Why not "besiege" Japan?

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
Post Reply
User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1662
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 19:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#346

Post by Gorque » 22 Mar 2019, 04:19

I prefer XHamster. Xvideos is ok too.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#347

Post by Takao » 22 Mar 2019, 11:42

paulrward wrote:
21 Mar 2019, 06:10
However, for her part in the action, the Saratoga was credited
with participating in the Battle of Midway, and EVERY Officer and Sailor on board was awarded
and authorised to wear the Midway Campaign Ribbon.
and
paulrward wrote:
21 Mar 2019, 22:23
Now, Leonard, you and the formost (sic) historian of the Battle of Midway may not like the fact that this veteran wears the
Midway Star on his Theater Ribbon. But your opinion ( and that of the formost (sic) historian of the Battle of Midway ) are
not important. The only opinion that counts is that of the Navy Department.
and
paulrward wrote:
21 Mar 2019, 22:23
My Bad. It is the Pacific Asiatic Theater Ribbon with Midway Battle Star. Actually, the
veteran concerned is authorized to have the Midway Star, the Guadalcanal Star, the Okinawa Star, and the
3rd Fleet Operations Against Japan Star.
Since Mr. Paul Ward puts faith in the Navy Department, perhaps he should read NAVPERS 15,790 (Revision 1953)
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... 1up;seq=11


Sorry, but the USS Saratoga was not authorized a "battle star" for Midway. However, she was authorized 2 "battle stars" for Guadalcanal:
P8, Guadalcanal-Tulagi landings (including First Savo), 7-9 August, 1942.
And
P9, Capture and defense of Guadalcanal, 10 August 1942 - 8 February 1943.

Here is the full list in NAVPERS 15,790 (1953)
Saratoga (CV 3):
7 Aug 42 - 9 Aug 42 P8
10 Aug 42 - 1 Sep 42 P9
23 Aug 42 - 25 Aug 42 P11
1 Nov 43 - 2 Nov 43 P24-6
5 Nov 43 P24-9
11 Nov 43 P24-11
18 Nov 43 - 30 Nov 43 P25
29 Jan 44 - 8 Feb 44 P26-2
17 Feb 44 - 2 Mar 44 P26-3
19 Apr 44 P27-4
17 May 44 P27-6
(CVG(N) 53):
15 Feb 45 - 16 Feb 45 P33-2
15 Feb 45 - 21 Feb 45 P33-1
25 Feb 45 P33-2
1 Mar 45 P33-2

At face value, it would appear that the "Midway star" and "Guadalcanal Star", are actually 2 "Guadalcanal stars."(P8 & P9).
Perhaps, you could post this person's DD-214, and put the matter to rest.


User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#348

Post by Takao » 22 Mar 2019, 16:27

Returning to our regularly scheduled program...
mikegriffith1 wrote:
15 Mar 2019, 21:59
I'm sure many here have heard of Edwin P. Hoyt. He served in the Office of War Information during the war and later wrote several books on the war. I will quote Hoyt on our ability to do precision bombing and on the myth that the atomic bomb ended the war. The quotes are from his book Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict (2001, reprint).

Pinpoint bombing:

Image
WRT pinpoint bombing.

The problem here is that the Hitachi plant at Taichikawa was not operating at full capacity, at best, it had been operating at half-capacity, and in the months preceding the bombing less than that(around 33%). The bombing that Hoyt mentions, cost the Japanese about 100-150 lost airframes(mainly the outdated, but useful as a Kamikaze Ki-43 Oscar, and K5Y Willow trainer aircraft). The raids on the Kamikaze airfields did more to disrupt flight times than completely knock out the airfields. This can be seen from the 10 Kikusui Operations flown by the Japanese: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Kikusui
Of course, we could go rounds about what the B-29 bombings prevented, but the fact remains that the Kamikazes still managed to inflict a great deal of losses to the US fleet.

mikegriffith1 wrote:
15 Mar 2019, 21:59
The myth that the atomic bomb ended the war:

Image
Of course, the Atomic Bomb, by itself, did not end the war...I don't think anyone here is saying it did. However, it was part of the decision making process, the coming together of a "Perfect Storm" to bring about the surrender of Japan; Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Soviet Invasion.

