Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 08:14:43 GMT, "weary" wrote:


"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:03:40 GMT, "weary" wrote:



False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military
and
civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war.

Oh really.

Name them with references.



Always happy to oblige in correcting your
ignorance.


http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm



Thats not naming them, thats a link to a site regurgitating Wisconsin
school revisionism from Gar Alperovitz.

Well lets look at them
The first quote is

~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in
Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic
bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of
cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon
giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the
plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous
assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a
feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on
the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the
bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our
country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose
employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American
lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some
way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply
perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them
with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63



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

you asked for. Apparently anything that doesn't fit you world

view is revisionism.

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3ff06fa6$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3fe70e02$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Alan Minyard" wrote
in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "weary"
wrote:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"

Do you think Saddam Hussein had the
same
right to use WMD to save the
lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting
Iran and internal rebellion?
Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to
deliberately
target civilians in
their
war with the USA, specifically WTC?

If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there
would
not have been a need to
defend
"Iraqi
servicemen."

Complaints about his use of WMD relate
to
uses considerably pre-dating
his invasion of Kuwait.


As for the attacks on the WTC there
was
no military value there. An
argument
could be made for the strike on the
Pentagon
being a military attack.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid
military
targets within the
cities.

The odds are that there were Reservists
in
the WTC at the time of the
attack.
The poster I was replying to advocated
using
"ANY MEANS" to end the war.
He also wrote "If that means incinerating
two, three, or however many
Japanese Cities
by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s,
so be it." He made no mention
of
destroying military assets. His choice
of
words clearly states that the
destruction of
cities was what would produce a Japanese
surrender, not destruction of
military
assets.



Destruction of Japan, by whatever means
possible,
was warranted.

That's what AQ thinks of the USA

The
barbarity of their military was an abomination,
and it was continuing
daily

That's what AQ thinks of the USA.

in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating every
building in Japan would
have ended the war, it would have been
completely
justified.

The only thing that the US did that was
"wrong"
was not hanging the
******* Hirohito from the nearest tree.

Al Minyard



So why do you apologize for them? Dropping
the bombs and 9-11 were two
different events under vastly different circumstances.

That your opinion, and point out where I apologised
for them.
My opinion - supported by facts - is that there
are similarities,
deliberately targetting civilians, especially
with regard to Hiroshima.


In case you forgot:
Pearl Harbor's treachery was rewarded at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.

If you think an attack without a declaration
of war is "treachery", do
your sums and see how many times the US has
declared war in the
conflicts it has been involved in since WW2.


9-11's treachery
has been partially rewarded with the Taliban
who sheltered AQ and OBL
reduced
to a low-level insurgency.

AQ believe that US treachery in supporting Israel
inits oppression
of the Palestinians was rewarded by Sept 11.
It is apparently news
to you but others can hate as strongly as you,
and be as ruthless as
your government in targetting civilians.

rant snipped



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."

"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

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.

There were a lot of homes in the area, but there were a lot of homes
*everywhere* in Japan near anything worth hitting. They had a habit
(and still do) of putting homes on any stretch of urban land that would
hold a building and wasn't urgently needed for anything else.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

From: "weary"


"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.


OK, so your contention civilians were the intended targets of the atomic
bombings doesn't hold water. The fact remains there were military targets there
and civilians would die in very large numbers in any case. That doesn't make
the atomic bombings a war crime. Only one thing is clear had the war continued
both Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been bombed, either atomic or
conventional, again to take out the reast of the targets and those that had
been rebuilt.


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

The difference is the Nazis set out to murder civilians. They murdered about 6
million Jews and about 6 million non Jews in concentration camps, death camps
and execution pits. The was no military benefit to such mass slaughter.

No matter how Japan would be forced to quit hundreds ofthousands of civilians
would have died. I don't understand why that is beyond your comprehension.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

From: "weary"
Date: 1/2/2004 4:51 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"

With military targets located in the cities, the cities were
legitimate
targets.
The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that
in
1945,
there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever
means
necessary.

But you deny others the same right.



