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 |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:14:06 GMT, "weary" wrote:
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. Just point out where I claimed that the alternative would involve zero casualties. So why did you assert it then f*ckwit, other than specious and facile moralising that is. 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. Liar - point out where I made any claim that is supported by what you fabricate here. Message-ID: "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." Like all trolls you eventually start contradicting yourself. Ahhh, its manages to contradict itself yet again through complete cluelessness. When only 35-40% of the bombs fall within 1000' feet of the target, an aircraft factory etc is a point target. I suggest finding out what 'C' means in CEP. What do you think a point target is - one of your non-existent backyard workshops. YOu havent read those bombing surveys too well now have you troll, in particular pay attention to where it details how *hard* is was to destroy machine tools depite HE destroying the buildings which contained them. 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. Since I am the one who pointed them out, that hardly seems likely, moron. Yet they they considered that half that accuracy was sufficient to warrant precision bombing in Germany. they didnt. You have no comprehension of the meaning of what was written. 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. Then why make it a requirement. You think ports, dockyards and military headquarters manage to run them selves now do you ? 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. Since I suggested that such bombs not be carried, Yes that was most amusing. 2nd guessing life of death decisions made by mean whose boots you aren't fit to clean. Its a pity 'Weary' Dunlop isnt about to knock some sense into your miserable PC skull. your question is ridiculous. No, you're to stupid to figure out that anti personnel bombs were carried to suppress attempts at fire fighting, not to 'specifically kill civilians'. 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. All 70000 in Hiroshima - sure. LMAO! So the 15-20000 odd thousand troops who were killed by the bomb were 'civilians' too were they. At last you endorse total war - this is where I came into the argument. You believe it is alright to wage total war on others , but when someone wages total war on you (11 Sept) you call it terrorism and criminal - hypocrite. No, the only hypocrite here is the fool who asserts that it was immoral to use every means necessary to defeat a foe who was murdering 10000 chinese civilians every day the war continued. 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. Once again you are lying - point out where I made that claim. Most of your argument seems to rely on fabricated claims about what I have said. Ohhh, Its changing tack again, would that be like claiming an aircraft plant is a precision target. Very hard to do when the initial CEP for B29 operations was 6%. A few post ago CEP was 1000 yards and now it is 6% - what are the units for measuring CEP? I suggest you find out, I am not here to continue your limited education. 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. ???? Calm down and take your meds. "Since I suggested that such bombs not be carried, " Given you clearly hadnt a *clue* why they were carried. Your tedious moralising asserted they were carried to attack civilians. 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. We don't know that it did that or that it had to bu used at all. We do know you miserable peon. I suggest you figure out figure out what 'magic' was to see why. " 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. " So in your fantasy world , a plant employing 250 people is a backyard workshop. My turn to LMAO I suggest you read it again troll, there is nothing quoted about plants employing precisely 250 people. There is a quote which details that 50% of tokyos industrial output was produced by plants producing *less* than 250 people. 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. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:14:06 GMT, "weary" wrote: 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. Just point out where I claimed that the alternative would involve zero casualties. So why did you assert it Assert what - I repeat, point out where I claimed there would be zero casualties. I suggested conventional precision bombing because it would involve less civilian casualties. If you think it wouldn't have, then name some precision bombing raids that caused any where near the number of civilian casualties that Hiroshima did. then f*ckwit, The frustration of one who cannot understand simple English. other than specious and facile moralising that is. Address the issues rather than ranting. 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. Liar - point out where I made any claim that is supported by what you fabricate here. Message-ID: "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." Like all trolls you eventually start contradicting yourself. Where is stated or implied that I can't figure out that 2/3 of bombs fell more than 1000' from the target/ Come on, the precise words. Ahhh, its manages to contradict itself yet again through complete cluelessness. When only 35-40% of the bombs fall within 1000' feet of the target, an aircraft factory etc is a point target. I suggest finding out what 'C' means in CEP. Exactly what in my statement makes you think I don't know what it means? What do you think a point target is - one of your non-existent backyard workshops. YOu havent read those bombing surveys too well now have you troll, in particular pay attention to where it details how *hard* is was to destroy machine tools depite HE destroying the buildings which contained them. Where does it say that regarding the Japanese campaign? 