As to the fact that the Atomic Bomb was just another weapon...Did not General Anami convince the other members that there was only "one" Atomic Bomb and there would not be any more dropped on Japan. Nagasaki proved that wrong.

mikegriffith1 wrote:
15 Mar 2019, 21:59
Another example our ability to do precision bombing is our bombing of the Showa Steel Manufacturing compound in Anshan, Manchuria. Using B-29s, we were able to nearly totally destroy that compound without any reported damage to the city of Anshan (see Paul Maruyama, Escape from Manchuria: The Rescue of 1.7 Million Japanese Civilians Trapped in Soviet-Occupied Manchuria Following the End of World War II, 2017, p. 23). So the claim that we could not have bombed the industrial area on the outskirts of Hiroshima without doing great damage to the rest of the city is invalid.
For every one B-29 pinpoint bombing mission that was an overwhelming success, there were 10 or 20 that were not. Further, there were 3 attacks on the Showa Steel Works - not 1. Also, the Showa Steel Works were not "nearly totally destroyed," the 3 raids had the combined effect to reduce output by 33%-50% - hardly "nearly totally destroyed."

mikegriffith1 wrote:
15 Mar 2019, 21:59
It would take dozens of pages to quote all the historians, scholars, WWII-era generals and admirals, WWII-era intelligence officials, and WWII-era politicians who have have concluded/who concluded that we did not need to nuke Japan to end the war without an invasion. If this is "revisionism," then Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy, Clarke, Halsey, and a host of others were guilty of "revisionism."
All but Leahy are postwar quotes...Were are the pre-drop quotes...That would fill less than a page. Eisenhower, there is no contemporary written record pre-drop, only his quotes from the 50s and 60s. MacArthur was too busy planning his Magnum Opus, the invasion of Japan, to have cared, not to mention his plans to use nuclear weapons during the Korean War. Clarke was what 1959?, when he proffered his opinion. Halsey was from 1946, but was making his claim that the US Navy was responsible for the victory over Japan.

This is the big Alperovitz fail...Using quotes given years after the fact, and presenting them as the opinions held in 1945.


mikegriffith1 wrote:
15 Mar 2019, 21:59
When people refuse to deal with the evidence you present but instead compare factual information to "pro-Nazi revisionist websites," you know you are winning the argument on the facts.
Your "evidence" has been dealt with, each and every piece...And it has been found wanting. Hence my reference comparing your websites to "pro-Nazi revisionist websites." They are equally as bad.

mikegriffith1 wrote:
15 Mar 2019, 21:59
This reminds me somewhat of the controversy that arose between the leadership of the Air Force Association and the American Legion and the Smithsonian Institution in 1995 when the Smithsonian was about to publish a very balanced, reasoned, and objective script to accompany the Enola Gay exhibit. When scholars tried to reason with representatives of these groups, they were met with emotion-based arguments and discredited myths. These groups' leaders kept equating the scholarly script with an effort to denigrate the American servicemembers who served in the Pacific. They also objected to any acknowledgment of the horrific destruction that the atomic bombs did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as if to acknowledge that destruction would somehow, by some ultra-militaristic logic, constitute an attack on the war effort. Read Martin Harwit's book An Exhibit Denied: Lobbying the History of Enola Gay and/or Philip Nobile's book Judgment at the Smithsonian: The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Again, your only telling half of the story, as I recall the matter quite differently...Both sides used emotion-based arguments and discredited myths.

