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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 05:54:25 GMT, "weary" wrote:
I never claimed that every bomb would be on target, Ohhh it attempts to move the goalposts. Liar - quote where I said that there would be no civilian casualties or every bomb would be on target. You have done so repeatedly by claiming that there was an 'alternative' where none existed. but feel free to construct strawmen, Not a strawman, a fact, you were asked to provide the alternatives, you havent. I have You haven't, you selectively quoted the bombing survey figures but were too stupid to figure out that 2/3s of all bombs dropped fell more than 1000 feet from the target. Which of course is *meaningless* given the CEP needed to hit and destroy a point target. Aircraft factories, oil refineries etc aren't point targets. Ahhh, its manages to contradict itself yet again through complete cluelessness. 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. Your delusions and proclivity to inappropriate fits of laughter don't concern me, but you should seek professional help. You produced figures which completely undermined your idiotic argument about the allies having the means to precisely hit targets anywhere, never mind urban areas. One can only laugh at such stupidity. 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. B29s did and could do so accurately enough to inflict less casualties than area bombing or atomic bombs. Yet another attempt at misdirection. They clearly couldn't accurately target any facility in anywhere when 2/3rds of bombs dropped fell more than 1000 feet from the aimpoint. Or have you forgotten those inconvenient bombing survey figures yet idiot. 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. Why did the target have to be in a large urban area? Like DUH! One generally finds large urban areas around key facilities such as ports, dockyards and regional military headquarters controlling tens of thousands of personnel. 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." What was special about the targets in Hiroshima that the usual bombing ststistics wouldn't apply? That is a non sensical question. 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. Yet below you provide a quote that says the same damage to Hiroshima could have been inflicted by 220 B-29s and details the bomb load. Not loaded with HE alone they wouldnt. Nearly a quarter of the load was ant-personnel bombs Cue yet another clue free attempt at moralising. so about fifty planes could have been left behind unless the aim was specifically kill civilians, Of course you will tell us how anti personnel bombs which 'specifically kill civilians' would managed to kill those who would have been warned at least 45 mins before hand by air raid sirens and are now sitting in bomb shelters. given that the vast majority of casualties were civilians. 'civilians' who were providing the means to murder millions of real civilians across the pacific. Tough. A far cry from the figures (3600-6000)you pluck out of the air above. You're the one claiming that B29s could accurately target anything without causing collateral damage, not I. Very hard to do when the initial CEP for B29 operations was 6%. You've been repeatedly asked for a meaningful alternative to the fire raids or the A bomb and you haven't provided one. I have - your chauvinism prevent you from considering it. You haven't, all you've done is peddle revisionist agit-prop, your hilarious nonsense about anti personnel bombs being the latest emission of pomo moralising. Which proves that the cities were not treated any differently to any other B29 target in Japan. Which doesn't say anything about the legality or morality of that treatment. It doesn't have to. There was nothing illegal or immoral in using a weapon which ended the war and saved the lives of nearly 1 million allied POWs and Internees held by the Japanese. 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'. ??? Ohh, it evades yet again. Please tell the audience what was damaged and destroyed by the nagasaki bomb , or it is too embarrassing for you. 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. The USBS states "By 1944 the Japanese had almost eliminated home industry in their war economy. " LMAO! Of course it snips the following sentence which proves my point " They still relied, however, on plants employing less than 250 workers for subcontracted parts and equipment. Many of these smaller plants were concentrated in Tokyo and accounted for 50 percent of the total industrial output of the city. Such plants suffered severe damage in urban incendiary attacks. " Do try harder dear boy. 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. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
"weary" wrote: "Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3ff88f17$1@bg2.... "weary" wrote: "Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3ff06fa6$1@bg2.... "weary" wrote: snip 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. Strange that the USSBS contradicts them. The figures it cites speak for themselves. 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. Why would I want to remember that? How is it relevant? You still think that accurate conventional bombing was possible given Japan's cottage industry. I never claimed it was possible against cottage industry - please stop constructing strawmen. It wasn't. Only way to destroy said major How can cottage industry be a major industrial target? 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. Pearl Harbour didn't happen in a vacuum, in spite of what you seem to think. The Japanese didn't get up one morning and decide to attack Pearl Harbour because they had nothing else to do. 