FabSwingers.com forum: British History 2

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

The last couple of posts in the other thread could not go unanswered.

So Number 1.

They were a complete waste of time, the Japanese were willing to die for they're emperor (who's actually as close to God for the Japanese as it gets).

They lost way more people in the two week long fire bombing of several cities.

What they actually wanted was a terms of surrender that let them keep there emperor which the Americans had firstly denied, and later relented on and which is the real reason why the Japanese surrendered.

No Americans would have died invading Japan because it was completely unnecessary to do it, coming North from Manchuria was the red army and the Japanese were totally and completely disarmed by the means of having no fuel at all anywhere, they couldn't make bullets let alone drive a tank or fill a plane, it's part of the reason they started the kamikaze the year before as they didn't have enough fuel for the trip home!.

So yes, they could and would have fought on to the death throwing knifes and saucepans in hand to hand combat but how an earth you'd conclude that a fully equipped American navy and army would lose 250,000 troops fighting against that is beyond me

Firstly I did not conclude that the Americans would lose 250,000 soldiers. That was the number that was generally expected by the American military at the time based on the experience of Okinawa.

To take a small island the Americans lost around 19,000 killed or missing and over 50,000 wounded.

The Japanese lost 100,000 dead soldiers plus civilian casualties were estimated at around 150,000 killed or wounded. Many killed themselves after believing the propaganda that the Americans were barbarians who would torture them to death. Whole families threw themselves off cliffs to avoid capture.

The Americans chucked everything including the kitchen sink at that island, yet the battle lasted from April to June and was the longest single battle of WW2.

That was what lead the American military at the time to estimate that an invasion of the home islands would cost 250,000 American lives and that Japanese losses would run into millions..

I did not conclude it, they did.

As for the Russians.

Stalin had stalled and pretty much hidden behind the sofa since the end of the war in Europe.

While promising to aid the allies against Japan he did sod all until it was all over bar the shouting. He only finally declared war and marched troops into Manchuria on the 8th August, 2 days AFTER Hiroshima.

All Stalin did was see a chancers opportunity for a late land grab.

It could be argued (and some do make that argument) that the threat of a Russian land grab was what pushed Japan into finally surrendering, but if so then why did they wait until after the second bomb?

As for the Japanese running out of fuel and supplies in general. There is some truth that supplies were low but the Japanese military were still a potent force and could have mustered enough to cause serious damage to any invading force. Of course they would still have lost, but at a terrible price.

And Number 2

Tts a convenient lie to keep telling that the bomb was the best option.It helps you and your people sleep better.

We've told that lie long enough it's become a truth written in stone.

There is no convenient lie. Just do the maths.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The Japanese had cut down every single Palm tree on the entire island trying to make synthetic fuel, there is pretty much no raw materials in Japan to keep any amount of substantial armed forces going.

Its what's known as critical to keep a 20th century army going, it's why we saw fighting in North Africa and southern Russia, they all need oil.

So I'm not entirely sure why you'd need to invade Japan, it's an island with little resources, it's completely surrounded by naval forces, completely surrounded by ground forces anywhere within sailing distance and got no food or fuel left anywhere?.

There's 2 reasons why the Americans dropped those two atomic bombs and neither of them had anything to do with the capitulation of Japan.

1 they wanted to see the devastation they could cause!

2 they wanted to put the fear of God into the communists.

The Japanese didn't surrender from casualties, like I said, they would have fought to the death for they're emperor (ask a devout Christian Muslim or Jew to surrender but give up they're God and see what they're answer is)?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

They still managed to find enough fuel for nearly 1500 Kamikaze attacks on the Americans on and around Okinawa.

Yes there were severe shortages and they would never have had enough to win, but as I said above they could have still inflicted serious casualties on any invading army.

A blockade may have worked but I doubt it.

A big part of the Japanese psyche at the time was to bear suffering but with honour.

They would have starved to death en mass before they would ever surrender.