Funny, how Bockscar has been on display for decades, and nobody gave a damn, but put Enola Gay on display, and suddenly there are protests aplenty on both sides. Long story short, everybody just wanted to get their names in the papers, and they did.

mikegriffith1 wrote:
15 Mar 2019, 21:59
As a veteran, I take exception to the efforts of some veterans to impugn the patriotism of those who disagree with them about the need to nuke Japan. Patriotism is not blind submission to whatever story the government happens to put out. The fact that we did not need to nuke Japan has absolutely nothing to do with the valor or honor of any GI, Marine, or sailor who served in the Pacific. No average GI, or Marine, or sailor had anything to do with the decision to nuke Japan. The problem is that some veterans have been led to believe that if we had not nuked Japan, we would have had to invade Japan, which is simply and demonstrably false. This false choice--drop nukes or lose tens/hundreds of thousands of Americans in an invasion--has been so thoroughly debunked by so many scholars that it is amazing that anyone still defends it.
Playing the "veteran" card...You have lost the argument, and now this is the only way you see to win?

paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008, 21:14

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#349

Post by paulrward » 22 Mar 2019, 20:17

Hello All :

Mr. Takao's arguments w/r to Mr. Mike Griffiths are very cogent, but perhaps they could be summarized and expanded.

First, Mr. Griffiths presents ONLY a Binary option choice when discussing the 'morality' of the atomic bombing of Japan,
( Bombing vs. Invasion ) and then goes on to 'debunk' the necessity of invasion. In effect, he has ignored the repercussions
of his proposed 'Blockade' of Japan. To Mr. Griffiths, such a blockade would be a simple, bloodless affair, with the
United States Navy floating serenely in the Pacific, enforcing a blockade which the Japanese supinely accept until
their supplies of food and fuel run out, after which they would meekly surrender.

Does this make sense ?



1. First, let us look at possible Japanese responses to a Blockade. Going back to 1941, if we examine the result of the
U.S. Economic Blockade of Japan, in which we cut off their imports of Steel, Aluminum, machined goods, and, most
importantly, OIL, the response of the Imperial Japanese Government was to wage unrestricted warfare upon no less
than four foreign nations.

There is no evidence that the Japanese government would respond in any different way to a new blockade.
And the question would have to be asked: If the Japanese refused to surrender, How many years would the
blockade have to be imposed before it was accepted that the Japanese would NOT surrender, and other means
of ending the war would be required?



2. Second, what would be the effect on the United States and Great Britain of a naval blockade of Japan? By 1945,
Britain was literally at it's last shilling in terms of budget. Food was being rationed, as was coal, clothing, and
other supplies. In the United States, Gasoline was still rationed, as were tires, some food items, and things such
as air transport. New automobiles and household appliances such as radios and washing machines were utterly
unavailable.

To impose a blockade on Japan would require the governments of both Allied countries to ask their citizens to
extend their own privations in order to preserve the lives of enemy civilians, the civilians of an enemy nation which,
earlier in the war, both in China and the rest of the Pacific, had shown no compunctions whatsoever to the mass
deaths of foreign civilians if it furthered their war aims.



3. Next, the effect on the U.S. and British Military: I have already discussed the theoretical number of deaths
that might be suffered by the U.S. military in a Blockade of Japan, just due to what Clausewitz referred to as
"The Friction of War" It must be recalled that Halsey endured several severe Typhoons resulting the the loss
of ships and men. Would a Blockade Force be immune from such storms ? Would submarines sent on patrol
to enforce the blockade be immune from such accidents as befell the Squalus and the Thetis ? Would losses
of aircraft due to mechanical and navigation issues cease to occur ? In each case, the answer is, obviously no.
Accidents would occur, diseases would be contracted and succumbed to. Injuries would be suffured. Men
and women would die waiting for Japan to acquiesce to defeat.

Thus, to impose a blockade on Japan would be to ask the war-weary soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines
of two nations to accept the possibly limitless extension of their military service, away from their homes and
loved ones, facing death, disease, or injury, for the sake of the lives of their intransigent enemies.



4. Finally we reach the question of China: By this time, China had been at war with Japan for the better part
of a decade, during which had occurred the Rape of Nanking, the vast, disruption of Chinese society and
politics, the devastation of their economy, and the deaths of literally milliions of Chinese citizens.

