Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:14:59 GMT, "weary" wrote:


"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:57:14 GMT, "weary" wrote:





It names Eisenhower and cites the source of the two quotes which is what

That would be Eisenhower who wasnt in the command loop for operations in
the pacific and had no 1st hand knowledge of the losses being incurred on
a
daily basis in Okinawa and elsewhere.

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.


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.


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.
"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. The
Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the
effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"

snip.

Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence' clearly is revisionism

I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz, but don't let facts intrude
on your rant - feel free to misrepresent me as much as you
misrepresent facts.

A**hole

PLONK

Al Minyard

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.

:
: http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html

Have you actually looked at the USSBS report? Recognize that it
was written by those who carried out the extensive conventional
bombing of Japan and had an interest in showing the value of that
campaign. It was written by people who overestimate the value of
aerial bombing as a matter of professional survival.

: 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.
: "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. The
: Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the
: effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
: "

Nobody says it was necessary. All agree the war could have been
won without it. The question is the cost of victory with and without
the bomb. Without, with or without an invasion, the casualties would
have been much higher. Thousands were dying every week in China, in
the Dutch East Indies, in the Philippines, not to mention Japan itself.
I have the book where Leahy makes that statement. Recognize that
he was an ordnance expert and said many times that the bomb would not
work. He was extremely embarrassed that it did, and never really
understood it. He thought even as late as 1950, when he wrote the
book, that the bomb killed by radiation--that every casualty died of
radiation poisoning.

But actually reading these sources, and others such as
Eisenhower, is much more difficult than quoting sound bites.

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
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.

So much for the killfile .
The quote I used came from the USSBS - address your vitriol and
spleen at them.

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
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.

Just point out where I claimed that the alternative would involve zero
casualties.



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.

Liar - point out where I made any claim that is supported by what
you fabricate here.


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.

When only 35-40% of the bombs fall within 1000' feet of the
target, an aircraft factory etc is a point target. What do you think
a point target is - one of your non-existent backyard workshops.


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.

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. But logic isn't one of you strong points.



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.

Then why make it a requirement.




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.

Since I suggested that such bombs not be carried, your question is
ridiculous.


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.

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.



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.


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?


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.

???? Calm down and take your meds.




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.

We don't know that it did that or that it had to bu used at all.




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. "

So in your fantasy world , a plant employing 250 people is a backyard
workshop. My turn to LMAO

"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.

"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.

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:14:59 GMT, "weary" wrote:


"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:57:14 GMT, "weary" wrote:





It names Eisenhower and cites the source of the two quotes which is
what

That would be Eisenhower who wasnt in the command loop for operations
in
the pacific and had no 1st hand knowledge of the losses being incurred
on
a
daily basis in Okinawa and elsewhere.

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.


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.


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.
"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. The
Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the
effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional
weapons.
"

snip.

Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence' clearly is revisionism

I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz, but don't let facts intrude
on your rant - feel free to misrepresent me as much as you
misrepresent facts.

A**hole

PLONK

But you promised that ages ago - now FOAD.

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...


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.

They had watched the West colonise virtually all of SE Asia and decided
that they wanted a slice of the action.


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?

I'm certainly spared any historical knowledge when I read the
drivel you post.


Al Minyard

"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?
I found A LOT of info in researching the planned invasion that validates
the decision to drop the bomb. Even with MAGIC/ULTRA on his desk, that still
doesn't give Truman what the Japanese leaders are ultimately thinking. 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!

"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), 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!