 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Antique and Collectibles / Studebaker / November 2007<OT> Paul Tibbets, Pilot of the Enola Gay passes...
http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-na-tibbets2nov02,0,2069783.story?coll= la-home-center  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ...and yet, they (the media) still try to play the "guilt" card. As one that lived through WWII, the decision to drop the bomb was indeed the correct one. Japan had been warned that it risked "utter and total destruction" should they refuse to surrender. Unfortunately, Truman evidently did have regrets when he began the policy of conducting undeclared "no win" warfare beginning with Korea. Just my 5¢ worth... JT > http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-na-tibbets2nov02,0,2069783.story?coll= la-home-center Aw c'mon JT, wouldn't it have been eminently better to have hundreds of thousands of American military killed on the beaches, land and air of all the islands including Japan that would have to have been captured to win the war? Maybe as early as 1950 or so? This blatant rewriting of events to suit hindsight historians is a royal PITA. Brooksie > ...and yet, they (the media) still try to play the "guilt" card. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >> http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-na-tibbets2nov02,0,2069783.story?coll= la-home-center You'll look long and hard to find reference these days, but there were actually thirteen separate offers of conditional surrender made by the Japanese during the last eighteen months of the war. All conditions were negotiable. The main thing they wanted was to keep Hirohito on the throne. We did that anyway, but refused to meet with them. We simply wanted to drop the bomb FDR knew was coming. Hairy a.s Truman just followed instructions left him. How many people on both sides died during those last eighteen months? > ...and yet, they (the media) still try to play the "guilt" card. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >> http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-na-tibbets2nov02,0,2069783.story?coll= la-home-center I was ready to refute your post until I did a google search on the topic and found these terms offered 9 months before the bombs dropped. "This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included: * Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries. * Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction. * Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan. * Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war. * Release of all prisoners of war and internees. * Surrender of designated war criminals. " Apparently we were holding out for a unconditional surrender, but after dropping two A bombs we agreed to let them keep the Hirohito after some in the government backed down. We should not forget that we killed more Japanese with carpet bombing raids then the two nukes, so it's sort of a mute point that we used the nukes. We'll never know if they would have gone through with a surrender earlier, but there is question we needed to avoid a invasion of Japan by what ever means. Hammond wrote: > You'll look long and hard to find reference these days, but there were > actually thirteen separate offers of conditional surrender made by the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >>> http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-na-tibbets2nov02,0,2069783.story?coll= la-home-center SignatureJP/Maryland Studebaker On the Net http://stude.com My Ebay items:http://www.stude.com/EBAY/ 63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk 63 Lark 2 door 62 Lark 2 door 60 Hawk 58 Scotsman 53 Starliner 52 Starliner 51 Commander 39 Coupe Express 39 Coupe Express (body) > I was ready to refute your post until I did a google search on the topic > and found these terms offered 9 months before the bombs dropped. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > * Release of all prisoners of war and internees. > * Surrender of designated war criminals. " You should have gone with your first instinct. Up through the A-bombings, the Japanese Army was insisting that any eventual surrender terms include: a) No occupation of Japan b) Japan be in charge of their own war crimes trials c) the Japanese Army simply pack up and go home instead of surrendering and being disarmed In addition, the Japanese Army was insisting that there be no surrender negotiations until after we had made a bloody invasion of Japan, and (they hoped) suffered a catastrophic defeat at Japanese hands. The Japanese Army essentially controlled the Japanese government, and the only one who could tell them to stand down was the Emperor himself. The day after Nagasaki was bombed, the Emperor ordered that Japan offer to surrender so long as his position was guaranteed. That was the first time the Japanese Army allowed Japan to offer a surrender. New trolls? Try Google'ing All you need to know... lesliesethhamm@yahoo.com and hiroshima_facts@yahoo.com SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > You'll look long and hard to find reference these days, but there were > actually thirteen separate offers of conditional surrender