To simply impose a blockade on Japan would leave the Imperial Japanese Army still occupying China, with all
of the bloodthirsty, murderous depredations upon the Chinese population that this would imply. How many hundreds
of thousands, or even millions, of Chinese civilians would have died in the process of this Blockade ? Would it be
moral to ask Chiang Kai Shek and his people, who had endured so much, to continue to suffer for the sake of the
safety of the Japanese who had inflicted so much suffering upon the Chinese ?




Mr. Takao, I feel that in your arguments against the postion taken by Mr. Griffiths, you should go further. In
fact, the Atomic Bombing of Japan was NOT simply " Not Immoral ". It was, in fact, the MOST MORAL of all of the
alternatives, including Invasion or Blockade. While it sacrificed Japanese lives, it SAVED the lives of the citizens
of the Allied Nations, and in all liklihood, in the end, spared more lives that it took .



Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#350

Post by OpanaPointer » 22 Mar 2019, 20:57

Silly buggers don't understand the difference between "liquid capital" and "net worth". Great Britain OWNED INDIA, etc.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008, 21:14

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#351

Post by paulrward » 22 Mar 2019, 23:21

Hello OpanaPointer
Great Britain OWNED INDIA, etc.
Tell that to Mohandas Gandhi and Muhammad Jinnah ! The British Imperial System had been developing cracks since the end
of the WW1. By 1945, South Africa was looking to become a Boer Republic, Australia and New Zealand each had one foot out
the door, Malaya was beginning to resemble an ' Emergency ', and Kenya and the rest of East Africa were about to be engulfed in
the MauMau Uprising. That left Canada, and practically the only thing Britain could get from Canada was Wheat, which the
British had to PAY for.

When the time came for Egypt to seize the Suez Canal in '56, not even Winston Churchill could stop it.

To get some idea of how broke Britain was after 1945, Food Rationing didn't end until 1954. And that's with no requirement
to Blockade Japan.

Also, after WW2, hundreds of thousands of British Servicemen came home to a nation which had as few jobs as it did in
1939 ( The comics character of Andy Capp represents an RAF veteran who was unable to find employment after the war ) and
British industry was, in terms of manufacturing technology, hopelessly behind that of the U.S. The programs of 'Buy British'
and forcing British manufacturing firms to concentrate on exports to improve the Trade Balance were of some help, the
the raw fact is, for most of the 1950s, Britain was economically on very short rations.

This is also reflected in the drawdown of British Armed Forces after WW2. The scrapping of the Royal Navy, the contraction
of the Army and RAF, all were due to financial stringencies in government.


So, I wouldn't look to Britain to be able to maintain a Naval Blockade on Japan for very long.


Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#352

Post by OpanaPointer » 22 Mar 2019, 23:49

Nobody said we had to. Your chimera are in need of serious veterinary attention.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008, 21:14

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#353

Post by paulrward » 23 Mar 2019, 01:05

Hello OpanaPointer :

From your posting, it sounded as if you were saying that, because of the large British Empire in
1945, their economic problems were not as severe as they actually were.

After all, even if Britain HAD owned India, they weren't in a position to sell it for liquid capital !
And, with the rising tide of anti-imperialism, colonies were rapidly going from being ' money-makers '
to ' money pits ' !

Remember, Britain spent 55 million pounds fighting the Mau Mau. What did they gain from that
expense ?


I think my position is on fairly sound ground: In 1945, for a variety of reasons, including economic
ones, neither the U.S. nor Britain wanted to prolong the war any more than necessary to bring it to
a successful conclusion, i.e., the defeat of Imperial Japan.

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#354

Post by OpanaPointer » 23 Mar 2019, 02:17

That's called a strawman argument, Paulie.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
R Leonard
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 03:48
Location: The Old Dominion

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#355

Post by R Leonard » 23 Mar 2019, 02:29

Ward, from my perspective, the only one disparaging anyone is you. You seem to want to equate any discussion I, personally, have had with any veteran as of lesser value than those which you have had. That would seem to disparage those individuals. What I asked you, pointedly and you did not answer (yes, I know, Ward does not answer questions) was why you take that view? I ask again, if I may quote my own post:

“And just what make my associations with gents with whom my father served any different than your attending you grandfather's Great War reunion? Is this another of your one class of veterans is better than another?”

