pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 16 Feb 2009 08:59:11
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
The other day, I was reading about Truman's low final approval rating
as he left office so I was surprised to see him ranked so high. His
final approval ranking when he left office was very low.

http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx

I do not agree with this ranking. Truman authorized the two
devastating nuclear bombings of Japan because it was supposed to have
saved about a million American lives. In my opinion, Japan was already
very near to surrender as thousands of bombing sorties were
relentlessly being launched by the U.S. The Japanese surrender was
imminent but Truman bombed them anyway.

Russia was moving in from the north and Truman did not want Japan to
be divided like Germany. So he ordered the nuclear bombings of Japan
to end the conflict quickly and keep the Russians out.

Truman could have achieved the same unconditional surrender, and kept
the Russians out, without resorting to nuclear weapons. That's my
opinion.

Am I right or wrong here?




 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 15:54:54
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 21, 10:04=A0am, "Jerry Sturdivant" <jerr...@cox.net > wrote:
>
> Consider; just consider; they didn't think that much about the 'morality'=
of
> the radiation and just felt it was only a really big bomb.

I can see some truth in that. Less was known then about the effects
from radiation.


>There were big morality discussions when Truman refused to allow gas warfa=
re taking Tarawa
> (I believe, or Saipan) and over 60,000 of our troops died. Today we're
> aghast at the thought of the radiation aspect, not the size of the
> explosion.

No, if you're thinking Okinawa then yes. There was more than twice the
number of casualties at Okinawa than Tarawa and Saipan combined.
>
> So I suggest there wasn't that big a morality conflict at the time on
> dropping a really big bomb.
>
> Related story:http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1985/5=
/1985_5_40...
>
> Jerry (who often gets bombed) 'n Vegas

Sorry to hear that. No one said it's going to be easy.



 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 09:36:15
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 21, 11:58=A0am, Senator Millionaire <moon...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 10:47=A0am, Will in New Haven
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > This can't be a moral issue if the Senator contemplates starving and
> > fire-bombing the population of Japan as the alternative. Many more
> > would die and their deaths would be no prettier. If that is the
> > alternative, using the Bomb and scaring Stalin is no worse. Unless one
> > has a concern for Stalin's feelings.
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> Will, no one knows for sure exactly how long it would have taken for
> the Japanese to surrender if the very successful B-29 bombing campaign
> continued. LeMay said two weeks. It may have been just days, one week,
> or one month. You can not dismiss the possibility that they may have
> surrendered shortly without the use of the A bombs. It is a MORAL
> issue for Truman not for me

I can and do dismiss LeMay's estimate and any other estimate that says
it would be less than a few months and would take fewer Japanese
deaths than the use of the nuclear bombs. I do this because the people
in charge in Japan were who they were and they were going to remain in
charge for at least months.

If you subtract the horrible impact of the new weapon from the
equation, it is clear that you have to kill _more_ people to impress
the people who raped Nanking and probably many more. This isn't
something I made up and I'm not really guessing. The IJA and their
puppets were in charge and they didn't care about casualties.

--
Will in New Haven.



 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 08:58:43
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 21, 10:47=A0am, Will in New Haven
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote:
>
> This can't be a moral issue if the Senator contemplates starving and
> fire-bombing the population of Japan as the alternative. Many more
> would die and their deaths would be no prettier. If that is the
> alternative, using the Bomb and scaring Stalin is no worse. Unless one
> has a concern for Stalin's feelings.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven

Will, no one knows for sure exactly how long it would have taken for
the Japanese to surrender if the very successful B-29 bombing campaign
continued. LeMay said two weeks. It may have been just days, one week,
or one month. You can not dismiss the possibility that they may have
surrendered shortly without the use of the A bombs. It is a MORAL
issue for Truman not for me.




 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 07:47:35
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 21, 10:04=A0am, "Jerry Sturdivant" <jerr...@cox.net > wrote:
> "Senator Millionaire"
>
> > =A0Was Truman under pressure to drop the bombs? Why didn't
> > Truman wait another four weeks or more and allow LeMay to
> > continue with the B-29 bombing campaign? These are very
> > KEY questions. LeMays bombing campaign was a MAJOR factor
> > and not a minor one as Will suggested.
>
> Consider; just consider; they didn't think that much about the 'morality'=
of
> the radiation and just felt it was only a really big bomb. There were big
> morality discussions when Truman refused to allow gas warfare taking Tara=
wa
> (I believe, or Saipan) and over 60,000 of our troops died. Today we're
> aghast at the thought of the radiation aspect, not the size of the
> explosion.
>
> So I suggest there wasn't that big a morality conflict at the time on
> dropping a really big bomb.

This can't be a moral issue if the Senator contemplates starving and
fire-bombing the population of Japan as the alternative. Many more
would die and their deaths would be no prettier. If that is the
alternative, using the Bomb and scaring Stalin is no worse. Unless one
has a concern for Stalin's feelings.

--
Will in New Haven



  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 09:11:50
From: Jerry Sturdivant
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians

"Will in New Haven"


>> Consider; just consider; they didn't think that much about the 'morality'
>> of
>> the radiation and just felt it was only a really big bomb. There were big
>> morality discussions when Truman refused to allow gas warfare taking
>> Tarawa
>> (I believe, or Saipan) and over 60,000 of our troops died. Today we're
>> aghast at the thought of the radiation aspect, not the size of the
>> explosion.
>>
>> So I suggest there wasn't that big a morality conflict at the time on
>> dropping a really big bomb.

> This can't be a moral issue if the Senator contemplates
> starving and fire-bombing the population of Japan as the
> alternative.

Perhaps the morality is in the killing itself. Apparently Truman considered
it immoral to kill the Japanese with gas on Tarawa, but held no compunctions
to running them through with bayonets.


> Many more would die and their deaths would be no prettier.

Ah! The morality of war itself. Killing can be so messy. (O.J. should have
used a gun)


> If that is the alternative, using the Bomb and scaring Stalin
> is no worse. Unless one has a concern for Stalin's feelings.

Yep.


Jerry 'n Vegas







 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 21:03:14
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 19, 8:20=A0pm, bighorn_b...@hotmail.com wrote:
> OK, let's review what happened at Okinawa, just 6 weeks prior to
> dropping the atomic bombs. =A050,000 US casualties, 12,000 killed,
> (5,000 of the dead in the Navy). =A030 US ships sunk as a result of
> kamikaze attacks during the battle.
>
> On the Japanese side, more that 107,000 soldiers and perhaps another
> 100,000 civilians dead. About 11,000 soldiers captured or surrendered.
>
> Sorry, =A0I see no indication that the Japanese were ready to give up in
> these numbers.

Big, I already mentioned the very costly battle of Okinawa. And this
is why I'm telling you that Truman was just blowing smoke and never
going to commit large numbers of US ground forces to invade mainland
Japan. I have already mentioned this!

Why would he do it?

The blockade of Japan was in effect, the people were starving, their
cities ruined, and contrary to what Will said, "LeMay's bombers were a
minor factor." This is simply not true Will! I've already posted how
successful LeMays bombing campaign was.

Was Truman under pressure to drop the bombs? Why didn't Truman wait
another four weeks or more and allow LeMay to continue with the B-29
bombing campaign? These are very KEY questions. LeMays bombing
campaign was a MAJOR factor and not a minor one as Will suggested.

http://39th.org/39th/hc/b29decisive-factor.htm

"During the last nine months of the war the 20th Air Force flew 3331
combat missions (24,665 bombing sorties) dropping 155,041 tons of
bombs and mines; 318 B-29's were lost. The Japanese Air Force lost 377
planes with 245 probables, and 417 aircraft badly damaged.

Between June of 1944 and August 1945, B-29's flew a combined 380
bombing missions (26,611 bomb sorties) and dropped 167,448 tons of
bombs and mines and lost 402 B-29's while shooting down 871 enemy
aircraft as well as 565 probables and damaging 1,090.

Perhaps the greatest accomplishments of the 20th AF was during the
last five months of the war. Five major industrial areas received 44.1
percent of all the 20th Air Force tonnage. These industrial centers
were Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Yokohoma, and Kobe. Damage to these areas
ranged from 25 per cent in Osaka to 43 per cent in Nagoya. The
aircraft industry in those areas was 50 per cent destroyed. The
industrial area of Kobe was 41 per cent destroyed. The area gutted by
these strikes was 103.22 square miles. These major industries were
considered to be essentially out of the war.

Sixty-four other cities were burned to the ground. About 72 square
miles of urban areas in these cities were completely destroyed.
Takamatsu was 89.3 per cent destroyed. Low level raids ordered by
General Curtis Le May burned out 175 square miles of urban area in 69
cities leaving over 9,000,000 people homeless."



  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 07:04:29
From: Jerry Sturdivant
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians

"Senator Millionaire"

> Was Truman under pressure to drop the bombs? Why didn't
> Truman wait another four weeks or more and allow LeMay to
> continue with the B-29 bombing campaign? These are very
> KEY questions. LeMays bombing campaign was a MAJOR factor
> and not a minor one as Will suggested.

Consider; just consider; they didn't think that much about the 'morality' of
the radiation and just felt it was only a really big bomb. There were big
morality discussions when Truman refused to allow gas warfare taking Tarawa
(I believe, or Saipan) and over 60,000 of our troops died. Today we're
aghast at the thought of the radiation aspect, not the size of the
explosion.

So I suggest there wasn't that big a morality conflict at the time on
dropping a really big bomb.


Related story:
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1985/5/1985_5_40.shtml



Jerry (who often gets bombed) 'n Vegas







 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 19:25:11
From:
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 20, 5:30=A0am, "da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com > wrote:
> "OTB" <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > > Couple that with the fact
> > > that the Japanese were working on an atomic bomb of their own, and ma=
y
> > > have actually detonated a test device.
>
> > I have a letter from Paul Tibbets that discusses this. It was the first
> > time I learned of the Japanese bomb program.
>
> Wow, was it sent directly to you, or was it a collecter's item you
> picked up? =A0I'd be interested to see a scan of it if you have it on a
> website.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
>
> I was in charge of coordinating a "Peace Conference" that was held to
> discuss nuclear proliferation and disarmament issues.
>
> I wrote to hundreds of authors, world leaders, and some famous people and
> infamous people that I thought might have interesting views.
>
> I got quite thoughtful responses from Isaac Asimov and Paul Tibbets and
> hundreds of others. =A0I did not get a response from some and got some "f=
orm"
> sorts of responses from others. =A0(I got a nice note from the personal
> secretary to the Queen of England, for example, pointing out that the Que=
en
> did not respond to such requests.)
>
> Send me an email and I will scan the letter (two pages) and send the file=
to
> you. =A0It is at my office so it may be a little while before I can get t=
o it.

OK, email sent.


  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 08:21:36
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
<bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote

OK, email sent.
===================

Reply sent ... I'll scan and send next week at the office.




 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 18:55:55
From: OTB
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 19, 7:30=A0pm, "da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com > wrote:
> <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > Couple that with the fact
> > that the Japanese were working on an atomic bomb of their own, and may
> > have actually detonated a test device.
>
> I have a letter from Paul Tibbets that discusses this. =A0It was the firs=
t
> time I learned of the Japanese bomb program.

Wow, was it sent directly to you, or was it a collecter's item you
picked up? I'd be interested to see a scan of it if you have it on a
website.


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 05:30:30
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
"OTB" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote

> > Couple that with the fact
> > that the Japanese were working on an atomic bomb of their own, and may
> > have actually detonated a test device.
>
> I have a letter from Paul Tibbets that discusses this. It was the first
> time I learned of the Japanese bomb program.

Wow, was it sent directly to you, or was it a collecter's item you
picked up? I'd be interested to see a scan of it if you have it on a
website.
==========================

I was in charge of coordinating a "Peace Conference" that was held to
discuss nuclear proliferation and disarmament issues.

I wrote to hundreds of authors, world leaders, and some famous people and
infamous people that I thought might have interesting views.

I got quite thoughtful responses from Isaac Asimov and Paul Tibbets and
hundreds of others. I did not get a response from some and got some "form"
sorts of responses from others. (I got a nice note from the personal
secretary to the Queen of England, for example, pointing out that the Queen
did not respond to such requests.)

Send me an email and I will scan the letter (two pages) and send the file to
you. It is at my office so it may be a little while before I can get to it.




 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 17:20:57
From:
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
OK, let's review what happened at Okinawa, just 6 weeks prior to
dropping the atomic bombs. 50,000 US casualties, 12,000 killed,
(5,000 of the dead in the Navy). 30 US ships sunk as a result of
kamikaze attacks during the battle.

On the Japanese side, more that 107,000 soldiers and perhaps another
100,000 civilians dead. About 11,000 soldiers captured or surrendered.

Sorry, I see no indication that the Japanese were ready to give up in
these numbers.

Okinawa had been bombed for 7 months, and underwent 2 weeks of
intensive naval bombardment just prior to the invasion. This had
little effect, because the Japanese were dug into caves on high ground
well away from the beaches. This was the same tactics used at Iwo
Jima. Allow the invading forces to come onshore relatively easily,
but minimize defensive casualties, and allow them to fight a
protracted defensive battle from well-fortified positions.

There is no reason to believe the Japanese wouldn't do the same thing
during the invasion of the home islands. Couple that with the fact
that the Japanese were working on an atomic bomb of their own, and may
have actually detonated a test device. When Germany surrendered, a U-
boat was captured which contained a cargo of uranium bound for Japan.
The US air force eventually delivered some of it to them.



  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 19:30:06
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
<bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote

> Couple that with the fact
> that the Japanese were working on an atomic bomb of their own, and may
> have actually detonated a test device.

I have a letter from Paul Tibbets that discusses this. It was the first
time I learned of the Japanese bomb program.




 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 11:47:24
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 19, 1:51=A0pm, Senator Millionaire <moon...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:50=A0pm, OTB <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Can you point to ANY nation that has surrendered as a result
> > of strategic bombing (with conventional weapons) alone?
>
> > Battle of Britain - no, just made them mad
> > Germany? no
> > Russia? nope
> > Iraq (both times) no
> > North Vietnam? no
>
> > I can't think of a single case.
>
> OTB, this is true but Japan=92s circumstances were quite different.
> Japan was already war weary and contemplating a surrender.

Again you conflate Japan with the ruling party. The rulers were _not_
contemplating surrender under any terms that Truman could, given that
Roosevelt had committed him to unconditional surrender, have accepted.
Roosevelt himself, having set up the commitment to unconditional
surrender, could have altered it but Truman was held prisoner by the
dead president's words.


Beginning
> with the invasion of Manchuria in 1931, Japan had already been at war
> for nearly 15 years! The blockade had effectively cut off their
> supplies and their ability to fight on. This was an all out war.
>
> England never endured a blockade and the supply lines were never cut
> off.

The blockade was the difference. The blockade _without_ bombing would
have rendered Japan helpless, although it would have taken a
revolution to bring about surrender. LeMay's bombers were a minor
factor. The ruthlessness of the people who were running Japan was not
exceeded by anyone, although it has unfortunately often been
equalled.

--
Will in New Haven
Got change for fifty thousand civilians?



>
> Germany=92s supply lines were cut off and would have surrendered without
> ground forces but the race was on to get to Berlin before the
> Russians. If not for the Russians advancing from the east, the Germans
> would have killed Hitler and surrendered before 1946 through extensive
> day and night bombing.
>
> Russia was well supplied, industrial, and never lost Moscow.
>
> Iraq was hit strategically with high-tech weaponry designed to keep
> civilian losses to a minimum. This was not an all out war. Cities were
> not firebombed like Japan and Germany.
>
> North Vietnam=92s supply lines were never completely cut off and they
> never sustained an all out bombing campaign like Japan did. Rolling
> Thunder and Linebacker were bombing campaigns based on =93strategic=94
> targeting.
>
> Rolling Thunder 1965: Anatomy of a Failure
>
> http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/readings/drew2.htm



 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 11:42:21
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 19, 1:48=A0pm, Senator Millionaire <moon...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:22=A0am, Will in New Haven
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > The government that was in place at the time would not have
> > surrendered within _six_ months without the nukes. They almost didn't
> > with the nukes. However, they could well have been overthrown. Even
> > some Army units might have rebelled as conditions got worse.
>
> > And two months of firebombing and blockade would have killed more
> > people than the two bombs. Where is the humanitarian moral outrage?
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> In August, 1945, life had to have been absolutely miserable for the
> Japanese. They were utterly defenseless, starving, and their cities
> were in ruin. The Japanese knew that to continue any longer was only
> going to bring about more suffering and devastation than necessary.
>
> We do know the Japanese were contemplating surrender before the bombs
> were dropped. That in itself speaks volumes of the conditions on the
> ground in mainland Japan. That's why I believe the Japanese surrender
> was imminent and highly likely regardless of whether the atom bombs
> were dropped or not.

You really have to separate "the Japanese" from the people who were
running Japan. The latter did not authorize the peace feelers in
Switzerland and were not misterable in the sense you mean. They
probably were suffering privations but their whole self-image was
built on ignoring such things. It would have taken an insurrection to
get a quick surrender. Curtis LeMay's belief and your own both ignore
that.

--
Will in New Haven


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 10:51:49
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 18, 11:50=A0pm, OTB <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
> Can you point to ANY nation that has surrendered as a result
> of strategic bombing (with conventional weapons) alone?
>
> Battle of Britain - no, just made them mad
> Germany? no
> Russia? nope
> Iraq (both times) no
> North Vietnam? no
>
> I can't think of a single case.

OTB, this is true but Japan=92s circumstances were quite different.
Japan was already war weary and contemplating a surrender. Beginning
with the invasion of Manchuria in 1931, Japan had already been at war
for nearly 15 years! The blockade had effectively cut off their
supplies and their ability to fight on. This was an all out war.

England never endured a blockade and the supply lines were never cut
off.

Germany=92s supply lines were cut off and would have surrendered without
ground forces but the race was on to get to Berlin before the
Russians. If not for the Russians advancing from the east, the Germans
would have killed Hitler and surrendered before 1946 through extensive
day and night bombing.

Russia was well supplied, industrial, and never lost Moscow.

Iraq was hit strategically with high-tech weaponry designed to keep
civilian losses to a minimum. This was not an all out war. Cities were
not firebombed like Japan and Germany.

North Vietnam=92s supply lines were never completely cut off and they
never sustained an all out bombing campaign like Japan did. Rolling
Thunder and Linebacker were bombing campaigns based on =93strategic=94
targeting.

Rolling Thunder 1965: Anatomy of a Failure

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/readings/drew2.htm



 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 10:48:45
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 19, 11:22=A0am, Will in New Haven
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote:
>
> The government that was in place at the time would not have
> surrendered within _six_ months without the nukes. They almost didn't
> with the nukes. However, they could well have been overthrown. Even
> some Army units might have rebelled as conditions got worse.
>
> And two months of firebombing and blockade would have killed more
> people than the two bombs. Where is the humanitarian moral outrage?
>
> --
> Will in New Haven

In August, 1945, life had to have been absolutely miserable for the
Japanese. They were utterly defenseless, starving, and their cities
were in ruin. The Japanese knew that to continue any longer was only
going to bring about more suffering and devastation than necessary.

We do know the Japanese were contemplating surrender before the bombs
were dropped. That in itself speaks volumes of the conditions on the
ground in mainland Japan. That's why I believe the Japanese surrender
was imminent and highly likely regardless of whether the atom bombs
were dropped or not.



  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 23:03:39
From: Fred
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
Senator Millionaire <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in news:e01207e3-d96a-
46d2-9b58-27d4a9e08a1f@f11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 19, 11:22 am, Will in New Haven
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>>
>> The government that was in place at the time would not have
>> surrendered within _six_ months without the nukes. They almost didn't
>> with the nukes. However, they could well have been overthrown. Even
>> some Army units might have rebelled as conditions got worse.
>>
>> And two months of firebombing and blockade would have killed more
>> people than the two bombs. Where is the humanitarian moral outrage?
>>
>> --
>> Will in New Haven
>
> In August, 1945, life had to have been absolutely miserable for the
> Japanese. They were utterly defenseless, starving, and their cities
> were in ruin. The Japanese knew that to continue any longer was only
> going to bring about more suffering and devastation than necessary.
>
> We do know the Japanese were contemplating surrender before the bombs
> were dropped. That in itself speaks volumes of the conditions on the
> ground in mainland Japan. That's why I believe the Japanese surrender
> was imminent and highly likely regardless of whether the atom bombs
> were dropped or not.
>

I am convinced that if the atomic bombs had not been dropped on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki a nuclear bomb would have been used in another
conflict. It would have been a higher tech device that would have been
much more destructive. The Japanese aftermath made some people think
twice before unleashing nuclear weapons. Without the expierience of WWII
they would have been seen as less of a big deal than they are.

The bomb on Nagasaki may have been more for the USSR than Japan. It
demonstrated to the Japanese that we had more than one bomb. The
Japanese didn't know that it would have taken us months to make more
bombs.

Fred.


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 08:22:45
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 18, 11:22=A0pm, Senator Millionaire <moon...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 18, 7:22=A0pm, Will in New Haven
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > > Will, how much longer do you think it would have taken for Japan to
> > > surrender if there was a naval blockade and the B-29 bombing campaign
> > > continued?
>
> > At least as many _lives_ and probably many more. The naval blockade
> > was already in effect and the bombing just wasn't _impressing_ the
> > hardass "my life is a feather" types in the army high command, the
> > people who were the de facto government. The nukes impressed them.
>
> Sure, the nukes impressed the Japanese to accept surrender and most
> certainly the Russians as well! The combination of the blockade along
> with the air campaign was very effective and achieving results.
> Despite what some may call the "official" version, I don't believe for
> one second that Truman would have committed large numbers of US ground
> forces on the mainland.
>
> Why would he need to?
>
> The war was over for Japan. It's been said that Japan had begun
> putting feelers out for surrender before the Potsdam Conference in
> July,1945. If the atomic bombs were never used it would have just
> delayed the eventual outcome with much greater losses for the
> Japanese.
>
> LeMay said two weeks. Even if he was exaggerating the Japanese would
> have surrendered in less than two months after an all out air
> offensive. Plans were underway to shift and relocate the heavy bombers
> from Europe to the PTO. As bad as things were for the Japanese in
> August it would have been much worse when the additional heavies from
> Europe arrived on the scene.
>
> Will, do you agree the Japanese would have surrendered in less than
> two months?

