 
			
				January 12th 04, 08:07 PM
			
			
			
		
  
	 | 
	| 
		
		
		
	 | 
	
	
	
		
			
			
				 
				
			 
			 
			
		
		
		
		
"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!
  
		
	
		
		
		
		
		
	
		 
			
 
			
			
			
				 
            
			
			
            
            
                
			
			
		 
		
	
	
	 |