See, nothing bad about the Great War veterans, just why do you trumpet your attendance at a reunion and how you listened, yet any discussion I may have had is dismissed out of hand. Curious minds want to know the difference.

On the other hand, I would not describe calling out a falsehood, a lie, as disparaging.

For as with your, yes, I will name him, CDR Gregg, ret., your Midway gent; based on his later wartime assignments with VS-6 in the Solomons and VB-13 aboard USS Franklin (this is where he was recommended for a DFC) he did some good work in some bad places . . . what I do not understand is the necessity to embellish his wartime service with a false claim, yes, a false claim, of combat action at Midway.

I commend to all, and especially to you. Ward, the article which appeared in the Miami Harold on 28 May 2017, found here
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/ ... 30454.html
where in it specifically says:

“Gregg and his fellow pilots, most of them beginners like him, flew for hours across the Pacific Ocean on the morning of June 4, 1942.

“Then someone spotted the Japanese carriers. From there, Gregg said, it was “follow the leader straight down.” The pilots dive-bombed the four carriers, landing blow after blow. Gregg said he’s pretty sure none of the hits came from him.”

That would sound like a claim of participating in the strikes on Japanese carriers at Midway . . . am I misreading?

Later the article says, “A wall of his study is dedicated to his time in the military. In the center, he hung a framed painting of the same Douglas dive bomber he flew during the Battle of Midway. One of the real models he flew is in an airfield museum in Kansas, according to a flight log the museum found inside the plane.”

Some people, even here, like to claim that the records don’t exist or that they are incomplete. For the Battle of Midway, such explain-aways are absolutely and totally untrue. Does anyone really think a squadron commander or his executive officer or, even the his flight officer who usually makes up the flight schedules, had no idea who was sitting in their ready rooms? Oh please, missing papers is the oldest dodge in the book, and in this specific case, again, is absolutely, untrue. Your Enterprise website can say what they wish about confusion of assignments (which, by the way, your quote was taken out of context) to support your erroneous contention of assignment confusion in the first months of the war, but, for that matter, anyone who puts in just a little effort can track the movements of air groups, squadrons, and indeed, personnel from ship to ship and base to base in the first, say 10 months of the war, and, after which things, settled down a little so it’s even easier. Not saying it is easy, especially if one wastes their effort with but pop histories, official returns are much better, but, yes, it can be done.

And speaking of official returns, it was a good thing CDR Gregg did not claim a hit, because he was not, in any way shape or form, in any of the strikes on any of the Japanese carriers. Pay attention those of you who believe every story you hear, if from a veteran, is the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth . . . He did not fly in any of strikes on any of the Japanese carriers. Whatever picture he has on the wall of an SBD, that plane was not the plane HE flew at the Battle of Midway because he was NOT there, period, full stop.

The action reports clearly show who was flying in what action, right down to the aircraft side numbers . . . VB-3, VB-5, VS-6, VB-6 (the only SBD squadrons to strike Japanese carriers), take your pick, CDR Gregg is not found in any of these reports. Likewise, where one can find one, he does not appear in any of the squadron tactical organization rosters (these which show who is assigned to what section and division and, at least nominally, to a specific aircraft and, just to close a loop, even list spare, unassigned pilots). Sorry, nobody named Gregg appears in any of these documents, none of them, not a single one. How do I know? Because I have copies of those reports and tactical organizations. And if these reports do not exist, as some like to present, why is it I have copies, copies that are readily available from NARA or the Navy.

In my earlier post I allowed, since I don’t have a VS-5 aboard Saratoga roster, how he may, say again, may, have been TAD with VS-5 in the detachment of that squadron aboard the carrier, but that allowance is only because we know, from the squadron rosters, that he was not with VS-3 which was also aboard Saratoga. Again, anyone who thinks a squadron commander does not know who is in his squadron is dreaming.

Oh, and case someone want to throw out a “ . . . but what about . . .? “ Yes, I did check the rosters for the Hornet Air Group and, no, Gregg does not show up there either.

Ward, you are caught in a lie . . . you wrote addressing me: “you . . . may not like the fact that this veteran wears the Midway Star on his Theater Ribbon.” Care to point to where I wrote something to that effect in the post to which you were responding? No? You can’t find where I said that? I did not think you could. So, you lie.

On the other hand, now that we’ve been able to examine the record, yes, I do question the display of a campaign star device on one’s ribbon, which, and one might note that it is YOU who makes the claim Gregg is claiming for the Battle of Midway when he had nothing to do with the battle. In truth, I don’t see him, setting aside for a moment his actual claim for action at Midway, making such a claim for a campaign star device for Midway, so I cast no aspersion on him claiming to have a campaign star device for Midway. But, and so, are you making such a claim for him? You did, you know, read your own posts. Do you have leave to make such a claim or did you make it up? Is this another of your misrepresentations? I call your attention to the regulation on display of campaign star devices; the campaign star device for Midway was awarded only for the period 3-6 June 1942 (see NAVPERS 15.7900 (rev. 1953) and since Saratoga was not even peripherally involved until leaving Pearl Harbor on the 7th (yes, you caught me, I typo’ed the date) then those on that ship, ships company and air group were not eligible as well as neither the personnel on the attached escorts. As you said, “The only opinion that counts is that of the Navy Department” and they seem to disagree with your premise.

Oh, and the dead give-away on our CDR Gregg? No Navy Cross. ALL, repeat ALL, of the SBD pilots who completed strikes on the Japanese carriers were awarded the Navy Cross, posthumous or otherwise. Gregg was never so decorated.

I note that you have already been advised as to which campaign star devices Saratoga ships company and air groups were eligible. I hope that was clear.

Oh, and just so you might learn the proper terms, none of these campaign star devices are named, they are simply campaign star devices. Certainly, one could say, “this one is for this campaign and that one is for that campaign . . .” but the devices themselves were not named. I can think of an individual with devices for nine campaigns . . . not bad for about 46 months of war. I am sure there were others with more.

Seems you might owe that "formost (sic) historian of the Battle of Midway" a little apology.

Oddly enough, when you write: “Leonard, there are lots of very courageous, TRUTHFUL veterans.” I could not agree more, and they should be cherished, whether one spent the war twisting wrenches at NAS Olathe, Kansas, or one day found himself struggling through the muck going up Sugar Loaf Hill.

But those who embellish, claiming an honor for something they did not do, should be called out for same and those who, veteran or no, are but pretenders who spout outright enormous lies should be squashed. I suppose, which is which, embellisher or liar can be rather subjective. I suspect with your friend, he made an off the cuff comment to someone who passed same to a journalist (and journalists make lousy writers of history) who hunted him down and rather an embarrassing admission at his age he kept up the story. My point would be one should not be too eager to eat these stories up with a spoon, which, frankly, a great many people tend to do, but keep a fair degree of polite skepticism until proven otherwise.

Some people apparently have a hard time telling the difference. Even well-known authors fall in the trap. Take the late Gerald Astor. Apparently, he never met an oral history he did not like. So, in his Wings of Gold tome he regales us all with the tales of a gent who was at Pearl Harbor on 7 December . . . maybe he was, but his self-identified VP squadron was not, so I am skeptical, and then Astor presents us with the very same gent cavorting about the sky over USS Yorktown at Midway in an F4F . . . which in a truly amazing feat he’d flown out to the ship from Midway Island the night before to join VF-3 . . . and shooting down Japanese planes while employing the Thach Weave (which, according to none other than Thach himself was employed in the battle only by himself and his wingman, ENS Robert A M Dibb) AND while flying on the wing of the ship’s XO, Dixie Keifer. Uh huh, sure he did, and now there’s enough evidence to toss out anything he might have said about his presence at the Pearl Harbor attack. And, for the record, I have probably the only original of the VF-3 Tactical Organization for Midway in existence, and this guy is not on it, not to mention that the fellow who was the VF-3 XO at Midway and who, since he was doing double duty as XO and FO, made all the flying assignments for the squadron for the battle, went through the overhead when he read those passages. But for some, it must be true, right? The guy gave it an oral history and it is on the printed page in a book by an apparently well-known writer!