made by the > Japanese during the last eighteen months of the war. All conditions were > negotiable. The main thing they wanted was to keep Hirohito on the throne. Fiction. Japan did not make any surrender offers until the day after Nagasaki was bombed. >> You'll look long and hard to find reference these days, but there were >> actually thirteen separate offers of conditional surrender made by the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Fiction. Japan did not make any surrender offers until the day after > Nagasaki was bombed. I would like to believe this, but... What are your sources? Paul Johnson >>> You'll look long and hard to find reference these days, but there were >>> actually thirteen separate offers of conditional surrender made by the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I would like to believe this, but... What are your sources? > Paul Johnson My sources include a college textbook received in 1957, but there are a number of oblique references if one digs hard enough. The full facts were kept from the public at the time. In pure fact, the college textbook was recalled with no explanations offered. The fix was obviously in. I was born in 1936, and remember much of the war, but I didn't learn about the 13 surrender offers until much later. It's a horrid joke to claim that our dropping the bomb actually saved lives. We were out for retribution pure and simple. You had to be there to understand that mindset. "Remember Pearl Harbor!" was commonly heard. One more time; how many Americans died needlessly during those last 18 months? Not caring about the Japanese is understandable, but the American fighting men? Go back and read the post from " Hiroshima facts" and see how wrong you are. The mass suicides and murders of civilians on Saipan showed what the Japanese army had planned and was capable of. We would have lost 100,000 men and taken years to defeat Japan if we had not bombed them. They had not intention of surrendering till we forced them too. >>>> You'll look long and hard to find reference these days, but there were >>>> actually thirteen separate offers of conditional surrender made by the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > months? Not caring about the Japanese is understandable, but the American > fighting men? > Go back and read the post from " Hiroshima facts" and see how wrong you > are. I'm not at all wrong. You're merely uninformed (until now). Believe it or not - your call. > The mass suicides and murders of civilians on Saipan showed what the > Japanese army had planned and was capable of. We would have lost 100,000 > men and taken years to defeat Japan if we had not bombed them. They had > not intention of surrendering till we forced them too. We forced them on all South Pacific islands - and prevailed at great cost but prevailed. That's just the point. Little islands were at great cost. A huge land like Japan would have been much worse. Both us and the majority of the Japanese were better off when we chose to use the bomb. >> Go back and read the post from " Hiroshima facts" and see how wrong you >> are. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > We forced them on all South Pacific islands - and prevailed at great cost > but prevailed. There was no "need" to use the bomb. The war could have ended at the bargaining table. Japan knew they were the ultimate loser. Their one and only 'need' was to 'save face' by retaining their emperor. We pretended for decades that Hirohito had no responsibilities for his nation's conduct. Only recently has that been entirely discounted. > That's just the point. Little islands were at great cost. A huge land > like Japan would have been much worse. Both us and the majority of the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> We forced them on all South Pacific islands - and prevailed at great cost >> but prevailed. On Nov 4, 11:43 am, "Seth Hammond" <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote: > There was no "need" to use the bomb. The war could have ended at the > bargaining table. Japan knew they were the ultimate loser. Their one and > only 'need' was to 'save face' by retaining their emperor. The Japanese Army had a few needs. They insisted that any eventual surrender terms include: a) No occupation of Japan b) Japan be in charge of any war crimes trials c) Japanese soldiers simply pack up and go home instead of surrendering or being disarmed The Japanese Army also insisted that there be no surrender negotiations until after the US had attempted a brutally bloody invasion of Japan. On Nov 3, 10:52 am, "Seth Hammond" <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I'm not at all wrong. You're merely uninformed (until now). Believe it or > not - your call. I've only heard one claim of an alleged early surrender offer that wasn't completely at odds with incontrovertible facts, and that is a claim that the Emperor was secretly trying to make contact with the allies behind the backs of everyone in the Japanese government. Since the offer was supposed to be such a secret that only Hirohito and one or two others even knew about it, there isn't much out there to say it didn't happen. But I've never heard a reputable historian say there is any evidence that it did happen either. A large number of the supposed surrender contacts are known to be fictitious in one way or another. > On Nov 3, 10:52 am, "Seth Hammond" <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > A large number of the supposed surrender contacts are known to be > fictitious in one way or another. At least several surrender offers were made through Russia. Surely you've read about that. On Nov 4, 11:47 am, "Seth Hammond" <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Nov 3, 10:52 am, "Seth Hammond" <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > At least several surrender offers were made through Russia. Surely you've > read about that. That is incorrect. No surrender offers were made through the Soviets. Before the collapse of Nazi Germany, Japan's contacts with the Soviets consisted of futile attempts to get Stalin and Hitler to reconcile. Japan thought that if Germany didn't have to worry about Russia, and could focus on England, the US would have to devote more energy to Europe, giving some breathing room to Japan. After the collapse of Nazi Germany, Japan's contacts with the Soviets consisted of futile efforts to get them to switch sides and help Japan in the Pacific theater. Around July of 1945, this strategy changed and they simply sought to enlist Soviet aid in "ending the war". At this point their contacts consisted of requests to let Prince Konoye come to the USSR to talk with them. These requests were equally futile. The Soviets never allowed Prince Konoye to come and do any talking. After Nagasaki, Japan did make surrender offers, but not through the Soviets. > >>> You'll look long and hard to find reference these days, but there were > >>> actually thirteen separate offers of conditional surrender made by the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > - Show quoted text - As it should have been. We should remember Pearl Harbor. We should treat aggression with aggression simply because it works. > On Nov 1, 3:52 pm, "Seth Hammond" <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> You'll look long and hard to find reference these days, but there were [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I would like to believe this, but... What are your sources? > Paul Johnson The best source on what Japan's government was doing in the last year of the war is "Japan's Decision to Surrender" by Robert J.C. Butow. Another good source is "Strategic Surrender: The Politics of Victory and Defeat" by Paul Kecskemeti. It doesn't focus solely on Japan though, but looks at four different surrenders in WWII (France surrendering to Germany, Italy surrendering to the Allies, Germany surrendering to the Allies, and Japan surrendering to the Allies). "Fighting to a Finish: The Politics of War Termination in the United States and Japan, 1945" by Leon Sigal does a good job at looking at what was going on in both the US and Japan as the war wound down. The main point of the book (written near the end of the Cold War) is that a nuclear war might spiral out of control worse than people might imagine, once it starts. But 98% of the book is a look at WWII, to use as a case study to make its point. "Japan's Longest Day" by The Pacific War Research Society also provides a good look into what was going on in the Japanese government. Mostly it provides a close look at Japanese actions in the very last day of the war, so doesn't cover the period when most of the alleged surrender offers took place, but it does illustrate how the Japanese Army made it impossible for anyone in Japan's government to surrender until the Emperor ordered it. It was written by Japanese historians, so it provides a uniquely Japanese viewpoint into what went on. >> You'll look long and hard to find reference these days, but there were >> actually thirteen separate offers of conditional surrender made by the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Fiction. Japan did not make any surrender offers until the day after > Nagasaki was bombed. Not that YOU know of.... >>> You'll look long and hard to find reference these days, but there were >>> actually thirteen separate offers of conditional surrender made by the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Not that YOU know of.... I know the Japanese submariner on Gilligan's Island didn't ever surrender... and that was in the mid-1960's. Lee SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >>> You'll look long and hard to find reference these days, but there were > >>> actually thirteen separate offers of conditional surrender made by the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I know the Japanese submariner on Gilligan's Island didn't ever surrender... > and that was in the mid-1960's. :-D I vaguely remember watching that as a child. >>>> You'll look long and hard to find reference these days, but there were >>>> actually thirteen separate offers of conditional surrender made by the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Lee He was a plant.... On Nov 2, 12:41 pm, "Seth Hammond" <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> You'll look long and hard to find reference these days, but there were > >> actually thirteen separate offers of conditional surrender made by the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Not that YOU know of.... I'd know, if it happened. Why do you need to post anonymously? bh > On Nov 2, 12:41 pm, "Seth Hammond" <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I'd know, if it happened. > Why do you need to post anonymously? I don't claim such a need. However, I think I prefer a relative degree of anonymity. Every now and then some clown on the internet seems to have a fairly violent reaction to me showing that he/she is wrong. I'd certainly not like such a person to know how to find me. So in other words, if you're not willing to reveal who you are, what makes you think we should believe anything you have to say? How's your Studebaker coming along? Lee >> Why do you need to post anonymously? > > I don't claim such a need. However, I think I prefer a relative > degree of anonymity. Every now and then some clown on the internet > seems to have a fairly violent reaction to me showing that he/she is > wrong. I'd certainly not like such a person to know how to find me. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > So in other words, if you're not willing to reveal who you are, what makes > you think we should believe anything you have to say? Because you are smart enough to realize that "not giving one's name" doesn't mean someone is wrong, and "giving one's name" is no indication that someone is correct?? >> So in other words, if you're not willing to reveal who you are, what >> makes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > doesn't mean someone is wrong, and "giving one's name" is no > indication that someone is correct?? Whatever, are you smart enough to know what a "killfile" is... welcome to mine. Lee > >> So in other words, if you're not willing to reveal who you are, what > >> makes [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Whatever, are you smart enough to know what a "killfile" is... welcome to > mine. Guess that's a "no". LOL! I heard that same claim of anonymity distilled down once before. (Or was it a hundred times before... I don't remember exactly....) Must have depended on the argument/debate/discourse de-jour.. Chickenshit was the phrase used...(with a capital C) Now, I could be wrong, but it sure reads the same... Some Internet Clown "Hiroshima Facts" wrote.. > I don't claim such a need. However, I think I prefer a relative > degree of anonymity. Every now and then some clown on the internet > seems to have a fairly violent reaction to me showing that he/she is > wrong. I'd certainly not like such a person to know how to find me. > Why do you need to post anonymously? SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > I heard that same claim of anonymity distilled down once before. > (Or was it a hundred times before... I don't remember exactly....) > Must have depended on the argument/debate/discourse de-jour.. > Chickenshit was the phrase used...(with a capital C) > Now, I could be wrong, but it sure reads the same... > Some Internet Clown I've heard someone spew nonsense about me giving my name before too. It was about 10 years ago though. It was pretty funny, since the clown who railed at me for not giving my name and email like he did, later made a huge fuss accusing me of sending him tons of prank emails. I thought of emailing him to tell him how to look at the headers of my real email and compare to the pranks to see it wasn't me, but he wasn't worth it and I didn't bother. We already know how to spell your name.... TROLL All your excuses are just that... Time doesn't make a good excuse...10 years...10 days...10 forums... Yada yada yada... Honesty, integrity, and the willingness to stand behind what you say with your real name does. But, I don't expect you to change, and I know you won't. On this group, or on the others you frequent. You dismiss it as nonsense. That is the your choice. You have to live with that choice, I don't. Jeff "Hiroshima Facts" wrote... > I've heard someone spew nonsense about me giving my name before too. > It was about 10 years ago though. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > real email and compare to the pranks to see it wasn't me, but he > wasn't worth it and I didn't bother. >> I heard that same claim of anonymity distilled down once before. >> (Or was it a hundred times before... I don't remember exactly....) >> Must have depended on the argument/debate/discourse de-jour.. >> Chickenshit was the phrase used...(with a capital C) >> Now, I could be wrong, but it sure reads the same... >> Some Internet Clown SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Pretty well sums it up to me. America is still relatively free, thanks to brave veterans who served & sacrificed by putting their own lives on the line, not by nutless arm chair quarterbcaks who lack the cajones to sign their own name to their posts. If only our politicians had been as conscientious in protecting America's fredom & sovereignty as our service personnell have been. Barry'd in Studes > We already know how to spell your name.... > TROLL [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > We already know how to spell your name.... > TROLL That is rather dishonest of you. A troll is someone who posts something provocative and then sits back and watches the fuss he provoked. I engaged in an actual exchange of posts and took the conversation seriously (at least up to the point where the conversation was shifted to whether I gave my name). Hardly troll like behavior. > All your excuses are just that... > Time doesn't make a good excuse...10 years...10 days...10 forums... Yada > yada yada... The time is hardly meant to excuse anything. It was just roughly how long ago since that goofball was babbling about me not giving my name. > Honesty, integrity, and the willingness to stand behind what you say with > your real name does. My choice to be somewhat anonymous does not in any way mean I lack honesty, integrity, or the willingness to stand behind what I say, and it is dishonest of you to imply it. > But, I don't expect you to change, and I know you won't. Indeed. I'm not giving you my name no matter how much of a circus you create over that fact. Old usenet quote : arguing on the 'net is like competing in the special olympics - you may win, but what have you won? If the argument isn't important enough for you to back up your statements with your name - your message not important enough for me to pay attention to. Plonk Mark (secure enough to sign my name ) Dunning > We already know how to spell your name.... > TROLL [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >>> Now, I could be wrong, but it sure reads the same... >>> Some Internet Clown On Nov 12, 4:04 pm, "Mark Dunning" <markshe...@zoominternet.net> wrote: > If the argument isn't important enough for you to back up your statements > with your name - your message not important enough for me to pay attention > to. That's a logical fallacy if I've ever seen one. > On Nov 12, 4:04 pm, "Mark Dunning" <markshe...@zoominternet.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's a logical fallacy if I've ever seen one. Again, a thread run amok. The start of this thread was reporting of the death of Col Tibbetts. Give the man his due respect; a true hero that did what he was ordered to do regardless of the politics of the current time or 60 years past.He did not want anything as far a service after his death. God Bless him and all of the others that served our country giving us the freedom to argue our point right or wrong. Everyone should offer our thanks and our respects of rest in peace for him and sympathy to his family. All the other stuff STFU. Bob Miles Tucson AZ An opinion coming from a nutless nobody is not worth my time... bh > On Nov 12, 4:04 pm, "Mark Dunning" <markshe...@zoominternet.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's a logical fallacy if I've ever seen one. > An opinion coming from a nutless nobody is not worth my time... Wow! Having me post some facts on the matter must have really set you kooks off. Can't believe you're still coming back to spew lies and logical fallacies at me after all this time. LOL! No... Just bringing some real truth to the thread. Just pointing out that the subject matter is not what you are interested in. All you want to see is a response to your post(s). Your laughter is because you got what you wanted.... attention. Feel better? You are indeed a classic Troll. > Wow! Having me post some facts on the matter must have really set you > kooks off. Can't believe you're still coming back to spew lies and > logical fallacies at me after all this time. > LOL! > No... Just bringing some real truth to the thread. > Just pointing out that the subject matter is not what you are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Feel better? > You are indeed a classic Troll. Liar. I addressed the subject at hand when it was being discussed. It is not my fault that you kooks changed the subject to "my ID" when you couldn't handle that I was posting facts related to the issue. Don't blame me for your disingenuous tactics. Blame yourself. > > No... Just bringing some real truth to the thread. > > Just pointing out that the subject matter is not what you are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Don't blame me for your disingenuous tactics. Blame yourself. Have you no decency? Have you no respect? Have you no honor? Regardless of your feeling about "kooks", can you not honor Col Tibbetts with a simply "Rest in Peace"? If you cannot do that, what does that say about your moral fiber as a fellow human being and it is you that are being disingeuous. How hard is it to say Rest in Peace? Would that hurt your dignity? Bob Miles Tucson AZ Poor response troll. It was you that interjected yourself into this forum and into this simple mention of the passing of a man. It was you that used your search function to troll for anything to do with the words Hiroshima, Enola Gay, A-Bomb, etc. It was you that wanders from forum to forum jumping in to push your agenda (whatever that is). Go ahead and spout off about me. I could care a whit about you and your personal interjection, because once the subject get's off your point... Your'e gone... You will troll on to the next nibble from daily your search engine report. That's all I pointed out before, and all I am pointing out again. You are a troll. I know it, can see it, and can smell it a mile away. Others see it too, but I will let them speak for themselves. Go right ahead and call names. Then visit this site...