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. Oh God spare me the grandfather story yet again. Did you have a relative either in the Pacific or en route to the Pacific in Spring-Summer of '45? If you did, then you know where I'm coming from. If not, then you'll never understand. How many Americans, British, and Japanese lived because the bombs were dropped and OLYMPIC and CORONET were made unnecessary. Besides, when you quote USSBS, that's postwar assessment, with info unavailable to Truman and his advisers in June-July of '45 as they were deciding whether to invade, continue the conventional bombing and blockade, or drop the bomb. Easy to criticise with 50+ years of hindsight. And you still haven't answered the question: What would YOU have done with the info Truman had on his desk in June and July of '45? Not any postwar info, but what he had at the time. And diplomacy is not an option as previously mentioned: it's not politically possible either at home (He's committed to Unconditional Surrender as FDR's legacy) or with the Allies (FDR made that policy at Casablanca in '43, and reaffirmed it at each Summit since). You know the military options. They are the only feasible options. Take your pick. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"weary" wrote: "Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3ff88f39$1@bg2.... "weary" wrote: "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 Look, accurate conventional bombing was not possible in 1945, and the only way of knocking out Japan's major industries, cottage industry, The idea of a substantial "cottage industry" is a myth USSBS "By 1944 the Japanese had almost eliminated home industry in their war economy. " and adjacent military targets was by low-level fire raids at night. B-29s attempted daylight precision bombing of such targets from Nov '44 to March of '45. It didn't work. From the USSBS "The tonnage dropped prior to 9 March 1945 aggregated only 7,180 tons although increasing month by month. The planes bombed from approximately 30,000 feet and the percentage of bombs dropped which hit the target areas averaged less than 10 percent. Nevertheless, the effects of even the relatively small tonnage hitting the selected targets were substantial. During this period, attacks were directed almost exclusively against aircraft, primarily aircraft engine, targets. The principal aircraft engine plants were hit sufficiently heavily and persistently to convince the Japanese that these plants would inevitably be totally destroyed. " How does this constitute a case of "It didn't work". The bombing campaign continued for quite some time after March 45 and in fact that period is when the vast majority of munitions were dropped. And although you seem to want to ignore the USSBS report I quoted elsewhere I will include it again because it refers to a period when over 150 000 tons of bombs were dropped on Japan, as opposed to the already noted 7180 tons in the period you wish to concentrate on. Its content is inconsistent with your claim that precision bombing "didn't work". "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." LeMay was right: it HAD TO BE DONE. He knew the civilian casualties would be high, but it was necessary to accomplish the mission assigned him: the destruction of Japan's industry to support the war, and destruction of such military targets colocated with the industries. More people died in a single fire raid on Tokyo than were killed in the two nuclear strikes put together. You still haven't answered the question: what would you have done? I'll refresh your options 1) Bombing in combination with Blockade 2) Invasion of Kyushu in Nov 45 followed by Invasion of Kanto Plain Mar 46 3) Open military use of the Atomic Bomb Diplomacy IS NOT AN OPTION. This is not a game with you making the rules to attempt to restrict the outcome to your point of view. Reality was, as noted in USSBS "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." You're forgetting that Hap Arnold fired LeMay's predecessor in the 21st Bomber Command in Feb of '45 for poor performance of his command. His strikes were all DAYLIGHT PRECISION BOMBING from 28,000 to 32,000 feet (which was the doctrine for the B-29s). LeMay tried a few daylight strikes to find out what was going wrong and came to the conclusion that low level at night was the way to go. Little danger from fighters, almost no light to medium flak, and the target density suited the fire bombing that he contemplated. The March 9-10 45 fire raid on Tokyo succeeded beyond expectations. As far as the bomb: it was available, and given what happened on Okinawa, Luzon, Iwo Jima, etc. Truman, based on the INFORMATION HE HAD AVAILIABLE, took the step of combat use of the bomb. 15 Kt on Hiroshima and 20 Kt on Nagasaki forced, with the Soviet attack on Manchuria and the Kuriles, the Emperor to order the military to "bear the unbearable" and accept the Potsdam Declaration. That is a lot better than a 12-18 month bombing and blockade campaign, or two costly invasions of key areas of the Japanese Home Islands. You forget that there was still considerable fighting underway on some of the Philippines in August of '45, and the British were still clearing Burma and getting ready for a Malaya campaign. Based on the information available to him in the Summer of '45, TRUMAN HAD NO CHOICE. He dropped the bomb and the boys came home. It's easy to criticise with 50+ years of hindsight. And as the grandson of a veteran who was supposed to be in Kyushu in November of '45, I will never question Truman's decision. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Hennessy wrote: On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 05:54:25 GMT, "weary" wrote: I never claimed that every bomb would be on target, Ohhh it attempts to move the goalposts. Liar - quote where I said that there would be no civilian casualties or every bomb would be on target. You have done so repeatedly by claiming that there was an 'alternative' where none existed. but feel free to construct strawmen, Not a strawman, a fact, you were asked to provide the alternatives, you havent. I have You haven't, you selectively quoted the bombing survey figures but were too stupid to figure out that 2/3s of all bombs dropped fell more than 1000 feet from the target. Which of course is *meaningless* given the CEP needed to hit and destroy a point target. Aircraft factories, oil refineries etc aren't point targets. Ahhh, its manages to contradict itself yet again through complete cluelessness. 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. Your delusions and proclivity to inappropriate fits of laughter don't concern me, but you should seek professional help. You produced figures which completely undermined your idiotic argument about the allies having the means to precisely hit targets anywhere, never mind urban areas. One can only laugh at such stupidity. 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. B29s did and could do so accurately enough to inflict less casualties than area bombing or atomic bombs. Yet another attempt at misdirection. They clearly couldn't accurately target any facility in anywhere when 2/3rds of bombs dropped fell more than 1000 feet from the aimpoint. Or have you forgotten those inconvenient bombing survey figures yet idiot. 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. Why did the target have to be in a large urban area? Like DUH! One generally finds large urban areas around key facilities such as ports, dockyards and regional military headquarters controlling tens of thousands of personnel. 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." What was special about the targets in Hiroshima that the usual bombing ststistics wouldn't apply? That is a non sensical question. 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. Yet below you provide a quote that says the same damage to Hiroshima could have been inflicted by 220 B-29s and details the bomb load. Not loaded with HE alone they wouldnt. Nearly a quarter of the load was ant-personnel bombs Cue yet another clue free attempt at moralising. so about fifty planes could have been left behind unless the aim was specifically kill civilians, Of course you will tell us how anti personnel bombs which 'specifically kill civilians' would managed to kill those who would have been warned at least 45 mins before hand by air raid sirens and are now sitting in bomb shelters. given that the vast majority of casualties were civilians. 'civilians' who were providing the means to murder millions of real civilians across the pacific. Tough. A far cry from the figures (3600-6000)you pluck out of the air above. You're the one claiming that B29s could accurately target anything without causing collateral damage, not I. Very hard to do when the initial CEP for B29 operations was 6%. You've been repeatedly asked for a meaningful alternative to the fire raids or the A bomb and you haven't provided one. I have - your chauvinism prevent you from considering it. You haven't, all you've done is peddle revisionist agit-prop, your hilarious nonsense about anti personnel bombs being the latest emission of pomo moralising. Which proves that the cities were not treated any differently to any other B29 target in Japan. Which doesn't say anything about the legality or morality of that treatment. It doesn't have to. There was nothing illegal or immoral in using a weapon which ended the war and saved the lives of nearly 1 million allied POWs and Internees held by the Japanese. 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'. ??? Ohh, it evades yet again. Please tell the audience what was damaged and destroyed by the nagasaki bomb , or it is too embarrassing for you. 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. The USBS states "By 1944 the Japanese had almost eliminated home industry in their war economy. " LMAO! Of course it snips the following sentence which proves my point " They still relied, however, on plants employing less than 250 workers for subcontracted parts and equipment. Many of these smaller plants were concentrated in Tokyo and accounted for 50 percent of the total industrial output of the city. Such plants suffered severe damage in urban incendiary attacks. " Do try harder dear boy. 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. Targets of the Nagasaki bomb: HQ, 122nd Infantry Brigade; Mitsubushi shipyard, Mitsubushi torpedo factory, airfield, District Naval base, local RR net, small industry as quoted by USSBS. All legitimate targets. And all got trashed by 20 Kt. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Pearl Harbour didn't happen in a vacuum, in spite of what you seem to think. The Japanese didn't get up one morning and decide to attack Pearl Harbour because they had nothing else to do. True, it happened because the Japanese thought that they were racially superior to all others, and therefore had a "right" to rule all of Asia. 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. Oh God spare me the grandfather story yet again. As you have spared yourself any sort of historical knowledge? Al Minyard |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
and supported by the
testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." The "testimony of the surviving Japanese" is hardly something to put much faith in. Not to mention Dugout Doug's input. You are a despicable apologist for one of the most inhuman regimes of all time. Al Minyard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|