Ten minutes of vetting on the internet would have kept Astor from looking really, really stupid.

With regard to your complaints of the USNA and the NAPS you should, perhaps, do real research and not depend on Wiki or your bar room friends for your information . . . saves you the trouble of unveiling to all your lack of, ummm, familiarity, yeah that’s the word, familiarity, with the subject . . . that is what the internet is for, really.

For example, you want to find out if you really know what you are talking about when you address what are known in the civilian college world as Legacy acceptances which you seem to believe pervades the USNA.

For example, some admissions demographics of the 2019 class at USNA. Some 13% (154) were the first in their families to even attend college, compared to but 56 (4.7%) who are progeny of USNA alumni, and then there were the 65 (5.4%) in the class with prior enlisted service in either the USN or USMC.

Subsequent classes:
2020 – Parents attended: 72 (6.1%); First to attend college: not available; from enlisted personnel: 75 (6.3%)
2021 – Parents attended: 71 (5.8%); First to attend college: not available; from enlisted personnel: 59 (4.9%)
2022 – Parents attended: 67 (5.5%); First to attend college: 157 (13%); from enlisted personnel: 61 (5.0%)

Honest, this stuff is not hard to find and it sure beats guessing or repetition of bar room tales.

Frankly I don’t see anything shocking in the figures and certainly not the dire expectations you would have us believe. I would suggest that a figure in the neighborhood of 6% of those entering any given college being progeny of an alumni/alumnae of that same college is not particularly unusual or startling and, perhaps, it’s even a little low when compared nationally . . . for example, at UVA the percentage seems to hover around 14%; Harvard and Yale run about the same as do most of the Ivy League schools as well as places such as Notre Dame. Maybe you should investigate the legacy phenomena before you make ridiculous claims. Can’t help but think you seem to have acquired some deep and long-lasting issues somewhere to make you harbor such deep, and unfounded, conspiratorial contemplation.

As far as NAPS is concerned, as far as I know, not ever being associated with same, at least from the 1950s one could enlist, note, you had to enlist, for the purpose of attending the PS or already be enlisted. And, of course, you had to first be turned down by the Academy itself. Generally, at that point you are automatically in the pool for acceptance to NAPS, but you go through still another evaluation and you’d even be surprised how many turn down the opportunity. Those who make the cut get 10 months to improve themselves, grades, SAT and ACT scores, physical requirements, and still have to reapply, the whole process from zero, to the Academy. Appointment and matriculation are not automatic; likely, sure, if you meet the requirements, but not guaranteed. If the powers that be thought for a minute that even with their tender ministrations for 10 months you would not make it into or at the Academy, you would not get accepted into the PS, period. USNA admissions from NAPS and the Naval Academy Foundation prep scholarships ran about 200 a year in the classes noted above. I believe that the MAPS and the AFAPS operate the same way. Could some of those folks going from NAPS to USNA be youngsters whose parents attended USNA? Sure, it’s possible, but I’d be willing to wager nowhere in near the numbers suggested in the breathless excitement of your accusations.

I’d like to see YOUR demographic data that convince us all of the validity of your complaints, or, rather, your opinion.

Since you raise the subject, Vietnam, I regret to tell you that I stopped worrying about Vietnam and anything to do with it in early 1973, a dead issue, I wasn’t going there. Wait, I lie, there was the My Lai business . . . in my opinion, opinion, mind you, without actually reading all the relevant transcripts, they should have all gone to jail, from the lowest private pulling a trigger to the generals who tried to cover it up . . every damn one of them. Just my opinion. So, whatever telephone thingy it is you are babbling about, I don’t know what is it, I don’t care what it is, and I’ve no interest in finding out. I leave you to your studies.