Realistically there were only 2 options. Invasion or the bomb, and the maths dictated the final choice.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's common knowledge Japan wanted peace months before the bomb was dropped.Japan were offering surrender terms identical to the ones agreed after bomb.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bi_scotlandTV/TS
over a year ago

Glasgow

"It's common knowledge Japan wanted peace months before the bomb was dropped.Japan were offering surrender terms identical to the ones agreed after bomb.

Some within the government wanted peace but others didn't, including the emperor. It wasn't that straightforward.

Ultimately though Japan was offered peace under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration on 26th July and never accepted it. The atomic bombs were dropped on the 6th and 9th August. Japan surrendered a few days later accepting the terms that were offered on the 26th July.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

The US strategy was to develop the bomb to detonate on Berlin.

But the Germans surrendered before the bomb was ready, so the US turned to the Japanese.

They had a short-list of 5 target sites.

It's a moot point - whether the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians was justified for accelerating the Japanese surrender.

The Americans are proud of what they did. I'm not so sure.

Especially when they followed up the first bomb manufactured from HEU with a 2nd manufactured from plutonium.

They were testing the 2nd type.

Such was the military advantage gained by the Americans that the hawks in the Pentagon wanted to move quickly onto bombing the Soviet Union.

Some in the scientific community realised the only way to stop the hawks was to make sure the Soviets had the bomb, too, hence the leaking of secrets.

Those scientists, who were portrayed as traitors, allowed the Soviets to test their own bomb several years before the US intelligence believed they would be ready.

What followed was the Cold War. The alternative, had it not been for those scientists, was a US first-strike on the USSR with nuclear weapons.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"It's common knowledge Japan wanted peace months before the bomb was dropped.Japan were offering surrender terms identical to the ones agreed after bomb.

No they didn't. Japan never offered surrender terms.

In August they accepted the allies terms which were the same ones as they were offered, but refused, in July.

I would add that Japan still had access to Manchurian oil (albeit in limited quantities) on the 6th August.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"It's common knowledge Japan wanted peace months before the bomb was dropped.Japan were offering surrender terms identical to the ones agreed after bomb.

Some within the government wanted peace but others didn't, including the emperor. It wasn't that straightforward.

Yep. That's pretty much it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eorgeyporgeyMan
over a year ago

Warrington

Your commentary re Stalin and Japan at the end of the war aren't entirely accurate... It was agreed that The Russian Army would join the campaign against Japan 3 months after the fall of Germany (because they'd need that time to transfer their men and materiel across Siberia, not the most infrastructure heavey region in the world).

There had been peace overtures by the Japanese government, but these were made to the Soviets (who were not at war with Japan). These overtures were rejected by the Soviets (quite reasonably).

It was not made clear to the Japanese by the US that they could keep the Mikado (or Emperor) following their unconditional surrender to the allies. It's true that the militarists were not in favour of a peace deal, but they had largely marginalised by August. The Emperor did not express an opinion and if he had it would have been ignored since he had no part in politics (much like the King in Britain), Japan being a Constitutional Monarchy.

Japan had literally no access to resources outside the home islands because it's merchant marine had been destroyed to a ship's biscuit by the US Navy and Air Force and no real ability to utilise those few resources on the Home Island because it's cities and industry had been flattened....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"They still managed to find enough fuel for nearly 1500 Kamikaze attacks on the Americans on and around Okinawa.

Yes there were severe shortages and they would never have had enough to win, but as I said above they could have still inflicted serious casualties on any invading army.

A blockade may have worked but I doubt it.

A big part of the Japanese psyche at the time was to bear suffering but with honour.

They would have starved to death en mass before they would ever surrender.

Realistically there were only 2 options. Invasion or the bomb, and the maths dictated the final choice."
.

Don't take my word for it.

Read what 6 of the 7 chiefs of staff said about it, or read what the future president general Dwight d Eisenhower said!.

In his words, it was completely unnecessary, Japans surrender was imminent with the right surrender terms.