I'm sorry you don't see the difference between a war declared by all sides
and
a terroristic act.

It only takes one side to declare war, if the other declines to respond
it does so at its own peril.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

It is obvious you won't let reality interfere with your opinions.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: "weary"

snip

I never claimed that every bomb would be on target, but feel free to
construct
strawmen, they are fun to demolish and reveal the poverty of your argument.

snip

I guess this proves what I have been thinking about your arguments for some
time. You are deliberately ignoring military facts and the urban infrastructure
of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and using terminology intended to inflame (civilians
were the targets). Since this is the case I will no longer debate with you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

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.

and Stimson whose own memoirs put the cost of an allied invasion of Japan
at at least 250,000 casualities.

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


Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman put allied casualities at
30-35% within 30 days of invasion.


http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/...ma/ytruman.htm

"This is what the Americans President Truman, Secretary of War Stimson and
Gen. Marshall knew the day before the first atom bomb fell on Japan.
Confronted by an enemy leadership that was self-deluded, neither prepared
to surrender nor to negotiate seriously, the Americans decided that the
only way to end the war quickly would be to use overwhelming force: nuclear
weapons. "


"But the Americans continued to read the Japanese codes. Almost
immediately; the Magic Summaries revealed that the new foreign minister,
Mamoru Shigemitsu, had begun a world-wide propaganda campaign to brand the
Americans as war criminals for using nuclear weapons. Tokyo's goals
included keeping Emperor Hirohito from being tried for instigating a war of
aggression, and diverting Western attention away from the many Japanese
atrocities committed since the start of the Sino-Japanese war in 1937.
"Since the Americans have recently been raising an uproar about the
question of our mistreatment of prisoners [of war],'' Shigemitsu instructed
his diplomats in the Sept. 15, 1945, Magic Summary, "I think we should make
every effort to exploit the atomic bomb question in our propaganda. That
propaganda campaign has borne its final fruit in the revisionist account of
the bombing of Japan. "




greg


you asked for. Apparently anything that doesn't fit you world

view is revisionism.

Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence' clearly is revisionism and
every bit as toxic as that peddled by the likes of David Irving.


greg



--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:51:33 GMT, "weary" wrote:


I never claimed that every bomb would be on target,

Ohhh it attempts to move the goalposts.


but feel free to
construct strawmen,


Not a strawman, a fact, you were asked to provide the alternatives, you
havent.


they are fun to demolish and reveal the poverty of your argument.
Precision bombing in Japan at the time of the atomic bombs greatly exceeded
the average accuracy of the German theatre, where precision bombing
was used and obviously thought viable for pretty well the whole campaign.

Which of course is *meaningless* given the CEP needed to hit and destroy a
point target.


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.


The requirement that the target must be within an urban area
meant that civilian casualties would be maximised.

Which of course is another revisionist lie.

So in your fantasy world pointing out the obvious is "revisionism".
I don't think you know what it means.

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.


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.


I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you*
would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the
technology of the period.

Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
the Japanese home islands.

Detail them. Tell us *exactly* what industrial plants had been targetted
successfully by B29s in mainland japan without causing any collateral
damage to the surrounding urban areas.

Nice attempt at a strawman - I didn't claim that such raids caused
no 'collateral' damage.

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."

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.

You are obviously
short of facts if you have to resort to constructing strawmen.

You've been repeatedly asked for a meaningful alternative to the fire raids
or the A bomb and you haven't provided one.


Intellectual dishonesty noted. You will tell us the rest of what was
quoted
there now wont you.

If you think something was left out that changed the context feel free
to post it.

Yes, the source

http://www.usaaf.net/surveys/pto/pbs20.htm

and

"The Survey has estimated that the damage and casualties caused at
Hiroshima by the one atomic bomb dropped from a single plane would have
required 220 B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of incendiary bombs, 400 tons of
high-explosive bombs, and 500 tons of anti-personnel fragmentation bombs,
if conventional weapons, rather than an atomic bomb, had been used. One
hundred and twenty-five B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of bombs would have been
required to approximate the damage and casualties at Nagasaki. This
estimate pre-supposed bombing under conditions similar to those existing
when the atomic bombs were dropped and bombing accuracy equal to the
average attained by the Twentieth Air Force during the last 3 months of the
war. "


Which proves that the cities were not treated any differently to any other
B29 target in Japan.