And speaking of studies, Ward, it is nice to know that there is someone to whom I can turn when I really need to know the ins and outs of accessing (at least from your context) of a porn site. I take it that is from your personal experience since I’ve had no such exposure.
Last edited by R Leonard on 23 Mar 2019, 15:34, edited 1 time in total.

paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008, 21:14

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#356

Post by paulrward » 23 Mar 2019, 02:40

Hello OpanaPointer :

OK, I am confused here. What exactly were you referring to in your posting:

Silly buggers don't understand the difference between "liquid capital" and "net worth". Great Britain OWNED INDIA, etc.

Please expand on the point, so that I don't misunderstand it.

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#357

Post by OpanaPointer » 23 Mar 2019, 02:41

I won't bother feeding you. You need to do some serious studying before you can make a coherent post on this topic.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#358

Post by Sid Guttridge » 25 Mar 2019, 16:30

Hi Guys,

I don't know if the article Casualty Projections for the US Invasions of Japan 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications. (The Journal of Military History, Vol.61, No.3, July 1997) has been mentioned yet, but it shows that the US casualty projections in the low hundred thousands mentioned earlier in this thread are for the island of Kyushu alone, not for the invasion of the whole of Japan.

It was estimated that the cost of assaulting Kyushu alone was 394,859 casualties of all sorts in four months. This was faster than the USA was training new infantry.

The cost of a follow up assault on the next, smaller, island of Shikoku was put at 80,000.

And this is before any assault on the main island of Honshu projected for March 1946.

On p.58 the author states, "What can be stated as a fact, is that the estimate that American casualties could surpass the million mark was set in the summer of 1944 and was never changed."

And this is without any US naval losses, or air losses that were running at 30% per month (2% per raid) in June 1945.

It is also without taking into account the losses of the USA's allies, who were expected to undertake major operations in Malaya and mainland China.

And finally it doers not take into account any Japanese military casualties, which would almost certainly be several times as high as US casualties, let alone Japanese civilian losses.

In these circumstances, dropping the atom bombs to end the war before all this carnage was unleashed on friend and foe alike must have looked like a relatively benign alternative to the Truman administration.

Cheers,

Sid.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#359

Post by OpanaPointer » 25 Mar 2019, 18:15

I extrapolated casualties based on Saipan* and came up with an Allied dead and wounded in the order of 3.8 million. Adding Japanese dead and wounded would give a horrific number.


*"It will be a Saipan from one end of Japan to the other."

Ah, here, posted elsewhere.
derail: Some rough numbers.
Saipan was 44.55 sq/miles.
Japan is 145,936 sq/miles.
US invasion cost ~13,000 casualties (3K dead).
That's 291/square mile on Saipan.
The US feared "A Saipan from one end of Japan to the other" if we had to invade.
Extrapolating from the above, that's ~3,800,000 casualties to subdue Japan if it came to that.

I think the above numbers are conservative. Wildly conservative if you also count potential Japanese casualties.

/derail
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#360

Post by Sid Guttridge » 26 Mar 2019, 12:15

Hi OpanaPointer,

Saipan was only one of the considerations US planners took into account.

It is worth repeating what the article said:

"What can be stated as a fact, is that the estimate that American casualties could surpass the million mark was set in the summer of 1944 and was never changed."

Some 90,000–146,000 people died in Hiroshima and 39,000–80,000 in Nagasaki in the four months after dropping the bomb. Of these, about half died on the days of the blasts and it is these that the US leaders had reason to calculate for, as the longer term effects of radiation were not yet known.

In essence, US leaders had to balance potentially about 1,000,000 of their own casualties against about 120,000 Japanese blast deaths they might have had reason to anticipate and an unknown number of injuries from causes known and unknown.

Cheers,

Sid.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”