<http://tinyurl.com/34hjwq> Note the different forums, but the consistent content from the bloghopper. It says volumes about you. Nuff' said on my part. Jeff > > No... Just bringing some real truth to the thread. > > Just pointing out that the subject matter is not what you are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Don't blame me for your disingenuous tactics. Blame yourself. I think you will find very little of (the media) who will play the guilt card. As Ken Burn's excellent WWII series said, dropping the bomb saved millions of lives. As for Truman, that was an entirely different situation. If we used the bomb on China, we might have been bombed by Russia, who had the bomb. Things are never as simple as they seem. Many people criticized Kennedy for not invading Cuba. Conservatives of the day said he should have listened to the generals. That was the same thing that was said about Truman. But we know now, that if he had invaded Cuba we would have been in a nuclear war. We know from the Russian records that Moscow had told the local commanders in Cuba, that if they were attacked and communication was not possible with Moscow, they should assume that Moscow had been hit with a nuke, and they were to launch their nuclear missiles. Unknown to them, we had a way to cut off that communication and that was one of our first priorities. If Kennedy had listened to his generals we would have been in a total nuclear war. > ...and yet, they (the media) still try to play the "guilt" card. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >> http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-na-tibbets2nov02,0,2069783.story?coll= la-home-center I did not criticized Kennedy, I was floating around off the coast of Cuba on a gator navy ship loaded with jar heads at the time.<g> I recall the briefing bout landing craft assignments with me going in on the 4th wave as a 2nd officer. A seaman recruit that noticed the lower rated men were in the first wave questioned that. it was explained that we knew from WW II experience that the causality rate was very high on the first waves and we could not afford to lose our higher rated sailors. he was not happy with that answer. On the other hand the marines were flat disappointed that they were not going in. > I think you will find very little of (the media) who will play the guilt > card. As Ken Burn's excellent WWII series said, dropping the bomb saved [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> >>> http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-na-tibbets2nov02,0,2069783.story?coll= la-home-center SignatureJP/Maryland Studebaker On the Net http://stude.com My Ebay items:http://www.stude.com/EBAY/ 63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk 63 Lark 2 door 62 Lark 2 door 60 Hawk 58 Scotsman 53 Starliner 52 Starliner 51 Commander 39 Coupe Express 39 Coupe Express (body) > I did not criticized Kennedy, I was floating around off the coast of > Cuba on a gator navy ship loaded with jar heads at the time.<g> I recall [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Regarding the A Bomb, does the phrase "Remember Pearl Harbor" perhaps cast a light on the situation? Regardless of the all the background or guilt, Paul Tibbetts served his country and did what he was told. He requested no headstone, nor a service after his death. Rest in peace Col Tibbetts and God Bless you. Bob M Yes indeed. JT > Regarding the A Bomb, does the phrase "Remember Pearl Harbor" perhaps > cast a light on the situation? Regardless of the all the background [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bob M > > I did not criticized Kennedy, I was floating around off the coast of > > Cuba on a gator navy ship loaded with jar heads at the time.<g> I recall [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Good Point. Also don't forget how the history of how the Japanese treated China and the rest of Asia for how many years. How many of you are aware of some of the things the Japanese soldires did to Chinese civilians?. Of course those things are not taught in our history lessons today. We're doing a disservice to our children by not teaching them history. Real History history as its taught on some prime time news show. Russ And how bad they treated the people of the Phillipines and the American civilians. Just this week my mom gave me my uncles letters home that he wrote during the end of the war. He was in Manila just after it was liberated and looked up a family that had been held prisoner. Two of their children were killed by the Japanese as the camp was being liberated. On Nov 1, 9:29 pm, bob m <rmc61co...@aol.com> wrote: > On Nov 1, 9:15 pm, John Poulos <ava...@erols.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Good Point. Also don't forget how the history of how the Japanese treated China and the rest of Asia for how many years. How many of you are aware of some of the things the Japanese soldires did to Chinese civilians?. Of course those things are not taught in our history lessons today. We're doing a disservice to our children by not teaching them history. Real History history as its taught on some prime time news show. Russ A good army buddy of mine had survived the Bataan Death March. RIP, Ira Dodrill.... > And how bad they treated the people of the Phillipines and the American > civilians. Just this week my mom gave me my uncles letters home that he [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > prime time news show. > Russ I never advocated "dropping the bomb" on China. Simply following through to win was a relatively easy goal since at one point the Chinese were driven to their border. We just need to hold on to the territory gained by maintaining a convincing force. Same goes for Vietnam... JT > I think you will find very little of (the media) who will play the guilt > card. As Ken Burn's excellent WWII series said, dropping the bomb saved [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> >>>http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-na-tibbets2nov02,0,2069783.story?coll= la-home-center We never drove the Chinese anywhere near their border. We drove the North Koreans back to the Chinese border. The Chinese warned that if we neared their border they would attack us. McArthur told Truman they were bluffing. They were not bluffing and we lost a great many soldiers unnecessarily and suffered the longest retreat in our military history. But the Chinese outran their supply line and were eventually stopped and driven back to the 38th parrallel. As for Vietnam, that was not winnable and we have both Johnson and Nixon on White House recordings saying so. >I never advocated "dropping the bomb" on China. > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >>> >>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-na-tibbets2nov02,0,2069783.story?coll= la-home-center > We never drove the Chinese anywhere near their border. We drove the North > Koreans back to the Chinese border. The Chinese warned that if we neared [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > their supply line and were eventually stopped and driven back to the 38th > parrallel. There were plenty of Chinese "advisors" so I was correct in my assessment. > As for Vietnam, that was not winnable and we have both Johnson and Nixon > on White House recordings saying so. Geeeeeze, you have a real ability to recognize credible sources, eh? JT >>I never advocated "dropping the bomb" on China. >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >>>> >>>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-na-tibbets2nov02,0,2069783.story?coll= la-home-center Nice try. Your point was to imply that we easily drove the Chinese back to their border and could easily have won the war. As happened in reality, it was far from easy and was unwinnable unless we were willing to go nuclear. Nothing about Chinese advisors on either of these pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559607/Korean_War.html >> We never drove the Chinese anywhere near their border. We drove the >> North Koreans back to the Chinese border. The Chinese warned that if we [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >>>>> >>>>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-na-tibbets2nov02,0,2069783.story?coll= la-home-center > We never drove the Chinese anywhere near their border. We drove the North > Koreans back to the Chinese border. The Chinese warned that if we neared [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > As for Vietnam, that was not winnable and we have both Johnson and > Nixon on White House recordings saying so. AAAAAAaaannngh!!!! SORRY - the word of two presidents that actually presided over the losing of the war, saying that it was " un-winnable" ain't good enough. The way that the war was fought prevented us from winning it. The crimes the civilian leadership committed in crippling the military prevented the US from winning the war. Intelligent ROE instead of stupid rules about " you can't go there" would have done a lot towards winning. I can't even get started ......... MD > http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-na-tibbets2nov02,0,2069783.story?coll= la-home-center The Enola Gay restoration was finally completed (in spite of protests, etc.) and is on display at the Udvar-Hazy Center (annex to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum). It is on the Dulles Airport grounds- well worth visiting (free admission, $12 parking<g>. This url is a webcam in the museum that has the Enola Gay in the foreground: http://www.nasm.si.edu/interact/webcams/uhc4/uhc4vt.cfm Paul Johnson In 2003 while at Bonneville, I went to a small museum at the airport that used to be Wendover Air Base. This is where the Army Air Corp practiced doing the Atom Bomb thing in B-29's. I met a fellow there who was visiting and told me that he helped load the bombs o n the B-29's that were operating there. He was in his late teens at that time. I found talking with him very intriguing. Joe Roberts There are some very good pictures of crew positions and the bomb bay on the Enola Gay at: http://aafradio.org/NASM/Enola_avionics_narrative.htm . You can also return to the site's home page, select "Enola" from the side bar, and use the links in the text. The site is about WW2 era communications equipment. Mike M. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.