that means incinerating two, three, or however many Japanese Cities by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it." He made no mention of destroying military assets. His choice of words clearly states that the destruction of cities was what would produce a Japanese surrender, not destruction of military assets. Destruction of Japan, by whatever means possible, was warranted. That's what AQ thinks of the USA The barbarity of their military was an abomination, and it was continuing daily That's what AQ thinks of the USA. in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating every building in Japan would have ended the war, it would have been completely justified. The only thing that the US did that was "wrong" was not hanging the ******* Hirohito from the nearest tree. Al Minyard So why do you apologize for them? Dropping the bombs and 9-11 were two different events under vastly different circumstances. That your opinion, and point out where I apologised for them. My opinion - supported by facts - is that there are similarities, deliberately targetting civilians, especially with regard to Hiroshima. In case you forgot: Pearl Harbor's treachery was rewarded at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you think an attack without a declaration of war is "treachery", do your sums and see how many times the US has declared war in the conflicts it has been involved in since WW2. 9-11's treachery has been partially rewarded with the Taliban who sheltered AQ and OBL reduced to a low-level insurgency. AQ believe that US treachery in supporting Israel inits oppression of the Palestinians was rewarded by Sept 11. It is apparently news to you but others can hate as strongly as you, and be as ruthless as your government in targetting civilians. rant snipped Weary, I said it before and I'll say it again: How would you have destroyed the miltiary and industrial targets located in Japanese Cities? Conventional bombing. If not the B-29 fire raids, what? Daylight precision bombing had poor results over Japan due to winds (Jet Stream) and opposition from flak and fighters. Where do get this nonsense from? The Strategic Bombing Survey states - "Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower, in both day and night attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective even at the lower altitudes, and the percentage of losses to enemy action declined as the number of attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased and operating losses declined in part due to less strain on engines at lower altitudes. Bombing accuracy increased substantially, and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000 feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower." From the USAF official history of the 20th and 21st Bomber Commands. And remember: General Hayward Hansell, the first CO of the B-29s on the Marianas, was fired for poor performance of his command and replaced with LeMay by Hap Arnold. You still think that accurate conventional bombing was possible given Japan's cottage industry. It wasn't. Only way to destroy said major and minor industrial targets was to go low-level at night with incindinaries. It worked. I don't care what the Japanese think: THEY STARTED THE WAR, AND THEY HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME FOR THE CONSEQUENCES. Pearl Harbor's treachery was repaid with interest at Hiroshima. Yamamoto was right: "All we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." He didn't live to see it, but he was right. I had relatives who were either in the Pacific or headed there from Europe. To them, Truman made the right decision: drop the bomb and end the war ASAP. No bomb means invasion, and look at Saipan, Luzon, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa to see what that would've been like. I like to think that I'm here because my grandfather didn't go to Kyushu in Nov '45. Instead, he came home. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|