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'.




Which were assembled from components made in small backyard workshops up
and down the kanto plain,

Yeah right. They must have turned out hundreds of naval guns
and aero engines, the obvious choke points in production.


Awww bless another red herring. Tell us how japanese soldiers in the field
made use of all these 'hundreds of naval guns and aero engines' (sic).

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.



what part of mass production sub contracting are
you having problems comprehending.

I understand it quite well. I just don't believe
the bull**** you post about it.

You posted a strawman about naval guns. Ignoring the fact that naval gun
and aero engine production were a tiny fraction of japanese materiel
output.



Get a grip on reality.

I suggest you do.

Brilliant retort.

Yes, posting a non sequitur about backyard workshops producing naval cannon
clearly makes my point.




Ad hom - the last resort of those without an answer.


Given you havent told us how B29s with a documented (post war US SBS
survey) CEP of 1000 yards are going to accurately target industrial
operations in large urban areas in the face of hostile air defences. I
suggest you take the mote out of your own eye 1st clown.

The contents of the USSBS do that quite satisfactorily

They do that, they tell us that 60-70% of bombs dropped fell more than 1000
feet from the aim point. Something which meant that crews had to be put in
harms away again and again to destroy targets.







greg






--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3ff06fa6$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3fe70e02$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Alan Minyard"
wrote
in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "weary"
wrote:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"

Do you think Saddam Hussein had
the
same
right to use WMD to save the
lives of Iraqi servicemen while
fighting
Iran and internal rebellion?
Did Al-Qaeda have the same right
to
deliberately
target civilians in
their
war with the USA, specifically WTC?

If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there
would
not have been a need to
defend
"Iraqi
servicemen."

Complaints about his use of WMD relate
to
uses considerably pre-dating
his invasion of Kuwait.


As for the attacks on the WTC there
was
no military value there. An
argument
could be made for the strike on the
Pentagon
being a military attack.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid
military
targets within the
cities.

The odds are that there were Reservists
in
the WTC at the time of the
attack.
The poster I was replying to advocated
using
"ANY MEANS" to end the war.
He also wrote "If that means incinerating
two, three, or however many
Japanese Cities
by the bombs carried by the 509th's
B-29s,
so be it." He made no mention
of
destroying military assets. His choice
of
words clearly states that the
destruction of
cities was what would produce a Japanese
surrender, not destruction of
military
assets.



Destruction of Japan, by whatever means
possible,
was warranted.

That's what AQ thinks of the USA

The
barbarity of their military was an abomination,
and it was continuing
daily

That's what AQ thinks of the USA.

in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating
every
building in Japan would
have ended the war, it would have been
completely
justified.

The only thing that the US did that
was
"wrong"
was not hanging the
******* Hirohito from the nearest tree.

Al Minyard



So why do you apologize for them? Dropping
the bombs and 9-11 were two
different events under vastly different
circumstances.

That your opinion, and point out where I
apologised
for them.
My opinion - supported by facts - is that
there
are similarities,
deliberately targetting civilians, especially
with regard to Hiroshima.


In case you forgot:
Pearl Harbor's treachery was rewarded at
Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.

If you think an attack without a declaration
of war is "treachery", do
your sums and see how many times the US has
declared war in the
conflicts it has been involved in since WW2.


9-11's treachery
has been partially rewarded with the Taliban
who sheltered AQ and OBL
reduced
to a low-level insurgency.

AQ believe that US treachery in supporting
Israel
inits oppression
of the Palestinians was rewarded by Sept
11.
It is apparently news
to you but others can hate as strongly as
you,
and be as ruthless as
your government in targetting civilians.

rant snipped



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. 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. You still think that accurate conventional bombing was possible
given Japan's cottage industry. It wasn't. Only way to destroy said major
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.
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. Instead, he came home.

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