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. Since I am the one who pointed them out, that hardly seems likely, moron. Yet they they considered that half that accuracy was sufficient to warrant precision bombing in Germany. they didnt. You have no comprehension of the meaning of what was written. Precision bombing was used in Germany for essentially the whole war. It's average over the whole war was 20% in 1000' of target. 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. Then why make it a requirement. You think ports, dockyards and military headquarters manage to run them selves now do you ? Your question doesn't answer mine. It's about your fourth attempt to explain why a large urban area was required. 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. Since I suggested that such bombs not be carried, Yes that was most amusing. 2nd guessing life of death decisions made by mean whose boots you aren't fit to clean. It was a hypothetical idiot. There was no decision made. It didn't happen. Its a pity 'Weary' Dunlop isnt about to knock some sense into your miserable PC skull. your question is ridiculous. No, you're to stupid to figure out that anti personnel bombs were carried to suppress attempts at fire fighting, not to 'specifically kill civilians'. How do you use bombs to "suppress" fire fighting without killing civilians? 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. All 70000 in Hiroshima - sure. LMAO! So the 15-20000 odd thousand troops who were killed by the bomb were 'civilians' too were they. Source please. At last you endorse total war - this is where I came into the argument. You believe it is alright to wage total war on others , but when someone wages total war on you (11 Sept) you call it terrorism and criminal - hypocrite. No, the only hypocrite here is the fool who asserts that it was immoral to use every means necessary But you call it terrorism when someone does it to you. to defeat a foe who was murdering 10000 chinese civilians every day the war continued. 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. Once again you are lying - point out where I made that claim. Most of your argument seems to rely on fabricated claims about what I have said. Ohhh, Its changing tack again, Not changing tack - just asking you to point out where I wrote what you claim I did. Of course you can't - it's just another of your lies. would that be like claiming an aircraft plant is a precision target. Thats what was bombed in Germany as part of the daylight precision bombing campaign, as well as oil plants and ball bearing works. In spite of all the hype, the Norden bomb sight couldn't really drop a bomb into a pickle barrel from 20 000 feet. Very hard to do when the initial CEP for B29 operations was 6%. A few post ago CEP was 1000 yards and now it is 6% - what are the units for measuring CEP? I suggest you find out, I am not here to continue your limited education. BWAAAAH. Loser. Caught out. 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. ???? Calm down and take your meds. "Since I suggested that such bombs not be carried, " Given you clearly hadnt a *clue* why they were carried. Nothing was carried you moron. It was a hypothetical in the USSBS estimating what was necessary to achieve the same result as the Hiroshima bomb. I pointed out where savings could have been made and civilian lives spared. 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. We don't know that it did that or that it had to bu used at all. We do know you miserable peon. I suggest you figure out figure out what 'magic' was to see why. That would be the decodes of Japanese messages that included those revealing the Japanese steps towards surrender from at least early July. |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
"B2431" wrote in message ... From: "weary" snip I never claimed that every bomb would be on target, but feel free to construct strawmen, they are fun to demolish and reveal the poverty of your argument. snip I guess this proves what I have been thinking about your arguments for some time. You are deliberately ignoring military facts and the urban infrastructure of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and using terminology intended to inflame (civilians were the targets). Since this is the case I will no longer debate with you. A wise course to follow when the facts are against you. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
"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! |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:400029ec$1@bg2.... "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), The agreed latest date for the Soviets to attack was 8 August. He would have only had to wait 2 days to see that and another 3 or 4 would have revealed the result of that attack - a total rout of the Army on the mainland. 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! |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... 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. And? 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. We don't know what would have happened if there had been a response to the feelers. 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. He didn't think it would be necessary so his estimate is irrelevant. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:11:29 GMT, "weary" wrote:
A wise course to follow when the facts are against you. Bye bye troll. ker-PLONK 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|