Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

Merlin Dorfman wrote:
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.

Remember that none of those peace feelers had the full approval of the
Japanese government. The Emperor and the civilian members of the government,
along with Admrial Yonai, the Navy minister, wanted to accept unconditional
surrender, but the Army blocked any discussion of it. Add to that fear of
assassination by hotheads (a not unreasonable concern in Japan) and you understand
why these were peace and not surrender feelers.

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

"weary" wrote:

"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!


Stalin only gave a general date: three months after Germany's defeat to
enter the Pacific War. Exactly when he was going to attack was known only
to the Soviet General Staff. He never gave a precise date to Truman at Potsdam.


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

"weary" wrote:

"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.



Weary, the peace feelers were mostly freelancing by Japanese diplomats
and military attaches in Sweden and Switzerland-when the Japanese in Switzerland
met with OSS Director Allen Dulles, he tread cautiously-as thanks to MAGIC
intercepts of their communications, he knew that they did not have the full
approval of the Japanese Government. They had the support of the peace faction
(PM, FM, Navy Minister), and the unspoken support of the Emperor himself,
but no full cabinet approval. If word had gotten out in Tokyo about the peace
faction's efforts, well,can you say "Government by assassination"?
(a common practice in Japan in the 1920s and 30s) Which means a military
government dedicated to continuing the war.

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

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
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

Your definition of a troll is apparently someone who out reasons you.

"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.

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:4002f13a@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"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!


Stalin only gave a general date: three months after Germany's defeat to
enter the Pacific War. Exactly when he was going to attack was known only
to the Soviet General Staff. He never gave a precise date to Truman at
Potsdam.

He said he would attack three months after the war in Europe ended.
He did that to the day.

"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!