Greatest Strategic Air Missions

Venik wrote:

Truman's decision to use the A-bombs was opposed by most of his military
advisers

That's not correct. There were descenting voices but they were the minority.

including Le May, Eisenhower and MacArthur

Only 1 of 3. Eisenhower was the only one of the above who opposed it.
MacArthur, after the war, admitted he was upset when told of the decsion, but
he made no protest. LeMay fully supported it.

And the public
reaction in the US to the use of the A-bomb was split close to the
middle.

Wrong. The U.S. public didn't care what device was used, just that it ended the
war. There was no public descent outside of scientific circles.

In the end, the US changed its policy of Unconditional Surrender

Wrong. The U.S. chose to allow the Emporer to stay because they felt it would
allow for a more secure occupation.

And the use of the nukes
allowed the US to obscure this rather embarrassing policy change from
public scrutiny, as well as to give Stalin something to think about.

Wrong. No reputable historian would agree with that statement.

Truman even
attributed Stalin's lack of response to the news of the A-bomb test to
his failure to grasp the significance of the event.

What history books are you reading? Truman never briefed Stalin on the results.
He briefed Churchill, but never told Stalin a thing.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR wrote:

Wrong. The U.S. chose to allow the Emporer to stay because they felt
it would
allow for a more secure occupation.

Of course they did, that why the US changed its policy of unconditional
surrender. They knew that if the Emperor is not allowed to stay, no
amount of nukes will solve the problem. In the end the Japanese got what
they wanted in a surrender deal.

Wrong. No reputable historian would agree with that statement.

Since you are not one of them, your opinion, while appreciated, makes
little impression on me.

What history books are you reading? Truman never briefed Stalin on the results.
He briefed Churchill, but never told Stalin a thing.

Apparently not the same books you were reading in school :-) Would
Truman's own memoirs satisfy you?

"On July 24 I casually mentioned to Stalin that we had a new weapon of
unusual destructive force. The Russian Premier showed no special
interest. All he said was he was glad to hear it and hoped we would make
"good use of it against the Japanese." Harry S. Truman, Year of
Decisions , 1955, p. 416

How about Churchill's memoirs?

""I was perhaps five yards away, and I watched with the closest
attention the momentous talk. I knew what the President was going to do.
What was vital to measure was its effect on Stalin. I can see it all as
if it were yesterday. He seemed to be delighted. A new bomb! Of
extraordinary power! Probably decisive on the whole Japanese war! What a
bit of luck! This was my impression at the moment, and I was sure that
he had no idea of the significance of what he was being told. " Winston
Churchill, Triumph and Tragedy , 1953, p. 669

I can give you several dozen other references or you can visit your
local library and lookup interviews and memoirs of James Byrnes, Charles
Bohlen, Anthony Eden, or Georgii Zhukov.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

"Venik" wrote in message
...
BUFDRVR wrote:

snip


I can give you several dozen other references or you can visit your
local library and lookup interviews and memoirs of James Byrnes, Charles
Bohlen, Anthony Eden, or Georgii Zhukov.


Great, but unfortuantely now a bit outdated, since we know the reason Stalin
was not overtly impressed by the mention of the bomb (not really a "brief",
now was it?) was actually because he already knew about it courtesy of folks
like Greenglass and the Rosenbergs.

Brooks

--
Regards,

Venik

Kevin Brooks wrote:

Great, but unfortuantely now a bit outdated...

What is outdated?

, since we know the reason Stalin
was not overtly impressed by the mention of the bomb (not really a "brief",
now was it?)

Who said "brief"?

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

Venik wrote;

They knew that if the Emperor is not allowed to stay, no
amount of nukes will solve the problem.

Actually they *thought* even if Japan capitulated that many in the Army (and
there were well over 2 million soldiers still in uniform) would continue to
fight unless the Emporer was still in power and commanded them to surrender.

"On July 24 I casually mentioned to Stalin that we had a new weapon of
unusual destructive force.

Which hardy means he briefed Stalin on the results of the Mahatten Project as
you insinuated.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR wrote:

Which hardy means he briefed Stalin on the results of the Mahatten
Project as
you insinuated.

Don't assume what wasn't said.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

"Venik" wrote in message
...
BUFDRVR wrote:

Wrong. The U.S. chose to allow the Emporer to stay because they felt
it would
allow for a more secure occupation.

Of course they did, that why the US changed its policy of unconditional
surrender. They knew that if the Emperor is not allowed to stay, no
amount of nukes will solve the problem. In the end the Japanese got what
they wanted in a surrender deal.


Incorrect, the militarists in charge wanted to hold out for a
deal that would leave them in control of Korea, Taiwan
and Manchuria.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Keith Willshaw wrote:

Incorrect, the militarists in charge wanted to hold out for a
deal that would leave them in control of Korea, Taiwan
and Manchuria.

Right, I suppose they wanted Alaska and Siberia as well.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

Venik wrote:
Keith Willshaw wrote:

Incorrect, the militarists in charge wanted
to hold out for a
deal that would leave them in control of Korea,
Taiwan
and Manchuria.

Right, I suppose they wanted Alaska and Siberia
as well.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following
subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp 0nse
If they had won, yes. But they didn't. They lost. Period. And Several of
the militarists got their necks stretched at the Tokyo War Crimes Trial in
1948.

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

Matt Wiser wrote:

If they had won, yes. But they didn't. They lost. Period. And Several of
the militarists got their necks stretched at the Tokyo War Crimes Trial in
1948.

I am not sure what you were trying to say, but I liked it, so keep it up.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse