Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

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.

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.

"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!

"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!

(B2431) wrote:
From: Chad Irby
Date: 1/6/2004 12:10 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: m

In article ,
"weary" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
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.

What was the military value in such targets?

Besides a lot of soldiers, a lot of equipment,
and being the main
military command center for that part of the
island?

And the civilian centers were, as you should
know, pre-empted by the
military, too.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com


Forget it , Chad, he simply doesn't understand
war, economy or anything else
anyone has said to him. He has his mind set
on the fluffy side of war.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


I'm beginning to agree with that.
Anyone wonder if he's ever talked to vets who were either in the Pacific
or on the way when the bombs fell? I assure you he'll get an earful on dropping
the bomb. It meant they came home alive in '45 instead of Golden Gate in
'48.

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

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!

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!

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.

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

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