Not without an armed insurrection by the peace faction but that was
possible. The peace faction was handicapped by being difuse. While
much of the IJN leadership would have supported them, the IJN ground,
air and sea forces were fairly strongly indoctrinated. One can see,
for instance in Kurita's decision not to press his attack in the
Philipines, a desire to save lives and accept their fate in the IJN
high command, I don't know if their ground forces could have been
relied on to defy the government.

The government that was in place at the time would not have
surrendered within _six_ months without the nukes. They almost didn't
with the nukes. However, they could well have been overthrown. Even
some Army units might have rebelled as conditions got worse.

And two months of firebombing and blockade would have killed more
people than the two bombs. Where is the humanitarian moral outrage?

--
Will in New Haven


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 23:22:10
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
Yes, in the Sudan.


On Feb 18, 1:35=EF=BF=BDpm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
> news:41a427b3-3dd3-404d-8bd5-
>
> > I bet _she_ wouldn't fuck with you. Is that the cause of all this
> > hostility, you dumb fuck.
>
> Let's put the friendly and playful mock taunts that bond you and I togeth=
er
> aside for a moment. =EF=BF=BDAre you seriously going to tell me that you =
haven't
> noticed what a fucking moron Jerry seems to be? =EF=BF=BDI mean, seriousl=
y? =EF=BF=BDIs this
> guy someone you'd want to see armed with a gun and driving around in a
> police car?



 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 23:20:57
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
Jealousy is what anyone on RGP is accused of if they disagree with
someone or have an opinion. I'm supposedly jealous of Doyle Brunson, a
400 lb whale that gets around in a scooter, not to mention he's well
over a decade older than myself. Hell, they could have made me jealous
of Hugh Hefner:).





On Feb 18, 11:47=EF=BF=BDam, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> "Jerry Sturdivant" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:AtUml.12765$lk5.8308@newsfe13.iad...
>
>
>
> > "Paul Popinjay"
>
> >> I'm just surprised that they ever allowed you
> >> to be a policeman and carry a gun before.
>
> > That's what this is about. You're still jealous of those with the
> > authority you were never able to achieve.
>
> Jealous of what? =EF=BF=BDBeing a cop? =EF=BF=BDDon't make me laugh. =EF=
=BF=BDI've never wanted to
> beat up vagrants. =EF=BF=BDI've never wanted merchants to bribe me with f=
ree stuff.
> Get real, flat foot! =EF=BF=BDAnd don't reply to my posts anymore. =EF=BF=
=BDI will report
> you. =EF=BF=BDAnd I mean it this time. =EF=BF=BDI met Elizabeth Montgomer=
y once. =EF=BF=BDDon't fuck
> with me.



 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 22:44:06
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
Paul

I know what you're talking about. I seldom discuss politics on RGP as
it's a losing battle. Most are incapable of debating as they lack
proper knowledge on most subjects. The greatess weapons governments
have is propaganda and as PT used to say, theres a sucker born every
micro second (adjustment for inflation).







On Feb 18, 9:28=EF=BF=BDpm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Bh%ml.17173>
>
> > Can you tell me what specific propaganda campaign the mushroom clouds w=
ere
> > used for afterward? =EF=BF=BDI mean, in THIS country. =EF=BF=BDHow were=
images of these
> > horrible new weapons used to influence something in the United States?
> > This is a test question, and I'm making a point here, even though I sai=
d I
> > wouldn't earlier.
>
> I'll take this silence as evidence that no one knows what the fuck I'm
> talking about.



 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 20:50:30
From: OTB
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 18, 1:32=A0pm, Will in New Haven
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote:

> But the option LeMay gives is less acceptable on a humanitarian basis.
> In fact, they were both telling the truth, except for LeMay's totally
> unsupportable and imbecilic "two weeks." =A0Sustained blockade and
> strategic bombing _would_ have resulted in a Japanese surrender, after
> a much longer time and with a much greater loss of Japanese life.

Can you point to ANY nation that has surrendered as a result
of strategic bombing (with conventional weapons) alone?

Battle of Britain - no, just made them mad
Germany? no
Russia? nope
Iraq (both times) no
North Vietnam? no

I can't think of a single case.


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 20:22:17
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 18, 7:22=A0pm, Will in New Haven
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote:
>
> > Will, how much longer do you think it would have taken for Japan to
> > surrender if there was a naval blockade and the B-29 bombing campaign
> > continued?
>
> At least as many _lives_ and probably many more. The naval blockade
> was already in effect and the bombing just wasn't _impressing_ the
> hardass "my life is a feather" types in the army high command, the
> people who were the de facto government. The nukes impressed them.

Sure, the nukes impressed the Japanese to accept surrender and most
certainly the Russians as well! The combination of the blockade along
with the air campaign was very effective and achieving results.
Despite what some may call the "official" version, I don't believe for
one second that Truman would have committed large numbers of US ground
forces on the mainland.

Why would he need to?

The war was over for Japan. It's been said that Japan had begun
putting feelers out for surrender before the Potsdam Conference in
July,1945. If the atomic bombs were never used it would have just
delayed the eventual outcome with much greater losses for the
Japanese.

LeMay said two weeks. Even if he was exaggerating the Japanese would
have surrendered in less than two months after an all out air
offensive. Plans were underway to shift and relocate the heavy bombers
from Europe to the PTO. As bad as things were for the Japanese in
August it would have been much worse when the additional heavies from
Europe arrived on the scene.

Will, do you agree the Japanese would have surrendered in less than
two months?




 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 17:50:45
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 18, 8:08=A0pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
> news:a7c415ca-ea3a-44f3-b98b-
>
> > =A0_You_ want them to round up everyone
> > you don't like and put them in camps.
>
> That wouldn't be THE cops I was talking about. =A0That would be MY cops I=
was
> talking about! =A0See the difference?

Yep. Yours would be wearing brown shirts and giving the classic
fascist salute. Even our cops are better than your cops.

--
Will in New Haven


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 16:24:50
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 18, 4:35=A0pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
> news:41a427b3-3dd3-404d-8bd5-
>
> > I bet _she_ wouldn't fuck with you. Is that the cause of all this
> > hostility, you dumb fuck.
>
> Let's put the friendly and playful mock taunts that bond you and I togeth=
er
> aside for a moment. =A0Are you seriously going to tell me that you haven'=
t
> noticed what a fucking moron Jerry seems to be? =A0I mean, seriously? =A0=
Is this
> guy someone you'd want to see armed with a gun and driving around in a
> police car?

I don't have much use for cops. _You_ want them to round up everyone
you don't like and put them in camps. Jerry is probably better than
those of our local cops who have not been arrested by the feds yet. If
Jerry is armed, I hope he goes to the range once in awhile. The police
standard of marksmanship and inability to avoid collateral killing
annoys the shit out of me.

--
Will in New Haven


  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 06:48:01
From: Jerry Sturdivant
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians

"Paul Popinjay" scribbled:

>> Are you seriously going to tell me that you haven't
>> noticed what a fucking moron Jerry seems to be?

Gee, seems you're the only one here, Pop-in-eye. Hell; how long ago was it I
slapped you around a little and you're still pissed? Listen, you wart; make
your case about me or take the advice of others and STFU.


> I mean, seriously?

You? Serious? WHA! HA HA.

" I too was kept in dark closets for the longest of times when I was young."
-Paul Popinjay news:66tll.12934$D32.8529@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...



> Is this guy someone you'd want to see armed
> with a gun and driving around in a police car?

Next time you're in trouble, call a hippy. It's apparent an insult from you
really doesn't carry much weight.


----


"Will in New Haven":

> Jerry is probably better than those of our local cops who
> have not been arrested by the feds yet. If Jerry is armed,
> I hope he goes to the range once in awhile.

I quit being a cop 30-years ago. Part of my beat was relief patrol in Death
Valley, Calif. chasing Hell's Angels out of there. This is just Popinjay
crying about a discussion we had in the past; he couldn't handle it and
reverted to his "Dodge to the Insult" mode. He's been crying about me ever
since.



Jerry (long time retired) 'n Vegas








  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 17:08:28
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
"Will in New Haven" <bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote in message
news:a7c415ca-ea3a-44f3-b98b-

> _You_ want them to round up everyone
> you don't like and put them in camps.


That wouldn't be THE cops I was talking about. That would be MY cops I was
talking about! See the difference?





 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 16:22:04
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 18, 4:21=A0pm, Senator Millionaire <moon...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2:32=A0pm, Will in New Haven
>
>
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > But the option LeMay gives is less acceptable on a humanitarian basis.
> > In fact, they were both telling the truth, except for LeMay's totally
> > unsupportable and imbecilic "two weeks." =A0Sustained blockade and
> > strategic bombing _would_ have resulted in a Japanese surrender, after
> > a much longer time and with a much greater loss of Japanese life. If
> > Truman had only that and an invasion as options he might have chosen
> > it. He said that he would have chosen an invasion but who knows. But I
> > know LeMay was blowing smoke with his timetable. He reminds me at
> > times of the German air-power enthusiasts claiming that they could
> > keep Von Paulus supplied at Stalingrad entirely from the air. Flyboys
> > get a little over-enthusiastic.
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> Will, how much longer do you think it would have taken for Japan to
> surrender if there was a naval blockade and the B-29 bombing campaign
> continued?

At least as many _lives_ and probably many more. The naval blockade
was already in effect and the bombing just wasn't _impressing_ the
hardass "my life is a feather" types in the army high command, the
people who were the de facto government. The nukes impressed them.

How many days would it take for a combination of blockade and
conventional bombing to cause what the nukes caused. I don't know but
many more than that flyboy thought.

The perversion of the samurai tradition that made WWII Japan what it
was did not give much thought to human life. The IJA was willing to
extend this very personal code to _others_ and treat the lives of
millions as so many feathers.

--
Will in New Haven
"The way of the samurai is found in death. If by setting one's heart
right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his
body were already dead, he gains freedom in The Way. His whole life
will be without blame, and he will succeed in his calling."
-- "Hagakure Kikigaki", Yamamoto Tsunetomo


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 13:28:36
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 17, 1:09=A0pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net >
wrote:
>
> I just wanted to ask you if you've ever read about Operation Keelhaul.

Paul, I haven't read much about it other than what's online. What am I
missing out on?



  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 13:37:50
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:40b6e5c4-7d96-4b51-b585-

> Paul, I haven't read much about it other than what's online. What am I
> missing out on?



Nothin, I guess. I just saw you mention Eisenhower, and thought I'd bring
it up.




 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 13:21:35
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 18, 2:32=A0pm, Will in New Haven
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote:
>
> But the option LeMay gives is less acceptable on a humanitarian basis.
> In fact, they were both telling the truth, except for LeMay's totally
> unsupportable and imbecilic "two weeks." =A0Sustained blockade and
> strategic bombing _would_ have resulted in a Japanese surrender, after
> a much longer time and with a much greater loss of Japanese life. If
> Truman had only that and an invasion as options he might have chosen
> it. He said that he would have chosen an invasion but who knows. But I
> know LeMay was blowing smoke with his timetable. He reminds me at
> times of the German air-power enthusiasts claiming that they could
> keep Von Paulus supplied at Stalingrad entirely from the air. Flyboys
> get a little over-enthusiastic.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven

Will, how much longer do you think it would have taken for Japan to
surrender if there was a naval blockade and the B-29 bombing campaign
continued?



  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 13:42:52
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:0e3853f8-160d-43bd-8b3f-

> Will, how much longer do you think it would have taken for Japan to
> surrender if there was a naval blockade and the B-29 bombing campaign
> continued?


