Greatest Strategic Air Missions

"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

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

"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

"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

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

"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