I don't personally have any moral ambiguity to the bombing myself, it's war for you.

But the truth is the truth

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It's common knowledge Japan wanted peace months before the bomb was dropped.Japan were offering surrender terms identical to the ones agreed after bomb.

No they didn't. Japan never offered surrender terms.

In August they accepted the allies terms which were the same ones as they were offered, but refused, in July.

I would add that Japan still had access to Manchurian oil (albeit in limited quantities) on the 6th August."
.

Ask yourself why they sent the yamoto the most powerful battleship ever built on a one way trip

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It's common knowledge Japan wanted peace months before the bomb was dropped.Japan were offering surrender terms identical to the ones agreed after bomb.

No they didn't. Japan never offered surrender terms.

In August they accepted the allies terms which were the same ones as they were offered, but refused, in July.

I would add that Japan still had access to Manchurian oil (albeit in limited quantities) on the 6th August."

Incorrect..In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oxychick35Couple
over a year ago

thornaby

You mean the same Japan that bombed pearl Barbour without warning then when they new they had lost the war tried to do a deal my heart goes out to them

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

"It's common knowledge Japan wanted peace months before the bomb was dropped.Japan were offering surrender terms identical to the ones agreed after bomb.

No they didn't. Japan never offered surrender terms.

In August they accepted the allies terms which were the same ones as they were offered, but refused, in July.

I would add that Japan still had access to Manchurian oil (albeit in limited quantities) on the 6th August.

Incorrect..In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. "

Yes, they knew the situation was hopeless. America was closing in, and with the end of the war in Europe, the Soviets were planning to invade from the North. Only logistics stopped them from doing so.

Japan tried to get a "conditional" surrender but Trueman and Churchill were never going to go down that route. Japan only went to "unconditional surrender after Nagasaki.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

Why is this thread called British History?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You mean the same Japan that bombed pearl Barbour without warning then when they new they had lost the war tried to do a deal my heart goes out to them "
.

They bombed pearl harbor at the start of the war, the USA was the number 1 producer of oil back then, Japan bought 98% of its oil from the USA, in 1938 long before either Japan or the USA had joined ww2 they were already involved in a trade war over oil, Japan in 41 had 1 years worth of oil stockpiled, it's why they invaded Manchuria, they have NO natural resources.

On pearl harbor, the Americans were warned several times from the British and the Australians that the Japanese fleet was heading for Hawaii, it's all on record today, it wasn't a surprise attack to anybody except the general public, the yanks wanted the attack,it galvanized support for the war which until then the Americans were firmly opposed to

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've never understood why the Japanese attacked the Yanks ? Or the Germans invading Russia ?

Both the yanks and Russians would just have sat on the fence if they hadn't !

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In the book the Yamato dynasty there is a very potent argument laying down the theory that the Japanese gained a distinct advantage through the war and actually came out better off. This was due to the plundering of all the gold held by the various countries they occupied during the war. This gold was then used after the war to rebuild the infrastructure and industry using the latest technology.

Also by the USA maintaining their defence and the reduced expenditure on the Japanese military gave the Japanese a definite edge in the global economy.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I've never understood why the Japanese attacked the Yanks ? Or the Germans invading Russia ?

Both the yanks and Russians would just have sat on the fence if they hadn't !"
.

The Nazis number 1 enemy and this also included most German people were the Bolsheviks, you have to understand the huge event that the Russian Revolution really was globally, Jesus Christ, the redistribution of wealth, land, state industries and the culling of the "owners" of one of the big empires!.

It put the fear of God into every politican from Germany to America nothing on that scale had been seen since Napoleon!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icklybitMan
over a year ago

Ayrshire

Look how reasonable the Japanese were in the Summer of 1945, lets ignore the previous decade.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"It's common knowledge Japan wanted peace months before the bomb was dropped.Japan were offering surrender terms identical to the ones agreed after bomb.

No they didn't. Japan never offered surrender terms.

In August they accepted the allies terms which were the same ones as they were offered, but refused, in July.

I would add that Japan still had access to Manchurian oil (albeit in limited quantities) on the 6th August.

Incorrect..In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. "

I'm afraid that it is you that is incorrect.

Japan made no formal attempts through either Sweden or Portugal.

The acting Japanese foreign minister did "sound out" the Swedish and Portuguese Ambassadors to see if they could find out what terms the allies would accept. But that was it.

It was only a verbal request, he had no official approval from the Japanese government, and no peace terms were offered by Japan.

The first real attempt wasn't made until mid July through the Russians and Stalin, for reasons best known to himself, stalled the talks. Probably with his eye on a land grab and partition of Japan after the war.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Look how reasonable the Japanese were in the Summer of 1945, lets ignore the previous decade. "

Yes, many from that part of the world could argue that the Japanese richly deserved the nukes as retribution for some of the heinous war crimes they committed, many of which they pretty much got away with after the war. They were also allowed to keep the massive amounts of loot they stole from these countries, setting themselves up to be one of the richest nations on the planet. Some of there atrocities included:-

The Nanking Massacre

Japanese-Run Internment Camps

The Burmese Railway

Unit 731

The Bataan Death March

The Bangka Island Massacre

The Sandakan Death March

The Laha Airfield Massacre

The Alexandra Hospital Massacre

- plus, many, many more horrendous acts of inhumanity. Anybody who feels the the Japanese were a bit hard-done by because of the bombs should read up on these.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Which takes the thread nicely back to the original point - that it needed a brutal tyrant like Churchill to take on other brutal tyrants. Nice he was not.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Look how reasonable the Japanese were in the Summer of 1945, lets ignore the previous decade.

The Nanking Massacre

Japanese-Run Internment Camps

The Burmese Railway

Unit 731

The Bataan Death March

The Bangka Island Massacre

The Sandakan Death March

The Laha Airfield Massacre

The Alexandra Hospital Massacre

- plus, many, many more horrendous acts of inhumanity. Anybody who feels the the Japanese were a bit hard-done by because of the bombs should read up on these. "
.

I've never said they were hard done by, the question was actually about wether it was necessary, my answer was the same as Dwight d Eisenhowers along with 6 other of the 7 joint chiefs of staff.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Surely the same effect could have been made on Japan by dropping the ž Bomb on a less populated area or giving a couple of days evacuation warning ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"Surely the same effect could have been made on Japan by dropping the ž Bomb on a less populated area or giving a couple of days evacuation warning ?"

You joke!

A few weeks previous to the dropping of the bomb there was an incendiary raid that caused a firestorm that destroyed 16 square miles of Tokyo, killed some 100,000 people and made 3 MILLION homeless and that had no effect on the Japanese leadership! In fact after the dropping of the bomb there was an attempt by Imperial Army Officers to steal Hirohito's surrender speech and assassinate the Emperor in order to continue the war!

If the bombs had not been dropped then the bloodshed would have been on a genocidal level when the Allies had invaded the Home Islands.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

[Removed by poster at 06/06/18 19:02:28]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"Surely the same effect could have been made on Japan by dropping the ž Bomb on a less populated area or giving a couple of days evacuation warning ?

You joke!

If the bombs had not been dropped then the bloodshed would have been on a genocidal level when the Allies had invaded the Home Islands. "

Which is pretty much what I've been saying all along.

There were only two choices. A bomb with large loss of life, or invasion with loss of life on biblical proportions.

Although some would like to ignore/disbelieve it, the A bombs actually saved lives.

Also had the war dragged on and the Russians invaded Japan through Manchuria then the world could have finished up with a similar situation to the partitioning of Germany.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"Look how reasonable the Japanese were in the Summer of 1945, lets ignore the previous decade.

