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 |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
"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! |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
"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! |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
"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! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|