Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

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.

"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.

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 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.

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

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:37:18 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
wrote:


Greg, good post.

Thanks mate.

I still can't believe we're still arguing with this guy.

We are dealing with a tiny ego who thinks that having the last word means
its won.

I wonder if he had a relative either in the Pacific or with orders to the
Pacific in 1945?

Given it's posting from australia, I'd say thats a possibility.

From his tone, probably not. He'll keep spouting postwar
hindsight until the cows come home.

One could be dealing with a nisei revisionist here.

Its almost as bad as the canadian clown who claimed that japanese were
acting in self defence on Dec 7th because the USN depth charged a japanese
sub inside pearl harbour that morning.


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.

"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.

"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!

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.



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.

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:400029be$1@bg2....

"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?

There was no question in the last statement of mine.
If you think there are some questuions I'm not allowed to ask, then list
them.

I found A LOT of info in researching the planned invasion that validates
the decision to drop the bomb.

Still doesn't prove that you know what he had on his desk.

Even with MAGIC/ULTRA on his desk, that still
doesn't give Truman what the Japanese leaders are ultimately thinking.

It tells him amongst other things that the Japanese are looking to
surrender.

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!

"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.