The Nanking Massacre

Japanese-Run Internment Camps

The Burmese Railway

Unit 731

The Bataan Death March

The Bangka Island Massacre

The Sandakan Death March

The Laha Airfield Massacre

The Alexandra Hospital Massacre

- plus, many, many more horrendous acts of inhumanity. Anybody who feels the the Japanese were a bit hard-done by because of the bombs should read up on these. .

I've never said they were hard done by, the question was actually about wether it was necessary, my answer was the same as Dwight d Eisenhowers along with 6 other of the 7 joint chiefs of staff."

From memory I'm not sure how true that statement is.

I'm pretty sure that McArthur was in favour and I think so was Nimitz.

Eisenhower may have had retrospective second thoughts when he decided to run for President.

However I'm not 100% sure so as soon as I get a spare few minutes I will look it up.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

After the bomb was dropped on Japan, General Paton was extremely keen to drop one on Moscow, to stop the USSR's rise and resigned when that idea was vetoed. He had huge support within the army and six weeks later died in a car crash in Germany.....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bi_scotlandTV/TS
over a year ago

Glasgow

"After the bomb was dropped on Japan, General Paton was extremely keen to drop one on Moscow, to stop the USSR's rise and resigned when that idea was vetoed. He had huge support within the army and six weeks later died in a car crash in Germany....."

Going down the conspiracy route yet again?

Patton was sacked from his beloved Third Army (he didn't resign from it) for comments he made about working with Nazis. He was given a new command that was basically pointless and eventually decided to resign from it, still angry at his sacking. He wasn't commanding a real army at this point.

This is all very public and there is nothing secretive about it. The claim that he wanted to nuke Moscow and resigned when this was vetoed is ridiculous. As I stated above, he wasn't commanding a real army when he resigned.

As for the crash that killed him (eventually), he was very unlucky. The others in the car only suffered minor injuries.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No, going down the factual route. You going down the troll route again? Tut tut.

The story you have reported was made public later but there are contemporary reports.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There are a number of reasons to think Patton was assassinated.

He knew and wanted to make public that presidential orders led to the unnecessary deaths of US troops and he wanted to continue war with the USSR by bombing and fighting. There was no appetite for that in the west but he had a great deal of support and almost worship from the Third Army. He was an undoubted psychopath, which resulted in his battle tactics, which were effective.

At least five official reports of his accident have been removed from US files.

The car purporting to be the actual one in the accident, isn't.

Good sources state that he was shot in the neck but recovered enough to be going home, when the USSR poisoned him.

Wikipedia doesn't always state the facts....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"There are a number of reasons to think Patton was assassinated.

At least five official reports of his accident have been removed from US files.

The car purporting to be the actual one in the accident, isn't.

Good sources state that he was shot in the neck but recovered enough to be going home, when the USSR poisoned him.

Wikipedia doesn't always state the facts....

Neither does Hollywood.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

The death of General Patton is well documented. He was in hospital for nearly two weeks after the traffic accident, and was seen by many top Allied doctors.

He died of complications brought on by injuries sustained in the accident.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well, yes, he died after the accident but that was due were more to the consequences regarding the accident than than of it.

There are reports on file from the people who carried out his assassination.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"Well, yes, he died after the accident but that was due were more to the consequences regarding the accident than than of it.

There are reports on file from the people who carried out his assassination."

Really? Where?

Are you sure it wasn't Max von Sydow with a rubber bullet.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Go look lol.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

Where are these files on Patton's "assassination"?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"There are reports on file from the people who carried out his assassination."

Yep.

And David Icke has proof that the Royal Family are really lizard people from the planet Mongo and that we are all slaves to Ming The Merciless.

...

Isn't it strange how a story so big as the assignation of Patton only comes to light when the people who were there have all died? And that a third rate footballer who failed his 11+ and left school at 15 can uncover a global plot to enslave the human race but our en-slavers are unable to silence him even though they can control everything else?

HHhhmmmmm....

Makes me think of Occam's razor...