Can you tell me what specific propaganda campaign the mushroom clouds were
used for afterward? I mean, in THIS country. How were images of these
horrible new weapons used to influence something in the United States? This
is a test question, and I'm making a point here, even though I said I
wouldn't earlier.




   
Date: 18 Feb 2009 21:28:20
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
"Paul Popinjay" <paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net > wrote in message
news:Bh%ml.17173 >
> Can you tell me what specific propaganda campaign the mushroom clouds were
> used for afterward? I mean, in THIS country. How were images of these
> horrible new weapons used to influence something in the United States?
> This is a test question, and I'm making a point here, even though I said I
> wouldn't earlier.
>


I'll take this silence as evidence that no one knows what the fuck I'm
talking about.




    
Date: 19 Feb 2009 01:19:51
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:28:20 -0800, "Paul Popinjay"
<paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net > wrote:

>"Paul Popinjay" <paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:Bh%ml.17173>
>> Can you tell me what specific propaganda campaign the mushroom clouds were
>> used for afterward? I mean, in THIS country. How were images of these
>> horrible new weapons used to influence something in the United States?
>> This is a test question, and I'm making a point here, even though I said I
>> wouldn't earlier.

>I'll take this silence as evidence that no one knows what the fuck I'm
>talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKs-bTL-pRg


     
Date: 18 Feb 2009 23:11:05
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo > wrote in message
news:gfupp415ir4990psu59m5hcnvkheur7bbk@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:28:20 -0800, "Paul Popinjay"

>
>>I'll take this silence as evidence that no one knows what the fuck I'm
>>talking about.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKs-bTL-pRg


This was good, but I'm talking about 1945 specifically. If you can figure
it out, which probably nobody here can, I propose that THIS was the real
reason the bombs HAD to be dropped. The people behind this kinda shit, do
not give a fuck about killing hundreds of thousands of people to advance
their agenda. I'm talking CFR-types here. Few of you know much about it.
I don't think even the most objective of RGPers can grasp the evil I'm
talking about. Maybe Robert Ladd can.

Good effort anyway, Jacks.

-PP




      
Date: 21 Feb 2009 05:06:43
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
"Paul Popinjay" <paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net > wrote in message
news:%C7nl.14157
>
> This was good, but I'm talking about 1945 specifically. If you can figure
> it out, which probably nobody here can, I propose that THIS was the real
> reason the bombs HAD to be dropped.


Four days since that post, and apparently no one here can figure out what
the fuck I'm talking about. Gosh, this group is really weak. This is why I
often would rather just post to myself in my own little corner of RGP, with
no replies from anyone. Otherwise, I just get annoyed with you people.

-PP




 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 13:20:47
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 18, 2:47=A0pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> "Jerry Sturdivant" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:AtUml.12765$lk5.8308@newsfe13.iad...
>
>
>
> > "Paul Popinjay"
>
> >> I'm just surprised that they ever allowed you
> >> to be a policeman and carry a gun before.
>
> > That's what this is about. You're still jealous of those with the
> > authority you were never able to achieve.
>
> Jealous of what? =A0Being a cop? =A0Don't make me laugh. =A0I've never wa=
nted to
> beat up vagrants. =A0I've never wanted merchants to bribe me with free st=
uff.
> Get real, flat foot! =A0And don't reply to my posts anymore. =A0I will re=
port
> you. =A0And I mean it this time. =A0I met Elizabeth Montgomery once. =A0D=
on't fuck
> with me.

I bet _she_ wouldn't fuck with you. Is that the cause of all this
hostility, you dumb fuck.

--
Will in New Haven


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 13:35:05
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
"Will in New Haven" <bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote in message
news:41a427b3-3dd3-404d-8bd5-

> I bet _she_ wouldn't fuck with you. Is that the cause of all this
> hostility, you dumb fuck.


Let's put the friendly and playful mock taunts that bond you and I together
aside for a moment. Are you seriously going to tell me that you haven't
noticed what a fucking moron Jerry seems to be? I mean, seriously? Is this
guy someone you'd want to see armed with a gun and driving around in a
police car?




 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 11:32:46
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 18, 1:46=A0pm, Senator Millionaire <moon...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 1:28=A0pm, Will in New Haven
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > Is being killed in a firebombing attack on a city built largely of
> > wood and paper somehow better than being killed in a nuclear blast?
> > If LeMay keeps the B-29s rolling in than your humanitarian objection,
> > with which I am sympathetic, to the use of nuclear weapons becomes
> > rather moot.
>
> > Will in New Haven
>
> Will, you bring up some good points. Strangely enough, it seems the
> Imperial Japanese Army gets the softball treatment in American
> education, the media, and most publications which deal with the period
> surrounding the 1930's and 40's. The IJA was certainly on par with
> Nazi Germany in terms of brutality but this rarely gets mentioned.
>
> Why is that?

Several reasons. The Germans were mistreating _Europeans_ and we
identify more strongly with Europeans, for one. Also, the forces
directly opposed to our forces were mostly IJN, including many of the
ground forces. The IJA operated more in China. The war against the US
was fought to benefit the IJA conquest of China (to supply them with
oil) but it was mostly fought by the IJN, which didn't want to fight
the US in the first place.

>
> Perhaps this is due to the America's long association with Europe.
> Maybe it=92s because more books have been written about Nazi Germany
> than Imperial Japan. Heck, maybe the focus remains on Germany because
> America dropped the atomic bombs on Japan so it's swept under the
> carpet.
>
> Truman could have just firebombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with B-29's
> and the death count and destruction could have easily been the same or
> greater. It is possible that Truman envisioned a near future conflict
> with the Soviet Union. If this is the case, then perhaps the decision
> to drop the bomb was political and not strategic.

Also psychological. The war party within the Japanese government was
apparently not disturbed by the massive casualties in Tokyo,
casualties they often passed on their way to staff meetings,
casualties often happening right down the block. The sight of large
parts of Tokyo burning didn't disturb them, or we thought it didn't
and they wanted us to think it didn't. The nuclear bombs made it
clearer to them that they had no hope. Even so many did not want to
surrender.

The political motivation was also there. Almost nothing has ever been
done on that scale with only a single motive. Warning Stalin that we
were capable of such a thing was supposed to slow him down, I'm sure.
And not because we were afraid we might wind up with a split Japan. It
was in Europe that Stalin was likely to be ambitious. And it didn't
work that well. Stalin still gobbled up everything within range of the
fuel supplies for his T-34s.

>
> Some may not question America=92s long-term image resulting from
> Truman=92s decision while others do. But one thing is certain, Truman=92s
> decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan will forever face scrutiny.
> It=92s very easy for those of us who enjoy the security, comforts, and
> relative safety of living and working in America that we can easily
> become indifferent to our image abroad. Whether you agreed with
> Truman's decision or not. America's use of atomic bombs on Japan has
> provided our adversaries from the past, present, and the future a
> propaganda extravaganza of the highest magnitude. Think about that!

It certainly has and you back them up on it.

>
> Jerry wants to believe the atomic bombings helped to prevent a land
> invasion of the Japanese mainland, thus saving the lives of almost a
> million servicemen. Because that's what Truman said, right?

That's what the men in my neighborhood believed and they were Marine
veterans of the island-hopping campaign.

>
> In my opinion, there's absolutely no way in hell that Truman would
> have committed US ground forces on the ground into mainland Japan
> until a complete surrender was final. Truman was fully aware of the
> casualties resulting from the Battle of Okinawa which totaled more
> than 38,000 Americans wounded and 12,000 killed or missing.
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa-battle.htm
>
> Maybe the question about Truman's decision all boils down to who you
> want to believe. Truman or LeMay? I choose to believe General Curtis
> LeMay.

But the option LeMay gives is less acceptable on a humanitarian basis.
In fact, they were both telling the truth, except for LeMay's totally
unsupportable and imbecilic "two weeks." Sustained blockade and
strategic bombing _would_ have resulted in a Japanese surrender, after
a much longer time and with a much greater loss of Japanese life. If
Truman had only that and an invasion as options he might have chosen
it. He said that he would have chosen an invasion but who knows. But I
know LeMay was blowing smoke with his timetable. He reminds me at
times of the German air-power enthusiasts claiming that they could
keep Von Paulus supplied at Stalingrad entirely from the air. Flyboys
get a little over-enthusiastic.

--
Will in New Haven

>
> On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First
> Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in The New
> York Herald Tribune) publicly:
>
> said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing
> to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over
> in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry
> into the war. (See p. 336, Chapter 27)
>
> The text of the press conference provides these details:
>
> LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians
> entering and without the atomic bomb.
>
> The Press: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic
> bomb?
>
> LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at
> all. =A0(See p. 336, Chapter 27)
>
> On other occasions in internal histories and elsewhere LeMay gave even
> shorter estimates of how long the war might have lasted (e.g., "a few
> days"). (See pp. 336-341, Chapter 27)
>
> If Jerry chooses to believe Truman instead of LeMay then who can argue
> with that. Since LeMay was commanding the air strikes against Japan he
> definitely knew more than Truman.
>
> http://39th.org/39th/hc/b29decisive-factor.htm
>
> "During the last nine months of the war the 20th Air Force flew 3331
> combat missions (24,665 bombing sorties) dropping 155,041 tons of
> bombs and mines; 318 B-29's were lost. The Japanese Air Force lost 377
> planes with 245 probables, and 417 aircraft badly damaged.
>
> Between June of 1944 and August 1945, B-29's flew a combined 380
> bombing missions (26,611 bomb sorties) and dropped 167,448 tons of
> bombs and mines and lost 402 B-29's while shooting down 871 enemy
> aircraft as well as 565 probables and damaging 1,090.
>
> Perhaps the greatest accomplishments of the 20th AF was during the
> last five months of the war. Five major industrial areas received 44.1
> percent of all the 20th Air Force tonnage. These industrial centers
> were Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Yokohoma, and Kobe. Damage to these areas
> ranged from 25 per cent in Osaka to 43 per cent in Nagoya. The
> aircraft industry in those areas was 50 per cent destroyed. The
> industrial area of Kobe was 41 per cent destroyed. The area gutted by
> these strikes was 103.22 square miles. These major industries were
> considered to be essentially out of the war.
>
> Sixty-four other cities were burned to the ground. About 72 square
> miles of urban areas in these cities were completely destroyed.
> Takamatsu was 89.3 per cent destroyed. Low level raids ordered by
> General Curtis Le May burned out 175 square miles of urban area in 69
> cities leaving over 9,000,000 people homeless."



 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 10:46:29
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 17, 1:28=A0pm, Will in New Haven
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote:
>
> Is being killed in a firebombing attack on a city built largely of
> wood and paper somehow better than being killed in a nuclear blast?
> If LeMay keeps the B-29s rolling in than your humanitarian objection,
> with which I am sympathetic, to the use of nuclear weapons becomes
> rather moot.
>
> Will in New Haven

Will, you bring up some good points. Strangely enough, it seems the
Imperial Japanese Army gets the softball treatment in American
education, the media, and most publications which deal with the period
surrounding the 1930's and 40's. The IJA was certainly on par with
Nazi Germany in terms of brutality but this rarely gets mentioned.

Why is that?

Perhaps this is due to the America's long association with Europe.
Maybe it=92s because more books have been written about Nazi Germany
than Imperial Japan. Heck, maybe the focus remains on Germany because
America dropped the atomic bombs on Japan so it's swept under the
carpet.

Truman could have just firebombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with B-29's
and the death count and destruction could have easily been the same or
greater. It is possible that Truman envisioned a near future conflict
with the Soviet Union. If this is the case, then perhaps the decision
to drop the bomb was political and not strategic.

Some may not question America=92s long-term image resulting from
Truman=92s decision while others do. But one thing is certain, Truman=92s
decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan will forever face scrutiny.
It=92s very easy for those of us who enjoy the security, comforts, and
relative safety of living and working in America that we can easily
become indifferent to our image abroad. Whether you agreed with
Truman's decision or not. America's use of atomic bombs on Japan has
provided our adversaries from the past, present, and the future a
propaganda extravaganza of the highest magnitude. Think about that!

Jerry wants to believe the atomic bombings helped to prevent a land
invasion of the Japanese mainland, thus saving the lives of almost a
million servicemen. Because that's what Truman said, right?

In my opinion, there's absolutely no way in hell that Truman would
have committed US ground forces on the ground into mainland Japan
until a complete surrender was final. Truman was fully aware of the
casualties resulting from the Battle of Okinawa which totaled more
than 38,000 Americans wounded and 12,000 killed or missing.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa-battle.htm

Maybe the question about Truman's decision all boils down to who you
want to believe. Truman or LeMay? I choose to believe General Curtis
LeMay.

On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First
Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in The New
York Herald Tribune) publicly:

said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing
to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over
in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry
into the war. (See p. 336, Chapter 27)

The text of the press conference provides these details:

LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians
entering and without the atomic bomb.

The Press: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic
bomb?

LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at
all. (See p. 336, Chapter 27)

On other occasions in internal histories and elsewhere LeMay gave even
shorter estimates of how long the war might have lasted (e.g., "a few
days"). (See pp. 336-341, Chapter 27)

If Jerry chooses to believe Truman instead of LeMay then who can argue
with that. Since LeMay was commanding the air strikes against Japan he
definitely knew more than Truman.

http://39th.org/39th/hc/b29decisive-factor.htm

"During the last nine months of the war the 20th Air Force flew 3331
combat missions (24,665 bombing sorties) dropping 155,041 tons of
bombs and mines; 318 B-29's were lost. The Japanese Air Force lost 377
planes with 245 probables, and 417 aircraft badly damaged.

Between June of 1944 and August 1945, B-29's flew a combined 380
bombing missions (26,611 bomb sorties) and dropped 167,448 tons of
bombs and mines and lost 402 B-29's while shooting down 871 enemy
aircraft as well as 565 probables and damaging 1,090.

Perhaps the greatest accomplishments of the 20th AF was during the
last five months of the war. Five major industrial areas received 44.1
percent of all the 20th Air Force tonnage. These industrial centers
were Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Yokohoma, and Kobe. Damage to these areas
ranged from 25 per cent in Osaka to 43 per cent in Nagoya. The
aircraft industry in those areas was 50 per cent destroyed. The
industrial area of Kobe was 41 per cent destroyed. The area gutted by
these strikes was 103.22 square miles. These major industries were
considered to be essentially out of the war.

Sixty-four other cities were burned to the ground. About 72 square
miles of urban areas in these cities were completely destroyed.
Takamatsu was 89.3 per cent destroyed. Low level raids ordered by
General Curtis Le May burned out 175 square miles of urban area in 69
cities leaving over 9,000,000 people homeless."



 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 06:35:41
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 17, 9:50=A0pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> "Jerry Sturdivant" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:XMIml.13974$fM1.3753@newsfe14.iad...
>
> > Wow! What an argument from our 10=A2 Historian.
>
> > Piss up a rope, kid, adults are talking.
>
> > Jerry 'n Vegas
>
> Jerry, please, I was not talking to you. =A0Yes, I did mention your name.=
=A0But
> that is not an open invitation to you to reply to my posts. =A0I have ask=
ed
> you before to refrain from replying to my posts. =A0I'm sorry, Jerry, but=
you
> are just too stupid for words, and I cannot allow your replying to my pos=
ts.
> I try to maintain a certain standard as to the kinds of posters on this
> newsgroup that I will welcome replies from. =A0You are not up to that
> standard. =A0I am quite sure that 98% of RGPers would agree that you are =
not
> up to my standard. =A0I'm just surprised that they ever allowed you to be=
a
> policeman and carry a gun before. =A0That's pretty scary.

Is it scary that I have a permit to carry and hate you more than he
does Paul?

If you don't want me to reply to your posts there is only one thing
you have to do you know.

Kill yourself.

--
Will in New Haven



 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 14:21:55
From: BTSinAustin
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 16 2009 11:59 AM, Senator Millionaire wrote:

> The other day, I was reading about Truman's low final approval rating
> as he left office so I was surprised to see him ranked so high. His
> final approval ranking when he left office was very low.
>
> http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx
>
> I do not agree with this ranking. Truman authorized the two
> devastating nuclear bombings of Japan because it was supposed to have
> saved about a million American lives. In my opinion, Japan was already
> very near to surrender as thousands of bombing sorties were
> relentlessly being launched by the U.S. The Japanese surrender was
> imminent but Truman bombed them anyway.
>
> Russia was moving in from the north and Truman did not want Japan to
> be divided like Germany. So he ordered the nuclear bombings of Japan
> to end the conflict quickly and keep the Russians out.
>
> Truman could have achieved the same unconditional surrender, and kept
> the Russians out, without resorting to nuclear weapons. That's my
> opinion.
>
> Am I right or wrong here?

We killed way more people in the fire bombings, why does it being a nuke
make it worse? Dead is dead.

------ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 10:28:56
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 17, 10:20=A0am, Senator Millionaire <moon...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 9:53=A0am, "Jerry Sturdivant" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Senator Millionaire"
>
> > > Hi Jerry! I guess you skipped over what LeMay said
> > > in September of 1945, a month after the surrender:
>
> > Nope.
>
> > > LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without
> > > the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.
>
> > But the Russians were in. And LaMay was a flyer and figured everything =
could
> > be done from the air. (Which it eventually was). MacArthur had it right=
;
> > until, he too decided to 'keep moving' in Korea. I don't even believe
> > MacArthur was right about going back to the Philippines. Island hopping
> > worked rather well until then.
>
> > > LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing
> > > to do with the end of the war at all.
>
> Jerry, you're taking at face value what Truman was saying about the
> land invasion of mainland Japan. Sure, the Russians wanted in but
> Japans military and industry was already destroyed by August, 1945.
> The U.S. Navy would have blockaded Japan and kept the Russians out
> while LeMay kept the B-29's rolling in.- Hide quoted text -

Is being killed in a firebombing attack on a city built largely of
wood and paper somehow better than being killed in a nuclear blast?
If LeMay keeps the B-29s rolling in than your humanitarian objection,
with which I am sympathetic, to the use of nuclear weapons becomes
rather moot.

The question becomes similar to "do you want Paul Popinjay put in a
cuisinart and ground into tiny pieces or do you want him to step on a
nail and die horribly of tentanus?" As you see, it doesn't matter much
which you choose. And the only humane answer to that question is "yes"
but the humane answer to "how do we bomb Japanese cities" is "no."

If we are going to give up strategic bombing and not just give up the
use of nukes, how do we get the Japanese to surrender? Remember, the
"peace feelers" everyone has talked about were unauthorized. The
people involved _might_ have been able to deliver a peace if they
could get the ear of the emperor and the millitary leaders didn't kill
them but they did not have the authority to negotiate.


--
Will in New Haven




 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 07:20:24
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 17, 9:53=A0am, "Jerry Sturdivant" <jerr...@cox.net > wrote:
> "Senator Millionaire"
>
> > Hi Jerry! I guess you skipped over what LeMay said
> > in September of 1945, a month after the surrender:
>
> Nope.
>
> > LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without
> > the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.
>
> But the Russians were in. And LaMay was a flyer and figured everything co=
uld
> be done from the air. (Which it eventually was). MacArthur had it right;
> until, he too decided to 'keep moving' in Korea. I don't even believe
> MacArthur was right about going back to the Philippines. Island hopping
> worked rather well until then.
>
> > LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing
> > to do with the end of the war at all.

Jerry, you're taking at face value what Truman was saying about the
land invasion of mainland Japan. Sure, the Russians wanted in but
Japans military and industry was already destroyed by August, 1945.
The U.S. Navy would have blockaded Japan and kept the Russians out
while LeMay kept the B-29's rolling in.


  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 16:44:54
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 21, 7:35=A0pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> "Senator Millionaire" <moon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:55dac32c-fafb-419c-aa60-
>
> > Paul, when are you going to spill the beans? If you have a good theory
> > based on good research lets hear it!
>
> What do you think I am? =A0Mr. Easy Breezy? =A0I don't THINK so! =A0This =
newsgroup
> has already been blessed by my sharing of my knowledge. =A0Not only does =
no
> one kiss my ass as they should be doing, but I didn't even get an email f=
or
> my birthday. =A0Nope, unless I see some drastic change in RGPers' attitud=
es
> soon, I'm afraid the vault is currently locked! =A0I think this little re=
d hen
> is going to eat her own bread for now.

Would my hoping that you walk in front of a fucking truck be enough of
a change in attitude?

--
Will in New Haven


   
Date: 21 Feb 2009 17:05:25
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
"Will in New Haven" <bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote in message
news:00411087-e4d8-44c2-a18b-0172714eb4f2@u13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 21, 7:35 pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> "Senator Millionaire" <moon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:55dac32c-fafb-419c-aa60-
>
> > Paul, when are you going to spill the beans? If you have a good theory
> > based on good research lets hear it!
>
> What do you think I am? Mr. Easy Breezy? I don't THINK so! This newsgroup
> has already been blessed by my sharing of my knowledge. Not only does no
> one kiss my ass as they should be doing, but I didn't even get an email
> for
> my birthday. Nope, unless I see some drastic change in RGPers' attitudes
> soon, I'm afraid the vault is currently locked! I think this little red
> hen
> is going to eat her own bread for now.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Would my hoping that you walk in front of a fucking truck be enough of
> a change in attitude?


Hold that thought for a moment, Will. Wait right here, let me check my
inbox. brb






    
Date: 21 Feb 2009 17:07:48
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
"Paul Popinjay" <paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net > wrote in message
news:Dx1ol.16784$YU2.5025@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message

>
>> Would my hoping that you walk in front of a fucking truck be enough of
>> a change in attitude?
>
>
> Hold that thought for a moment, Will. Wait right here, let me check my
> inbox. brb
>

Uhh, nope! Just as I kinda suspected. No happy birthday email from you
either. :-(




     
Date: 21 Feb 2009 19:00:04
From: Steam
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 21 2009 5:07 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote:

> "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Dx1ol.16784$YU2.5025@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
> > "Will in New Haven" <bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
>
> >
> >> Would my hoping that you walk in front of a fucking truck be enough of
> >> a change in attitude?
> >
> >
> > Hold that thought for a moment, Will. Wait right here, let me check my
> > inbox. brb
> >
>
> Uhh, nope! Just as I kinda suspected. No happy birthday email from you
> either. :-(

All right then, happy birthday.

_____________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




      
Date: 21 Feb 2009 22:17:14
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
"Steam" <a74baac@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:kmr676xdds.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Feb 21 2009 5:07 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
>
>> "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:Dx1ol.16784$YU2.5025@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> > "Will in New Haven" <bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >
>> >> Would my hoping that you walk in front of a fucking truck be enough of
>> >> a change in attitude?
>> >
>> >
>> > Hold that thought for a moment, Will. Wait right here, let me check my
>> > inbox. brb
>> >
>>
>> Uhh, nope! Just as I kinda suspected. No happy birthday email from you
>> either. :-(
>
> All right then, happy birthday.
>

Thanks Steamer. It was in November. That's ok, my parents forgot too.




  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 15:45:52
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 21, 8:06=A0am, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net >
wrote:
>
> Four days since that post, and apparently no one here can figure out what
> the fuck I'm talking about. =A0Gosh, this group is really weak. =A0This i=
s why I
> often would rather just post to myself in my own little corner of RGP, wi=
th
> no replies from anyone. =A0Otherwise, I just get annoyed with you people.
>
> -PP

Paul, when are you going to spill the beans? If you have a good theory
based on good research lets hear it!



   
Date: 21 Feb 2009 16:35:51
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:55dac32c-fafb-419c-aa60-

> Paul, when are you going to spill the beans? If you have a good theory
> based on good research lets hear it!


What do you think I am? Mr. Easy Breezy? I don't THINK so! This newsgroup
has already been blessed by my sharing of my knowledge. Not only does no
one kiss my ass as they should be doing, but I didn't even get an email for
my birthday. Nope, unless I see some drastic change in RGPers' attitudes
soon, I'm afraid the vault is currently locked! I think this little red hen
is going to eat her own bread for now.







    
Date: 22 Feb 2009 05:35:45
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians

"Paul Popinjay" <paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net > wrote in message
news:071ol.16783$YU2.2469@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:55dac32c-fafb-419c-aa60-
>
>> Paul, when are you going to spill the beans? If you have a good theory
>> based on good research lets hear it!
>
>
> What do you think I am? Mr. Easy Breezy? I don't THINK so! This
> newsgroup
> has already been blessed by my sharing of my knowledge. Not only does no
> one kiss my ass as they should be doing, but I didn't even get an email
> for
> my birthday. Nope, unless I see some drastic change in RGPers' attitudes
> soon, I'm afraid the vault is currently locked! I think this little red
> hen
> is going to eat her own bread for now.
>
What day do you count as your birthday?
The day your personality split from Willie, or the day of your first
sockpuppet post?

>
>
>
>




  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 23:30:34
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
Hell Paul, in 1945, the US was having plans drawn up to totally
destroy communism. Casually estimates would have been a minimum of
300,000,000 dead, as Russia and China were the targets.





On Feb 18, 11:11=EF=BF=BDpm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> "A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nob...@fool.foo> wrote in messagenews:gfupp415ir=
4990psu59m5hcnvkheur7bbk@4ax.com...
>
> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:28:20 -0800, "Paul Popinjay"
>
> >>I'll take this silence as evidence that no one knows what the fuck I'm
> >>talking about.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DOKs-bTL-pRg
>
> This was good, but I'm talking about 1945 specifically. =EF=BF=BDIf you c=
an figure
> it out, which probably nobody here can, I propose that THIS was the real
> reason the bombs HAD to be dropped. =EF=BF=BDThe people behind this kinda=
shit, do
> not give a fuck about killing hundreds of thousands of people to advance
> their agenda. =EF=BF=BDI'm talking CFR-types here. =EF=BF=BDFew of you kn=
ow much about it.
> I don't think even the most objective of RGPers can grasp the evil I'm
> talking about. =EF=BF=BDMaybe Robert Ladd can.
>
> Good effort anyway, Jacks.
>
> -PP



   
Date: 18 Feb 2009 23:38:43
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
<RussGeorgiev@aol.com > wrote in message
news:b4dca953-0a97-4d94-b7d8-43e92a3fae04@m40g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> Hell Paul, in 1945, the US was having plans drawn up to totally
> destroy communism.


Sorry Russ, but STRONGLY disagree with that. It was, in fact, just the
opposite. The US was planning to build up and make communism stronger. And
those plans were carried out.




  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 16:35:52
From: Jerry Sturdivant
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians

"Senator Millionaire"

>> But the Russians were in. And LaMay was a flyer
>> and figured everything could be done from the air.
>> (Which it eventually was). MacArthur had it right;
>>
>> LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing
>> to do with the end of the war at all.

> Jerry, you're taking at face value what Truman
> was saying about the land invasion of mainland Japan.

Yes. As you're taking at face value what LaMay said. I believe Truman had a
greater amount of data and overall information.


> Sure, the Russians wanted in but Japans military and industry
> was already destroyed by August, 1945. The U.S. Navy would
> have blockaded Japan and kept the Russians out while LeMay
> kept the B-29's rolling in.

Ending, eventually, with the same results. In this case LeMay's job was
completed faster. And faster has proved to be the key. It's been shown the
citizenry was tiring of the war and our country was going broke. Were it not
for "Buy War Bonds" we wouldn't have lasted as long as we did.


Jerry 'n Vegas






  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 09:54:49
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:2ad6ad4f-1c6d-4746-86f1-

> Jerry, you're taking at face value what Truman was saying about the
> land invasion of mainland Japan.


And Senator, you are taking at face value what Jerry is saying. I don't
think you fully appreciate yet what a braindead cro-magnon he is. But
you'll see, and sooner than later too. Just watch. Go ahead, continue the
dialog with him, and I give it maybe three or four more replies, and it will
become painfully apparent.






   
Date: 17 Feb 2009 16:39:17
From: Jerry Sturdivant
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians

"Paul Popinjay"

> Jerry, you're taking at face value what Truman was
> saying about the land invasion of mainland Japan.

> And Senator, you are taking at face value what Jerry is
> saying. I don't think you fully appreciate yet what a
> braindead cro-magnon he is.

Wow! What an argument from our 10¢ Historian.


Waa! But you'll see, and sooner than later too.
Waa! Just watch.
Waa! Go ahead, continue the dialog with him
Waa! and I give it maybe three or four more replies…

Piss up a rope, kid, adults are talking.


Jerry ‘n Vegas










    
Date: 17 Feb 2009 18:50:50
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
"Jerry Sturdivant" <jerryst@cox.net > wrote in message
news:XMIml.13974$fM1.3753@newsfe14.iad...

> Wow! What an argument from our 10¢ Historian.
>

>
> Piss up a rope, kid, adults are talking.
>
>
> Jerry 'n Vegas
>

Jerry, please, I was not talking to you. Yes, I did mention your name. But
that is not an open invitation to you to reply to my posts. I have asked
you before to refrain from replying to my posts. I'm sorry, Jerry, but you
are just too stupid for words, and I cannot allow your replying to my posts.
I try to maintain a certain standard as to the kinds of posters on this
newsgroup that I will welcome replies from. You are not up to that
standard. I am quite sure that 98% of RGPers would agree that you are not
up to my standard. I'm just surprised that they ever allowed you to be a
policeman and carry a gun before. That's pretty scary.

-Paul Popinjay




     
Date: 18 Feb 2009 05:57:41
From: Jerry Sturdivant
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians

"Paul Popinjay"

>>> And Senator, you are taking at face value what Jerry is
>>> saying. I don't think you fully appreciate yet what a
>>> braindead cro-magnon he is.

>> Wow! What an argument from our 10¢ Historian.

> Jerry, please, I was not talking to you.
> Yes, I did mention your name.

Oh, save the fake wounds kid; you’re always butting in and bitching at
something other than the thread at hand.


> But that is not an open invitation to you to reply to my posts.

Yea, it was. You butted in with nothing but an insult to me.


> I have asked you before to refrain from replying to my posts.

Then but out of MY conversations with others like you did in this one.


> I'm sorry…

You sure as hell are. I see why others poke fun at you.


> Jerry, but you are just too stupid for words,
> and I cannot allow your replying to my posts.

Then do like I said and keep out of my conversations or at least address the
thread.


> I try to maintain a certain standard …

WHA! HA HA. Thanks for the humor!


> I'm just surprised that they ever allowed you
> to be a policeman and carry a gun before.

That’s what this is about. You’re still jealous of those with the authority
you were never able to achieve. They made me a cop because you’re obviously
not as smart as they were; which is reflective of the fact you weren’t smart
enough to address this thread but just toss in a few childish insults. Now
buzz off.



Jerry ‘n Vegas








      
Date: 18 Feb 2009 11:47:28
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
"Jerry Sturdivant" <jerryst@cox.net > wrote in message
news:AtUml.12765$lk5.8308@newsfe13.iad...
>
> "Paul Popinjay"
>
>
>> I'm just surprised that they ever allowed you
>> to be a policeman and carry a gun before.
>
> That's what this is about. You're still jealous of those with the
> authority you were never able to achieve.


Jealous of what? Being a cop? Don't make me laugh. I've never wanted to
beat up vagrants. I've never wanted merchants to bribe me with free stuff.
Get real, flat foot! And don't reply to my posts anymore. I will report
you. And I mean it this time. I met Elizabeth Montgomery once. Don't fuck
with me.






 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 06:44:11
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 17, 4:45=A0am, Senator Millionaire <moon...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I was hoping to hear more than I did from my 8th grade teacher in this
> thread but I haven't yet. I haven't got a link yet either but I'm
> patiently waiting for one! I am seriously baffled as to why the
> historians ranked him number five.

Oh, the overall ranking is certainly something one can dispute. And
I'm not saying that the jury is in on the bomb, either. I never
thought strategic bombing was a good idea and I still don't. But
firebombing Japanese cities was just as bad and an invasion would have
been worse.

But he integrated the armed forces and he did some other positive
things that would cause me to rate him as above-average. But fifth is
very high and I don't say that he deserved that.

And every such list is subjective and depends on what you want a
President to do.

--
Will in New Haven


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 06:39:00
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
Hi Jerry! I guess you skipped over what LeMay said in September of
1945, a month after the surrender:

LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians
entering and without the atomic bomb.

The Press: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic
bomb?

LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at
all.


Are you aware that LeMay was in charge of U.S.Army Air Force? Your
comments are suggesting that LeMays opinion and assessment doesn't
count.

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm


  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 06:53:13
From: Jerry Sturdivant
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians

"Senator Millionaire"

> Hi Jerry! I guess you skipped over what LeMay said
> in September of 1945, a month after the surrender:

Nope.


> LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without
> the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.

But the Russians were in. And LaMay was a flyer and figured everything could
be done from the air. (Which it eventually was). MacArthur had it right;
until, he too decided to 'keep moving' in Korea. I don't even believe
MacArthur was right about going back to the Philippines. Island hopping
worked rather well until then.


> LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing
> to do with the end of the war at all.

Except force the surrender early and save our dad's lives.


> Are you aware that LeMay was in charge of U.S.Army Air Force?

Yep.

> Your comments are suggesting that LeMays
> opinion and assessment doesn't count.

Yep.


Jerry 'n Vegas







 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 01:45:50
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
I was hoping to hear more than I did from my 8th grade teacher in this
thread but I haven't yet. I haven't got a link yet either but I'm
patiently waiting for one! I am seriously baffled as to why the
historians ranked him number five.


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 01:06:00
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:c20edba5-7ea1-432b-b468-
>
> I do not agree with this ranking. Truman authorized the two
> devastating nuclear bombings of Japan because it was supposed to have
> saved about a million American lives. In my opinion, Japan was already
> very near to surrender as thousands of bombing sorties were
> relentlessly being launched by the U.S. The Japanese surrender was
> imminent but Truman bombed them anyway.
>


I posted something similar about a year ago, and I was blasted by several of
the regular RGP morons, and also some new morons who just happened to show
up for my thread, and only my thread. They must spend a lot of time
searching usenet so they can perpetuate their propaganda. I wrote that the
Japanese were indeed trying to surrender, and our leaders were determined to
drop those A-bombs no matter what. There were other reasons for dropping
them, requiring logic too sophisticated for the "Stephen Jacobs"-type
know-it-alls spouting off in this thread to understand, even though they
think they understand everything. I really don't have the patience to go
into explaining those reasons right now.

-PP




  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 10:08:38
From: Stephen Jacobs
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians

"Paul Popinjay" <paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net > wrote in message
news:f6vml.17058$yr3.6138@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
..........
> I wrote that the Japanese were indeed trying to surrender, and our leaders
> were determined to drop those A-bombs no matter what. There were other
> reasons for dropping them, requiring logic too sophisticated for the
> "Stephen Jacobs"-type know-it-alls spouting off in this thread to
> understand, even though they think they understand everything. I really
> don't have the patience to go into explaining those reasons right now.
>

It doesn't matter what other reasons there may have been for using atomic
bombs against Japan. The simple reason of military necessity was enough.

The existence of a faction within the Japanese government and military
command that would support fighting to the last child with a sharp stick is
unarguable (they talked and wrote enough). It appears that the Emperor was
effectively the swing vote between the crazies and the realists, and the
twin catastrophies of atomic bombings and Russian re-entry convinced him to
switch sides. (note that the firebombing of Tokyo did not do that). By
definition, the overtures at negotiation were with the realists. Until the
Emperor was convinced that only bad and worse things would come of
continuing to fight, the realists would not have been able to deliver a
surrender. [Don't think assassination; the Heir Apparent was under the
control of crazies, which has something to do with why the crazies tried at
the end to overthrow the Emperor]. The coup demonstrates HOW crazy the
crazies were. Saipan, somewhat more than Okinawa or Iwo Jima, demonstrates
how crazy the crazies were.

One may argue that total defeat of Japan wasn't necessary. With no ability
to project force beyond the Home Islands, would it matter what its
government said? I have my doubts about the military feasibility of ending
a major war that way, but I'm very sure that it was politically impossible
for the US.

Say your piece when you have time and evidence, Paul, but get the gorilla
out of the room first thing.




   
Date: 17 Feb 2009 16:52:27
From: Jerry Sturdivant
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians

"Stephen Jacobs"
> Saipan, somewhat more than Okinawa or Iwo
> Jima, demonstrates how crazy the crazies were.

That’s true enough. Wasn’t Saipan where Truman decided NOT to use poison gas
because he though it would be ‘in bad taste?’ Whichever island it was, it
cost something like 6,000 of our soldier’s lives. And then he used the Big
Bomb on the homeland, considered by some to be in bad taste.

So go the winds of war.


> One may argue that total defeat of Japan wasn't necessary.
> With no ability to project force beyond the Home Islands,
> would it matter what its government said?

There were all those outlying Japanese’s possessions (Manchuria and such).
It’s where MacArthur shined over Bush’s ‘general’ in Iraq. MacArthur used
the defeated Japanese by ordering their generals to have their soldiers
remain as police and peacekeepers until local governments could be
established. Thereby using the defeated Japanese army. It how we should have
used Iraqi’s defeated military, rather than disband them.


Jerry ‘n Vegas







   
Date: 17 Feb 2009 10:02:01
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
"Stephen Jacobs" <jacosa@comcast.net > wrote in message news:RqydnUSUT-

>
> Say your piece when you have time and evidence,


Nope. I'm NOT speaking with you. Don't talk to me. And I demand that you
don't read my posts either. Or I will report you.




  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 05:49:28
From: Jerry Sturdivant
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians


"Senator Millionaire"


> Truman authorized the two devastating nuclear bombings of
> Japan because it was supposed to have saved about a million
> American lives.

As indeed it did; my father among them. He was in training with virtually
tens of thousands of Marines that were to go ashore on mainland Japan. They
were training for an initial 80% casualty rate.


> In my opinion, Japan was already very near to surrender
> as thousands of bombing sorties were relentlessly being
> launched by the U.S.

Do you have anything beside opinion on that?


> The Japanese surrender was imminent
> but Truman bombed them anyway.

No, it was not imminent. It took a second bomb, and even at that, the pride
of the Japanese military wouldn’t allow them to surrender. MacArthur was
smart enough not to bomb the Imperial Palace and their ‘God,’ and it was
Hirohito that ordered they throw in the bloody towel.


Jerry ‘n Vegas







 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 00:20:27
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
OTB, sure politics may have had a lot to do with the comments made by
the military leaders particularly those comments that were made years
later. General Curtis LeMay said a month after the Japanese surrender.

LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians
entering and without the atomic bomb.

The Press: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic
bomb?

LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at
all.

Since you brought up politics. Have you ever considered the
possibility that dropping the bombs was actually a political decision
and not a strategic one?

Feel free to post any links and I'll gladly review them. Thanks.

Have you ever considered that dropping the bombs was a political
decision and not a strategic one?



 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 22:45:02
From: OTB
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 17, 12:38=A0am, Senator Millionaire <moon...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 1:26=A0am, OTB <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes, you are wrong. =A0Go take a look at how many casualties on both
> > sides
> > at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. =A0Also look at how many Japanese soldiers
> > surrendered in those battles and the damage being done to the US
> > fleet by the kamakazi.
>
> > The Japanese showed no sign of giving up without a MASSIVE loss
> > of life during the invasion of the homeland islands. =A0I'm glad that
> > the loss of life from the atomic bombs was all theirs and not ours.
>
> > Sorry, but I have no sympathy at all for the Japanese in WWII.
>
> OTB, I know how many casualties there were and I also know how tough
> and cruel the Japanese were. So you disagree with Eisenhower, LeMay,
> MacArthur and other military leaders? Did you read some of their
> quotes at the colorado.edu link I posted?

Politics. Particularly in the case of MacArthur, there was no
love lost between him and Truman.

So, you know how many casualties there were at Iwo and Okinawa?
Why not post it?



 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 22:38:46
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 17, 1:26=A0am, OTB <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
> Yes, you are wrong. =A0Go take a look at how many casualties on both
> sides
> at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. =A0Also look at how many Japanese soldiers
> surrendered in those battles and the damage being done to the US
> fleet by the kamakazi.
>
> The Japanese showed no sign of giving up without a MASSIVE loss
> of life during the invasion of the homeland islands. =A0I'm glad that
> the loss of life from the atomic bombs was all theirs and not ours.
>
> Sorry, but I have no sympathy at all for the Japanese in WWII.

OTB, I know how many casualties there were and I also know how tough
and cruel the Japanese were. So you disagree with Eisenhower, LeMay,
MacArthur and other military leaders? Did you read some of their
quotes at the colorado.edu link I posted?


 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 22:26:21
From: OTB
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 16, 10:59=A0am, Senator Millionaire <moon...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Truman could have achieved the same unconditional surrender, and kept
> the Russians out, without resorting to nuclear weapons. That's my
> opinion.
>
> Am I right or wrong here?

Yes, you are wrong. Go take a look at how many casualties on both
sides
at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Also look at how many Japanese soldiers
surrendered in those battles and the damage being done to the US
fleet by the kamakazi.

The Japanese showed no sign of giving up without a MASSIVE loss
of life during the invasion of the homeland islands. I'm glad that
the loss of life from the atomic bombs was all theirs and not ours.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy at all for the Japanese in WWII.



 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 20:02:11
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
The link I posted in the first post was lifted from the Drudge site
which posted it today. I just disagree with Truman being ranked so
high because I think his decision to use them was unnecessary. I have
no idea what they're teaching the kids in school today. While I was in
grade school, I was taught that the bombs were dropped on Japan
because an invasion of the mainland would have cost the lives of
almost a million servicemen so that's what I believed.

It wasn't until later that I learned that there was much debate about
Truman's decision and it continues today. I know from a military and
strategic point of view there were military leaders that urged
President Truman not to drop the atomic bombs. I found this University
of Colorado page with plenty of quotes:

American Military Leaders Urge President Truman not to Drop the Atomic
Bomb

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm

On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First
Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay said flatly at one press
conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the
war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the
use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 336,
Chapter 27)

The text of the press conference provides these details:

LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians
entering and without the atomic bomb.

The Press: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic
bomb?

LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at
all.

On the 40th Anniversary of the bombing former President Richard M.
Nixon reported that:

"General Douglas MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it,
pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a
tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the
same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional
weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage
to noncombatants. . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in
using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear
thing turned him off."

In his memoirs President Dwight D. Eisenhower reports the following
reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb
would be used:

"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"

Eisenhower made similar private and public statements on numerous
occasions. For instance, in a 1963 interview he said simply: ". . . it
wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

--------------------

Stephen Jacobs disagrees with the Generals. Can you provide some links
to back up your assertions? Thanks.





  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 10:09:55
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:866c73ff-6832-46d8-bd2b-
>
> In his memoirs President Dwight D. Eisenhower reports the following
> reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb
> would be used:
>

Hey Senator, I don't mean to interupt your conversation with Will from New
Haven, I'm sure everything he will say would be simply fascinating (lol),
but speaking of Eisenhower, I just wanted to ask you if you've ever read
about Operation Keelhaul. That's all. Just askin. Go back to talking with
Will from New Haven. He's really, uhh, a sharp one. (rotflmao!)




 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 17:19:25
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 16, 7:50=A0pm, Senator Millionaire <moon...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Brew, I'm warning you. Be nice or I'll take away your beer.

And you complain about others' barbarism and cruelty. You should
rethink your inhumanity to Brew.

As to your original question. It is highly unlikely that a Japanese
surrender could have been gotten quickly without either the nuclear
bombs or a continuation of the barbaric conventional bombing, which
were going to kill just as many or more people over a slightly longer
time. Starvation would have taken its toll also. Only if you consider
a person _more_ dead when he or she is killed by a nuclear warhead is
Truman's action clearly wrong.

The much-ballyhood "peace-feelers" from Japan were not authorized and
would not have been honored.

When I was growing up, most of the adult men in my neighborhood were
Pacific Island WWII Marine veterans. They certainly weren't objective
but they loved Truman and thought he had saved their lives.

--
Will in New Haven


 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 16:50:29
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
Brew, I'm warning you. Be nice or I'll take away your beer.


  
Date: 16 Feb 2009 22:49:49
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:50:29 -0800 (PST), Senator Millionaire
<moone99@gmail.com > wrote:

>Brew, I'm warning you. Be nice or I'll take away your beer.

Be nice or I'm going to have to say, "Ni!"


 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 19:45:01
From: Stephen Jacobs
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians

"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:c20edba5-7ea1-432b-b468-8f864c6c36d3@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
...........
> I do not agree with this ranking. Truman authorized the two
> devastating nuclear bombings of Japan because it was supposed to have
> saved about a million American lives. In my opinion, Japan was already
> very near to surrender as thousands of bombing sorties were
> relentlessly being launched by the U.S. The Japanese surrender was
> imminent but Truman bombed them anyway.
>
...........
> Am I right or wrong here?

This one thing I know the answer to, and you're wrong. Even after the 2
atomic bomb attacks and the Russian re-entry into the war against Japan,
there was still a military coup intended to overthrow the "divine" emperor
rather than to surrender. The war could have (and very likely would have)
gone on a lot longer without the atomic bombings.

Consider particularly the battle of Saipan for how to guess at death tolls
even after the outcome was decided.




 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 16:44:57
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 16 2009 10:59 AM, Senator Millionaire wrote:

> The other day, I was reading about Truman's low final approval rating
> as he left office so I was surprised to see him ranked so high. His
> final approval ranking when he left office was very low.
>
> http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx
>
> I do not agree with this ranking. Truman authorized the two
> devastating nuclear bombings of Japan because it was supposed to have
> saved about a million American lives. In my opinion, Japan was already
> very near to surrender as thousands of bombing sorties were
> relentlessly being launched by the U.S. The Japanese surrender was
> imminent but Truman bombed them anyway.
>
> Russia was moving in from the north and Truman did not want Japan to
> be divided like Germany. So he ordered the nuclear bombings of Japan
> to end the conflict quickly and keep the Russians out.
>
> Truman could have achieved the same unconditional surrender, and kept
> the Russians out, without resorting to nuclear weapons. That's my
> opinion.
>
> Am I right or wrong here?

the japanese had absloutely no "give up " in them . They had to be shown
in no uncertain terms that they had no chance . The bombs were horribly
cruel , but something had to be done to take the "heart" out of em . Big
difference between getting your ass kicked , and having someone remove
your 'will".

HAD TO BE DONE


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

______________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 15:15:15
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 16 2009 8:59 AM, Senator Millionaire wrote:

> The other day, I was reading about Truman's low final approval rating
> as he left office so I was surprised to see him ranked so high. His
> final approval ranking when he left office was very low.
>
> http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx
>
> I do not agree with this ranking. Truman authorized the two
> devastating nuclear bombings of Japan because it was supposed to have
> saved about a million American lives. In my opinion, Japan was already
> very near to surrender as thousands of bombing sorties were
> relentlessly being launched by the U.S. The Japanese surrender was
> imminent but Truman bombed them anyway.
>
> Russia was moving in from the north and Truman did not want Japan to
> be divided like Germany. So he ordered the nuclear bombings of Japan
> to end the conflict quickly and keep the Russians out.
>
> Truman could have achieved the same unconditional surrender, and kept
> the Russians out, without resorting to nuclear weapons. That's my
> opinion.
>
> Am I right or wrong here?

As soon as the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima I knew that Hirohito
was behind it. He wanted to surrender, and so convinced Truman to drop
this bomb so that he would be able to convince Japan that surrender was a
good idea.


Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk

---- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 16 Feb 2009 20:20:09
From: necron99
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 17 2009 10:15 AM, brewmaster wrote:

> On Feb 16 2009 8:59 AM, Senator Millionaire wrote:
>
> > The other day, I was reading about Truman's low final approval rating
> > as he left office so I was surprised to see him ranked so high. His
> > final approval ranking when he left office was very low.
> >
> > http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx
> >
> > I do not agree with this ranking. Truman authorized the two
> > devastating nuclear bombings of Japan because it was supposed to have
> > saved about a million American lives. In my opinion, Japan was already
> > very near to surrender as thousands of bombing sorties were
> > relentlessly being launched by the U.S. The Japanese surrender was
> > imminent but Truman bombed them anyway.
> >
> > Russia was moving in from the north and Truman did not want Japan to
> > be divided like Germany. So he ordered the nuclear bombings of Japan
> > to end the conflict quickly and keep the Russians out.
> >
> > Truman could have achieved the same unconditional surrender, and kept
> > the Russians out, without resorting to nuclear weapons. That's my
> > opinion.
> >
> > Am I right or wrong here?
>
> As soon as the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima I knew that Hirohito
> was behind it. He wanted to surrender, and so convinced Truman to drop
> this bomb so that he would be able to convince Japan that surrender was a
> good idea.
>
>
> Brew
> --
> Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk

I once read an interesting book written by the head of the japanese war
crimes tribunal. A sort of retrospective of the 20th century history of
japan in light of the actions of the prime players before him in which he
essentially conjectured that japan entering and losing ww2 along with it's
post-war reconstruction was all part of a very long running plan to
modernise the country.

---- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 16 Feb 2009 16:46:40
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 16 2009 5:15 PM, brewmaster wrote:

> On Feb 16 2009 8:59 AM, Senator Millionaire wrote:
>
> > The other day, I was reading about Truman's low final approval rating
> > as he left office so I was surprised to see him ranked so high. His
> > final approval ranking when he left office was very low.
> >
> > http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx
> >
> > I do not agree with this ranking. Truman authorized the two
> > devastating nuclear bombings of Japan because it was supposed to have
> > saved about a million American lives. In my opinion, Japan was already
> > very near to surrender as thousands of bombing sorties were
> > relentlessly being launched by the U.S. The Japanese surrender was
> > imminent but Truman bombed them anyway.
> >
> > Russia was moving in from the north and Truman did not want Japan to
> > be divided like Germany. So he ordered the nuclear bombings of Japan
> > to end the conflict quickly and keep the Russians out.
> >
> > Truman could have achieved the same unconditional surrender, and kept
> > the Russians out, without resorting to nuclear weapons. That's my
> > opinion.
> >
> > Am I right or wrong here?
>
> As soon as the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima I knew that Hirohito
> was behind it. He wanted to surrender, and so convinced Truman to drop
> this bomb so that he would be able to convince Japan that surrender was a
> good idea.
>
>
> Brew
> --
> Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk

BREWSTER MADE A "FUNNY" ... AND A GOOD ONE TOO !!


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

_____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 16 Feb 2009 18:15:48
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:15:15 -0800, "brewmaster"
<a163b@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>On Feb 16 2009 8:59 AM, Senator Millionaire wrote:
>
>> The other day, I was reading about Truman's low final approval rating
>> as he left office so I was surprised to see him ranked so high. His
>> final approval ranking when he left office was very low.
>>
>> http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx
>>
>> I do not agree with this ranking. Truman authorized the two
>> devastating nuclear bombings of Japan because it was supposed to have
>> saved about a million American lives. In my opinion, Japan was already
>> very near to surrender as thousands of bombing sorties were
>> relentlessly being launched by the U.S. The Japanese surrender was
>> imminent but Truman bombed them anyway.
>>
>> Russia was moving in from the north and Truman did not want Japan to
>> be divided like Germany. So he ordered the nuclear bombings of Japan
>> to end the conflict quickly and keep the Russians out.
>>
>> Truman could have achieved the same unconditional surrender, and kept
>> the Russians out, without resorting to nuclear weapons. That's my
>> opinion.
>>
>> Am I right or wrong here?
>
>As soon as the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima I knew that Hirohito
>was behind it. He wanted to surrender, and so convinced Truman to drop
>this bomb so that he would be able to convince Japan that surrender was a
>good idea.
>
>
>Brew

Good theory.
I like it.

I know you're being sarcastic here, but that theory still makes at
least as much sense as anything that these Dumshits have come up with.

--
"Holy fuck city, Turbo, you really ARE the biggest moron on this whole
entire newsgroup. I will pray for you." - Paul Popinjay, 11/7/2008


   
Date: 16 Feb 2009 16:41:58
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 16 2009 4:15 PM, FL Turbo wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:15:15 -0800, "brewmaster"
> <a163b@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 16 2009 8:59 AM, Senator Millionaire wrote:
> >
> >> The other day, I was reading about Truman's low final approval rating
> >> as he left office so I was surprised to see him ranked so high. His
> >> final approval ranking when he left office was very low.
> >>
> >> http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx
> >>
> >> I do not agree with this ranking. Truman authorized the two
> >> devastating nuclear bombings of Japan because it was supposed to have
> >> saved about a million American lives. In my opinion, Japan was already
> >> very near to surrender as thousands of bombing sorties were
> >> relentlessly being launched by the U.S. The Japanese surrender was
> >> imminent but Truman bombed them anyway.
> >>
> >> Russia was moving in from the north and Truman did not want Japan to
> >> be divided like Germany. So he ordered the nuclear bombings of Japan
> >> to end the conflict quickly and keep the Russians out.
> >>
> >> Truman could have achieved the same unconditional surrender, and kept
> >> the Russians out, without resorting to nuclear weapons. That's my
> >> opinion.
> >>
> >> Am I right or wrong here?
> >
> >As soon as the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima I knew that Hirohito
> >was behind it. He wanted to surrender, and so convinced Truman to drop
> >this bomb so that he would be able to convince Japan that surrender was a
> >good idea.
> >
> >
> >Brew
>
> Good theory.
> I like it.
>
> I know you're being sarcastic here, but that theory still makes at
> least as much sense as anything that these Dumshits have come up with.

I was just paraphrasing our newest resident tin foil hat wearer Senator
Moronaire.

>
> --
> "Holy fuck city, Turbo, you really ARE the biggest moron on this whole
> entire newsgroup. I will pray for you." - Paul Popinjay, 11/7/2008


Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk

____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 14:10:12
From: necron99
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians
On Feb 17 2009 3:59 AM, Senator Millionaire wrote:

> The other day, I was reading about Truman's low final approval rating
> as he left office so I was surprised to see him ranked so high. His
> final approval ranking when he left office was very low.
>
> http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx
>
> I do not agree with this ranking. Truman authorized the two
> devastating nuclear bombings of Japan because it was supposed to have
> saved about a million American lives. In my opinion, Japan was already
> very near to surrender as thousands of bombing sorties were
> relentlessly being launched by the U.S. The Japanese surrender was
> imminent but Truman bombed them anyway.
>
> Russia was moving in from the north and Truman did not want Japan to
> be divided like Germany. So he ordered the nuclear bombings of Japan
> to end the conflict quickly and keep the Russians out.
>
> Truman could have achieved the same unconditional surrender, and kept
> the Russians out, without resorting to nuclear weapons. That's my
> opinion.
>
> Am I right or wrong here?

Obv wrong, otherwise he would be a mass murderer and a war criminal. Can't
have that now can we?

------- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 14:01:45
From: Dutch
Subject: Re: Harry S. Truman Was Ranked Fifth Best President By Historians

"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote
> The other day, I was reading about Truman's low final approval rating
> as he left office so I was surprised to see him ranked so high. His
> final approval ranking when he left office was very low.
>
> http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx
>
> I do not agree with this ranking. Truman authorized the two
> devastating nuclear bombings of Japan because it was supposed to have
> saved about a million American lives. In my opinion, Japan was already
> very near to surrender as thousands of bombing sorties were
> relentlessly being launched by the U.S. The Japanese surrender was
> imminent but Truman bombed them anyway.
>
> Russia was moving in from the north and Truman did not want Japan to
> be divided like Germany. So he ordered the nuclear bombings of Japan
> to end the conflict quickly and keep the Russians out.
>
> Truman could have achieved the same unconditional surrender, and kept
> the Russians out, without resorting to nuclear weapons. That's my
> opinion.
>
> Am I right or wrong here?

That is how I read the history. Pretty damned sick. I may be being cynical
here, but I've always felt that people in the Truman administration wanted
to extract retribution on Japan for Pearl Harbour and these nukes seemed
like an ideal way to do it while at the same time exhibiting some muscle
towards Russia. Kind of like how Bush Jr wanted to pay back Saddam for
attempting to knock off his dad so he decided to destroy his country.