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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Venik" wrote in message ... Keith Willshaw wrote: Incorrect, the militarists in charge wanted to hold out for a deal that would leave them in control of Korea, Taiwan and Manchuria. Right, I suppose they wanted Alaska and Siberia as well. In fact they invaded parts of both so thats a good guess but they were prepared to settle for the Empire pre 1936 Keith |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Venik wrote in message ...
so, like, read a book, man, or something. Please feel free to suggest one or more specific titles where we can read that: Arnold and LeMay did not favor using the A-bomb against Japan. A number of other US commanders did not support the use of the A-bomb against Japan: Bradley, Strauss, King, Leahy, Arnold. Again, can you show that the US gave Japan any guarantees as to the Emperor's safety befor they agreed to surender? Such a guarantee may have been in the formal terms of surrender, but the question is, was such a guarantee communicated to the Japanese befor the actual surrender negotiations? You must be joking. No, I refer to the negotiations that took place after the Japanese announced their surrender and befor the signing of the formal surrender document onboard the USS MIssouri. MacArthur: "Didn't you two clowns get the memo I sent out this morning?" Seems I didn't get it either. Nonsense. While Truman may have given some consideration to what territory the Soviets might have gained had the war continued for another year or more there is no reason to believe he did not give more consideration to American, Chinese, and even Japanese casualties to be expected from a continuation of the war. Yes, he was a gentle and caring person this Truman. They say he even lost his appetite for a few days after nuking tens of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They also say that he was dead set against using Nuclear weapons in Korea and that was at the heart of his disagreement with MacArthur who had requested '20 or 30' atomic bombs to be used gainst major Chinese cities. -- FF |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message m... Venik wrote in message ... so, like, read a book, man, or something. Please feel free to suggest one or more specific titles where we can read that: Arnold and LeMay did not favor using the A-bomb against Japan. Not quite Curtis LeMay believed it was unnecessary because the conventional B-29 fire raids were every bit as deadly and would have destroyed every major Japanese population center by October. Hap Arnold supported him in this view. This course of action would have killed many more Japanese than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, indeed both those cities would have been among the target list for destruction A number of other US commanders did not support the use of the A-bomb against Japan: Bradley, Strauss, King, Leahy, Arnold. Neither Admiral King for Fleet Admiral Leahy dissented with regard to the use of the bomb . Both however had grave misgivings about invasion and argued for a continued blockade which would of course cause mass starvation in Japan as the harvest there was the worst for 40 years. Would starving millions of Japanese be better than what happened ? Again, can you show that the US gave Japan any guarantees as to the Emperor's safety befor they agreed to surender? Such a guarantee may have been in the formal terms of surrender, but the question is, was such a guarantee communicated to the Japanese befor the actual surrender negotiations? You must be joking. No, I refer to the negotiations that took place after the Japanese announced their surrender and befor the signing of the formal surrender document onboard the USS MIssouri. There were no negotistions, the Emperor gave his decision to accept the terms outlined at Potsdam. The Allies decided it was best to retain the Emperor as a figurehead to minimise post war resistance. MacArthur: "Didn't you two clowns get the memo I sent out this morning?" Seems I didn't get it either. Nonsense. While Truman may have given some consideration to what territory the Soviets might have gained had the war continued for another year or more there is no reason to believe he did not give more consideration to American, Chinese, and even Japanese casualties to be expected from a continuation of the war. Yes, he was a gentle and caring person this Truman. They say he even lost his appetite for a few days after nuking tens of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They also say that he was dead set against using Nuclear weapons in Korea and that was at the heart of his disagreement with MacArthur who had requested '20 or 30' atomic bombs to be used gainst major Chinese cities. Quite so, the great 'anti nuke' Douggie was quite happy to scatter em like confetti if he was in charge. Keith |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message m... Venik wrote in message ... so, like, read a book, man, or something. Please feel free to suggest one or more specific titles where we can read that: Arnold and LeMay did not favor using the A-bomb against Japan. Not quite Curtis LeMay believed it was unnecessary because the conventional B-29 fire raids were every bit as deadly and would have destroyed every major Japanese population center by October. Hap Arnold supported him in this view. This course of action would have killed many more Japanese than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, indeed both those cities would have been among the target list for destruction A number of other US commanders did not support the use of the A-bomb against Japan: Bradley, Strauss, King, Leahy, Arnold. Neither Admiral King for Fleet Admiral Leahy dissented with regard to the use of the bomb . Both however had grave misgivings about invasion and argued for a continued blockade which would of course cause mass starvation in Japan as the harvest there was the worst for 40 years. Would starving millions of Japanese be better than what happened ? Again, can you show that the US gave Japan any guarantees as to the Emperor's safety befor they agreed to surender? Such a guarantee may have been in the formal terms of surrender, but the question is, was such a guarantee communicated to the Japanese befor the actual surrender negotiations? You must be joking. No, I refer to the negotiations that took place after the Japanese announced their surrender and befor the signing of the formal surrender document onboard the USS MIssouri. There were no negotistions, the Emperor gave his decision to accept the terms outlined at Potsdam. The Allies decided it was best to retain the Emperor as a figurehead to minimise post war resistance. MacArthur: "Didn't you two clowns get the memo I sent out this morning?" Seems I didn't get it either. Nonsense. While Truman may have given some consideration to what territory the Soviets might have gained had the war continued for another year or more there is no reason to believe he did not give more consideration to American, Chinese, and even Japanese casualties to be expected from a continuation of the war. Yes, he was a gentle and caring person this Truman. They say he even lost his appetite for a few days after nuking tens of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They also say that he was dead set against using Nuclear weapons in Korea and that was at the heart of his disagreement with MacArthur who had requested '20 or 30' atomic bombs to be used gainst major Chinese cities. Quite so, the great 'anti nuke' Douggie was quite happy to scatter em like confetti if he was in charge. Keith |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
missions that may have been heroic but made zero difference in the
outcome of the war? So what do you think of the "Black Buck" missions in the Falklands war from that standpoint? Definitely a tour de force of planning and airmanship, but what was their result on the fight? Some say they had little effect in terms of their ostensible goals such as runway denial, but caused Argentina to hold back forces to defend their mainland. Or is that just a popular misconception? I might add, speaking in general rather than about Black Buck, that making zero difference on the outcome is not at all the same as making zero difference in the path to that outcome. Causing a war to end sooner or later, with more or less casualties, is definitely on the table when discussing these things, I should think. Cheers, --Joe |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Ad absurdum per aspera" wrote in message om... missions that may have been heroic but made zero difference in the outcome of the war? So what do you think of the "Black Buck" missions in the Falklands war from that standpoint? Definitely a tour de force of planning and airmanship, but what was their result on the fight? Minor IMHO except in so far as they forced the argentines to retain aircraft for home defence Some say they had little effect in terms of their ostensible goals such as runway denial, but caused Argentina to hold back forces to defend their mainland. Or is that just a popular misconception? No its accurate enough but the forces retained were not specialist naval attackers as I recall. In any even they were a minor part of a small war and scarcely count as either great or strategic. Keith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Greatest Strategic Air Missions? | Leadfoot | Military Aviation | 66 | September 19th 04 05:09 PM |
Russian recon planes fly ten missions over Baltics | B2431 | Military Aviation | 4 | March 2nd 04 04:44 AM |
New Story on my Website | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 42 | February 18th 04 05:01 AM |
French block airlift of British troops to Basra | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 202 | October 24th 03 06:48 PM |
Strategic Command Missions Rely on Space | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 30th 03 09:59 PM |