I wonder if it could be applied to either of the above conspiracy theories, and what the result would be? And I do believe that there are many conspiracies, but that most stem from unnecessary knee-jerk cover-ups that fall apart quickly.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"Go look lol. "

Some people may not understand that so being a bit of a linguist I will do a Translation.

"I've made a sweeping statement without a shred of evidence and I'd sooner you waste you time looking for shit that doesn't exist"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't usually help those in need of educating themselves but who are too lazy to do the groundwork themselves but I'll give you a hint- best not to rely on Hollywood for the truth about anything to do with WW2

. As always, go to an independent source. They are there.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"Go look lol. "

I watched the Movie "Brass Target" many years ago.

Not one of Hollywood's finest.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"I don't usually help those in need of educating themselves but who are too lazy to do the groundwork themselves but I'll give you a hint- best not to rely on Hollywood for the truth about anything to do with WW2

. As always, go to an independent source. They are there.

You are the one who keeps banging on about conspiracies. So either put up or shut up.

It isn't for us to waste time and effort on you behalf.

So again. Put up or shut up.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

No one knew, apart from Patton, his driver and his shooting companion, where they were heading that day.

No one knew that Patton wouldn't have been wearing a seatbelt, an action which would have probably saved his life.

Everyone likes a conspiracy theory, but most just don't hold water.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"There are reports on file from the people who carried out his assassination.

Yep.

And David Icke has proof that the Royal Family are really lizard people from the planet Mongo and that we are all slaves to Ming The Merciless.

You mean that isn't true?

Now you've ruined my day, I always believed that one.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Gosh, you are an ignorant lot lol.

It's not a theory, it's documented evidence. From source.

I've always believed that if I want to find the truth of a matter, it's up to me to do the research. If you can't be bothered, I really don't care but if you don't you have no moral basis to counter another view so either accept it, research it or shut up.

And, I'm not a fan of 'conspiracy theory'- I always go with independent sources. What I don't do, is trot out Wikipedia as fact or interested parties' versions, without doing research further.

Tell me- on what postmortem report- the only way to tell- are you basing Patton's death as being due to complications two weeks or so after an rta and a stabilised cervical fracture?

Impressed they HAD seat belts in the 1940's- they had to be retrofitted to my first car in NZ.

A very slow moving impact resulted in a seated passenger breaking his cervical neck? Whiplash, maybe. Fracture- in a Cadillac? Even if it was a lorry that hit it? And the only person to be injured in any way was a psychopathic ex general with a mission and supporters? Now, that should make anybody question, surely? It's not my way in to the story but it is interesting.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"Gosh, you are an ignorant lot lol.

It's not a theory, it's documented evidence. From source.

And, I'm not a fan of 'conspiracy theory'- I always go with independent sources. What I don't do, is trot out Wikipedia as fact or interested parties' versions, without doing research further.

Tell me- on what postmortem report- the only way to tell- are you basing Patton's death as being due to complications two weeks or so after an rta and a stabilised cervical fracture?

Impressed they HAD seat belts in the 1940's- they had to be retrofitted to my first car in NZ.

Of course it is legitimate to ask questions, and Patton's death has aroused some questions and suspicions. But that is all, questions and suspicions, nothing else.

However to say there is "documented evidence" is nonsense.

There isn't any evidence, only supposition and theory.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

nonsense....because you haven't read it? Or looked for it? Now, that's a position that opens up a whole can of ideas lol.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think the best we can do is agree that the circumstances involving his death are unanswered. Since the official files related to the accident have disappeared, they may never be to everyone's satisfaction.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"nonsense....because you haven't read it? Or looked for it? Now, that's a position that opens up a whole can of ideas lol. "

I actually think I know what your "source" is.

It was a pretty decent piece of investigative journalism did did raise quite a few serious questions.

However none of it would qualify as evidence.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"I think the best we can do is agree that the circumstances involving his death are unanswered. Since the official files related to the accident have disappeared, they may never be to everyone's satisfaction."

Exactly. Unanswered I would agree with.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"nonsense....because you haven't read it? Or looked for it? Now, that's a position that opens up a whole can of ideas lol.

I actually think I know what your "source" is.

It was a pretty decent piece of investigative journalism did did raise quite a few serious questions.

However none of it would qualify as evidence."

I've read the original report and it is a confession to murder - dates, times, method, reasons-so it's as near evidence, albeit untried, as you can get. Certainly more valid than general reports put out by government referred to above which provoke more unanswered questions than answers.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"nonsense....because you haven't read it? Or looked for it? Now, that's a position that opens up a whole can of ideas lol.

I actually think I know what your "source" is.

It was a pretty decent piece of investigative journalism did did raise quite a few serious questions.

However none of it would qualify as evidence.

Which report? By who? Who confessed?

Just more questions but no answers.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

This is a report by a "supposed" assassin", who only came forward years after the event.

He lists "use of a secret Czech cyanide" concoction, handy when no post mortem was carried out.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otlovefun42 OP Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"This is a report by a "supposed" assassin", who only came forward years after the event.

He lists "use of a secret Czech cyanide" concoction, handy when no post mortem was carried out."

Coming forward years after the event would be the first thing to set the alarm bells ringing.

However mentioning the Czech's would definitely put it on the fantasist list.

It seems the Czech's get mentioned in everything from Patton to Jeremy Corbyn and were the bogeymen of first choice during the cold war.

Bear this in mind though. The Czech's had been occupied for over five years and were a bit preoccupied with rebuilding and expelling ethnic Germans in 1945. But they still found the time, money, and expertise to develop a cyanide concoction to kill an American general.

Yep. That's up there with Lizzie the Lizard.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The report I read didn't mention Czechs

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Look how reasonable the Japanese were in the Summer of 1945, lets ignore the previous decade.

The Nanking Massacre

Japanese-Run Internment Camps

The Burmese Railway

Unit 731

The Bataan Death March

The Bangka Island Massacre

The Sandakan Death March

The Laha Airfield Massacre

The Alexandra Hospital Massacre

- plus, many, many more horrendous acts of inhumanity. Anybody who feels the the Japanese were a bit hard-done by because of the bombs should read up on these. .

I've never said they were hard done by, the question was actually about wether it was necessary, my answer was the same as Dwight d Eisenhowers along with 6 other of the 7 joint chiefs of staff.

From memory I'm not sure how true that statement is.

I'm pretty sure that McArthur was in favour and I think so was Nimitz.

Eisenhower may have had retrospective second thoughts when he decided to run for President.

However I'm not 100% sure so as soon as I get a spare few minutes I will look it up.

"
.

Looked up a few quotes for you!.

he greatest thing in history."

- Harry S. Truman

President of the United States during the Atomic Bombing

"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold

Commanding General of the U.S. Army

Air Forces Under President Truman

"I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) 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. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "

- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- Admiral William D. Leahy

Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

"I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb."

- John McCloy

"P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."

- President Harry S. Truman

Diary Entry, July 18, 1945

"Some of my conclusions may invoke scorn and even ridicule.

"For example, I offer my belief that the existence of the first atomic bombs may have prolonged -- rather than shortened - World War II by influencing Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and President Harry S. Truman to ignore an opportunity to negotiate a surrender that would have ended the killing in the Pacific in May or June of 1945.

"And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity."

- Stewart L. Udall

US Congressman and

Author of "Myths of August"

"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study

"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."

- J. Samuel Walker

Chief Historian

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth

The only problem with all this, "the japanese were ready to surrender" is that it took TWO bombs before they did. Its easy in hindsight to say they were defeated, had no option, that no invasion would have been needed,the problem is that there is no proof THEY believed any of that and of course they are a very proud nation and many would have died rather than surrender( kamikaze pilots were the proof of this mind set and are the equivalent of todays suicide bombers)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Look how reasonable the Japanese were in the Summer of 1945, lets ignore the previous decade.

The Nanking Massacre

Japanese-Run Internment Camps

The Burmese Railway

Unit 731

The Bataan Death March

The Bangka Island Massacre

The Sandakan Death March

The Laha Airfield Massacre

The Alexandra Hospital Massacre

- plus, many, many more horrendous acts of inhumanity. Anybody who feels the the Japanese were a bit hard-done by because of the bombs should read up on these. .

I've never said they were hard done by, the question was actually about wether it was necessary, my answer was the same as Dwight d Eisenhowers along with 6 other of the 7 joint chiefs of staff.

From memory I'm not sure how true that statement is.

I'm pretty sure that McArthur was in favour and I think so was Nimitz.

Eisenhower may have had retrospective second thoughts when he decided to run for President.

However I'm not 100% sure so as soon as I get a spare few minutes I will look it up.

Looked up a few quotes for you!.

he greatest thing in history."

- Harry S. Truman

President of the United States during the Atomic Bombing

"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold

Commanding General of the U.S. Army

Air Forces Under President Truman

- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

- Admiral William D. Leahy

Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

"I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb."

- John McCloy

"P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."

- President Harry S. Truman

Diary Entry, July 18, 1945

"Some of my conclusions may invoke scorn and even ridicule.

"And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity."

- Stewart L. Udall

US Congressman and

Author of "Myths of August"

- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study

- J. Samuel Walker

Chief Historian

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission"

And yet, despite all of this from veritable experts, they still went ahead and dropped the bombs. Why do you think that was?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Or why didn't any of these experts make their feelings about dropping the bombs clear before they were dropped.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Look how reasonable the Japanese were in the Summer of 1945, lets ignore the previous decade.

The Nanking Massacre

Japanese-Run Internment Camps

The Burmese Railway

Unit 731

The Bataan Death March

The Bangka Island Massacre

The Sandakan Death March

The Laha Airfield Massacre

The Alexandra Hospital Massacre

- plus, many, many more horrendous acts of inhumanity. Anybody who feels the the Japanese were a bit hard-done by because of the bombs should read up on these. .

I've never said they were hard done by, the question was actually about wether it was necessary, my answer was the same as Dwight d Eisenhowers along with 6 other of the 7 joint chiefs of staff.

From memory I'm not sure how true that statement is.

I'm pretty sure that McArthur was in favour and I think so was Nimitz.

Eisenhower may have had retrospective second thoughts when he decided to run for President.

However I'm not 100% sure so as soon as I get a spare few minutes I will look it up.

Looked up a few quotes for you!.

he greatest thing in history."

- Harry S. Truman

President of the United States during the Atomic Bombing

"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold

Commanding General of the U.S. Army

Air Forces Under President Truman

- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

- Admiral William D. Leahy

Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

"I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb."

- John McCloy

"P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."

- President Harry S. Truman

Diary Entry, July 18, 1945

"Some of my conclusions may invoke scorn and even ridicule.

"And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity."

- Stewart L. Udall

US Congressman and

Author of "Myths of August"

- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study

- J. Samuel Walker

Chief Historian

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

And yet, despite all of this from veritable experts, they still went ahead and dropped the bombs. Why do you think that was?"
.

They wanted to put the fear of God into the communists, there'd just seen how ferocious they were against the Nazis and certainly didn't want or fancy they're chances in any conventional war.... Or to put it another way....Look we have a giant bomb do as we say or else

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The only problem with all this, "the japanese were ready to surrender" is that it took TWO bombs before they did. Its easy in hindsight to say they were defeated, had no option, that no invasion would have been needed,the problem is that there is no proof THEY believed any of that and of course they are a very proud nation and many would have died rather than surrender( kamikaze pilots were the proof of this mind set and are the equivalent of todays suicide bombers) "
.

I'm quoting military generals, admirals, air force Marshalls and the US military themselves.... I'm not being funny but if they say the Japanese were fucked either way and we're just about to capitulate then that's good enough for me

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Or maybe you lot know better than the people who fought the fucking war

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread