Great Tokyo Air Raid was a war crime

[cstaylor]

I have always thought the American goal of killing as many japanese civilians as possible was just downright evil.

Don't paint the actions of the strategic air command on all American fighting forces. If you think that it was an American "goal" to "kill as many Japanese civilians as possible", then why was Kyoto and Nara spared? Unlike European countries that separated their munitions and living sections, the Japanese intermingled industry and homes (similar to what Iraq is doing today by moving weapons near mosques and hospitals). Truman had a choice to make (do we give the enemy the benefit of using their people as shields, or do we press on and bring this war to a close as soon as possible), and he made the choice that destroying Japan's ability to wage war was of the highest priority.

The target (since the bulk of men were at war) were women and children - make no mistake about that.

No, the target was munitions production within Tokyo. In the firestorm that followed the bombing, the fires swept through Tokyo (because they had inadequate fire-fighting equipment).

The intended to break the will of the men fighting by killing their families like some cruel bible story.

And the Japanese in Saipan, Okinawa, Tarawa, Iwo Jima were going to hear that their family was dead? Do you think that the Japanese high command had the time to notify their soldiers in the field about civilian deaths? They couldn't even muster enough ships to go and bring them home for the possible invasion of the country.

Babies in the crib, old ladies in their bathtub, young teen girls trying to live till the war ended. Just evil, you can't sugar coat that.

Instead of working in the city, families could have sent their children to the countryside like the British did.

[grandmastergaijin]

...

Exactly right. They did what had to be done. The "shitamachi" area of Tokyo was filled with small, backyard factories contributing to the war effort. In the interests of contributing to a quick end to the war, the only way to take them out was by bombing the entire area.

Bombing that area was left until March 1944, long after bombing raids had begun on the big factories, shipyards, etc. that were easy to strategically target. That it was left so long shows that they were probably hesitant to bomb it because of the civilian population. I'm sure it wasn't an enjoyable decision to make, but it had to be done.

[grandmastergaijin]

and 65 other cities as well. Those sneaky japs, everybody making bullets in the kitchen. Their own fault, not having adequate firefighting equipment.
and you know, they all voted for hirohito and the warlords too!

oh ya spared Kyoto and Nara! Like they were next I think. Kept in reserve.

and Roosevelts son was just kidding when he said they should kill half the population of Japan.

If your such a great airmchair strategist, what do you propose they should have done?

[cstaylor]

and 65 other cities as well. Those sneaky japs, everybody making bullets in the kitchen. Their own fault, not having adequate firefighting equipment.
and you know, they all voted for hirohito and the warlords too!

oh ya spared Kyoto and Nara! Like they were next I think. Kept in reserve.

and Roosevelts son was just kidding when he said they should kill half the population of Japan.

If your such a great airmchair strategist, what do you propose they should have done?

Don't bother arguing with the ignorant. Maybe Japanlover should spend some time with the books before displaying his ignorance to the world?

[cstaylor]

[cstaylor]

What if Isreal nuked Palistine to get the few terrorists dwelling among the general population?

Oh boy, I don't want to go there... but you're comparing apples and oranges... Japan and America were at war, and against the agreed conventions of war (soldiers must be clearly marked, civilian populations should not be targeted unless they are conducting business in support of the war effort, etc...) Japan intermixed their war production with their civilian population... and those people paid the price when Tokyo was bombed. Stimson thought that low-level saturation bombing was atrocious, but as long as the Japanese continued to put their civilians in harms way they would be targets.

[dave]

You hear lot's about the innocent casualties of war, and it's a very true and sad consequence of any war. I'm not proud of some of the things my native America has done in past wars, but on the other hand, once a country commits to the act of military action, it must be a full commitment and not a half assed attempt to damage the enemy while remaining politically correct. War sucks. No way around it. Needless innocent lives are lost in unimagineable numbers...............................Which is why any country with a concience should exhaust all efforts to avoid war. But once a country commits to military action, be it for the wrong reason or whatever, that commitment needs to be maintained in the strictest of terms, or else that country risks either defeat, or incompletion. Which will result in the same trouble years to come. It's a hard reality to swallow, but the purpose of any war is to "Kill people and to break things!" And unfortunately as cruel as it seems, the country that is most willing and capable to do both, will end up the victor. And I feel sad yet fortunate that my country was willing to "go the distance" in order to protect it's current and future citizens and interests. (ask the relatives of Japanese kidnapped by N. Korea how their country/government has protected their interests!)
War will always result in the loss of innocent lives. Regardless of how it's fought, and with whatever technoligy exists, assets as well as people caught in the area of destruction will always be at risk. But to my knowlege, the US is the only country in the world that is making an effort with technoligy and strategy to avoid the loss of innocent lives. Yes, when the US carries out military actions against military targets, there are sometimes, and probably always will be loss of innocent lives. But the US is the only nation in the world that makes an effort to avoid such casualties, and does so even at the risk of the lives of the military personel. I don't know how many innocents have died as a result of US military action, but I do know that such military action carried out by any other nations military would most definately result in many many times more loss of innocent life. OTHER NATIONS SPECIFICALLY TARGET CIVILIANS!
And, does any other nation have a record of going in to fix what it broke? After WWII, the US played a huge role in the rebuilding of Japan, and the rebuilding of what it had destroyed. Currently in Afganisatan, the US is spending lot's of resources in the rebuilding and healing of the damage it has done.
Yes, US military actions past present and future have and will result in the loss of innocent lives. But as cruel as it may sound, Americans should be gratefull that their country is willing to go all the way in order to protect it's citizens (and in some cases the citizens of other countries.) And, the US has the only military in the world that is willing to risk their own personnel in order to avoid innocent casualties however unsucessful this may be. And, the US is the only country that will help to rebuild what it has destroyed, also resulting in risking US lives and at the expense of US tax dollars.
War is terrible, and I wish more nations would exhaust more options in avoiding such conflicts BECAUSE of the unfortunate fact that innocent civilians are usually the ones most adversly affected.

[tokyojoe]

oh ya spared Kyoto and Nara! Like they were next I think. Kept in reserve.

Actually, there was some interesting research done that hinted that one of the high level members of the President`s staff spent time in Kyoto and Nara before the war and may have been influential in sparing those cities. I doubt either had much in the way of military or economic targets anyway.

[cstaylor]

Ok I was with you until this line. America has never avoided civilian casulties in war.

That's a pretty broad statement. You might want to go back and reread your history of the European Theater of the second world war. It was the British that approved the night raid on Dresden (a non-military target), and that wanton attack was met with international indignation.

They bombed the crap out of europe and japan, but the the propaganda machine paints this picture of a kind gentle America . . . look how peaceful she is and slow to anger . . . in the end it's just propaganda, run the numbers for yourself.

? Just look at the history of Okinawa: the majority of the civilian casualities were either self-inflicted through mass-suicide or they were useless deaths at the hands of Japanese military commanders who pressed untrained civilians into battle.

America set the rules of mayhem. Lets not even get into the native peoples of North America.

? Not sure what you mean. Perhaps you would like to read the history of the Ainu people in Japan, or the Formosans, or the people of Tibet, or the native americans in Central and South America?

In 1930's america was not considered a major military threat

The army was 17th in the world, if I remember my history correctly.

It would be like us fighting mexico and seeing mexicans turn into this blood-thirty industrial tiger.

? A man of Isoroku Yamamoto's intelligence and his experience in the United States, who knew full well that his Navy was expected to fulfill the obligations placed upon it by the Army without oil reserves lasting more than 2 years, should have refused to make such a senseless assault, and urged the war council to agree to the American diplomatic demands: get out of southeast Asia and regain the right to buy oil from the United States.

America, it was hoped, would give up and leave or at the lest it's entire nany would be in ruins.

There's some division about that. Members of the Army (who had very little experience with America) thought that their pure Yamato bloodlines would triumph over the mongrel races of the West, while men with more experience like Yamamoto thought that the attack, at best, would buy Japan two years of control in Asia, where they would secure their natural resources their island nation sorely lacked.

But America was stronger then anyone realized and she arose to the occasion.

As I said above, many people, including top Japanese commanders, knew what they were going to face.

We killed right at 2 million Japanese civilians

2 million Japanese civilians? Could you send me a link to that information? That's the first I've heard of that.

and the japanese killed about 300,000 in China

Ah, I see. So you think the Chinese aren't telling the truth when they claim that the Kwangtung massacred over 300,000 in Nanking alone?

I don't remember where I read it on Japan Today, but one of the comments went something like this: Young Americans in Japan go through 3 phases:
Phase 1 - I Love America. These things that the Japanese do are stupid. They should be more like America.
Phase 2 - I hate America. Everything America does is wrong. The Japanese are always right, and I can defend everything they may have done in the past by exaggerating mistakes that America has made (and apologized for... unlike some other governments we know).
Phase 3 - Power is power. The strong dominate the weak, and only the rule of law stands between us and perdition. The two greatest things that arose from WW2 were the Japanese constitution (Article 9... if only more countries would amend their constitutions to match it) and the birth of the United Nations.

[GomiGirl]

OK, it is true that I am a bit of a pacifist, and have never thought that violence is a solution to arguments. But I also have the completely naive opinion that all war has distateful elements and that all participants do things that they would not want to happen in their neighbourhood. It is not that one side is more wrong than another or that God (or whoever) is on the side of good - depending on what side you are on. This is propaganda designed to keep the public supporting a war.

I have always thought that war serves governments much more than it does the people they claim to represent. When talks between countries fail, the children (history shows that most foot soldiers are barely over the age of 18 years) are sent out as cannon fodder to sort out what supposedly intellegent adults couldn't do over a cup of tea and a chat. All this happens while the people in power sit in relative comfort and watch it all on CNN, guaging what to do next based on public opinion.

We can pick apart history and interpret all wars, disagreements or whatever in many different ways depending on which side you want to justify or vindicate. Bad things happen to good people and good people do bad things during a war.

War is also a way of controlling money, resouces and swaying public opinion to rally behind a leader, all in the name of "patriotism". If you are not with us you are against us.... Didn't this sort of attitute surface recently? There is something very wrong with this - but while the results are the same, this pattern will continue. It is the same old thing since adam was a boy. Now if women ran wars.....

Sabre rattling leads to more sabre rattling which is a vicious cycle. While I believe it is necessary to protect oneself from invasion - I do not believe that major offensives in retaliation are always necessary - as I said it is all a vicious cycle.

Just because one country cleans up its own mess, it doesn't follow that the mess making was justified in the first place.

I know that some of you will dismiss me as naive - go right ahead as I fully agree that this sort of idealism is naive considering human nature. But as a travelled and educated person, I have never been able to swallow the bitter pill of propaganda - I KNOW better. I will NOT accept blindly what leaders have to tell me and will always question the decisions of a few that cause trouble and despair for so many.

The irony is that I grew up in a millitary household as an officers kid.

But this is all too much seriousness for a Monday!!

[Andocrates]

the numbers I used came from this page http://www.holocaust-history.org/~rjg/deaths.shtml


Mike

[cstaylor]

Here's a link to how Okinawans were treated by the Imperial Japanese army

[cstaylor]

Now if women ran wars.....

MacArthur held the same sentiment, which is why he pushed so hard for giving Japanese women suffrage after the war.

[GomiGirl]

Handbags at 50 paces.... ?

No that is back to the duelling thread...

Actually it would be a bit disorganised - women undermining each other to gain power - coups left right and centre. Sad but true. Sorry to be disloyal to the sisterhood.

There is not the same sort of blind following of leaders....

[cstaylor]

Ah, I was thinking more along the lines of Article 9... giving women the right to vote would keep warmongers out of power, because women would (presumably) not want to send their sons to their deaths.

[GomiGirl]

Actually, during WW1 and to a certain extent WW2, it was the women (in Britain I am talking about) who were the most jingoistic (spelling?) and enthusiatic about sending the men and boys off to fight and most likely die.

I guess if they had seen their sons/husbands/brothers go off and perhaps not to return, they felt that everybody else should "do their bit". So it was quite common for able-bodied men to find themselves showered with white feathers by women. This was a huge insult as it meant you were considered a coward and you were shunned by your friends and neighbours.

If you had a wooden leg, flat feet or whatever, but you really wanted to go but were refjected by the army, then you were just pitied.

Concientiously objecting was not popular until Vietnam.

How times change.... perhaps it is because there is more freedom of communication and people have not glorified war as much as throughout history.

[cstaylor]

all arial bombing of civilian areas is criminal.
the nazis did it to terrorize the british.
the british and americans did it to terrorize the germans.
the americans did it to terrorize the japanese.
(the japanese used more personal methods to terrorize their enemies.)

Well, if my memory serves me correctly, the first bombing of London (did very little damage) occurred when the British began jamming German location signals (a primitive, radio signal triangulation of position), and a bomber mistakenly dropped the bombs off target.

The British retaliated by bombing Berlin, which angered Hitler (he had previously boasted that bombs would never touch Berlin, just as the Japanese were sure that bombs would never hit Tokyo), leading to a serious change in strategy: forget the RAF, hit London. This put operation Sea Lion (the planned invasion of the British Isles) in jeopardy, and eventually lead to the destruction of the Luftwaffe as an effective fighting force (London was too far for adequate fighter escort).

The Americans, after the attacks on Pearl Harbor, the Phillipines, and Wake Island, struck back at the Japanese using the U.S.S. Hornet and 16 B-25 bombers on a suicide mission.

The Japanese... well, let's just say that their pilots had a special place in their hearts (and targeting sights) for Red Cross vehicles in their war with China in the last 1930's. It got so bad that wounded Chinese refused to enter the ambulances unless the Red Cross symbol was covered in mud.

its wrong and illegal and should be punished by war crimes tribunals in an international court.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and actually agree with a point made by some of the right-wingers in Japan: that war-crimes tribunals are justifications for the victors over the vanquished. The only people who get punished are those on the losing side, so effectively a war crimes tribunal is a political process, not a judicial one.

[Andocrates]

I sometimes wonder if America has really changed. If the digital revolution, which made us a much more "worldly" people has changed us at a base level? Certainly it seems to me modern Japan could never muster an Imperial Army mentality from today's Japanese youth - although maybe I'm wrong.

But, my grandparents are so different then me. They have a very small scope of life. I find it difficult to hate an entire people based on the actions of a few (Iraq comes to mind) But on the other hand, I have some pretty wicked prejudices against arabs I didn't have a year or so ago.

While at the time of 9-11 I understood that it was a small band of radicals who commited the act, the actions of the arab peoples afterward, the cheering in the street, the bin laden worship etc. soured me.

Could it happen again? Is mankind so fatally flawed that we can revert to killing whole nations to serve our ends? My grandparents and older people always say the same thing - "The Atomic bombs saved many American lives" which sounds like propaganda to me. America bought propaganda hook line and sinker in the 40's - I really doubt that would work today. OR is my hatred and distrust of Arabs a carefully planned and orchestrated propaganda war of our goverment?

[cstaylor]

My grandparents and older people always say the same thing - "The Atomic bombs saved many American lives" which sounds like propaganda to me

Perhaps because you've been taught opposing propaganda in school? Really, the mathematics are trivial: do you hold your weapons back and drop to the enemy's level (invasion), certainly incurring casualities, or do you let technology fight the war for you? Would it make you happier if children had been bayonetted instead of bombed? At Potsdam, Truman pushed for Japan's unconditional surrender, or they would face utter destruction. That is where the blame lies... I can't imagine FDR speaking so plainly (and throwing so many Japanese and American lives away in the process). In the end, the surrender was conditional (the Emperor was not to be held accountable for his participation in the war).

[cstaylor]

my point is that ALL war crimes, by the winners or losers, should be punished by an international court, not just by the victors, but ON the victors too

That will never happen. You would need to do away with nations for that to happen.

berlin, london, dresden, tokyo, hiroshima, nagasaki. all war crimes. indescriminate and irresponsible bombing, aimed to alter policy. not punished.

Just in the European theater alone the list is endless. The Soviet capture and forced-labor of German and Japanese troops near the close of the war was criminal, but no one was going to dictate to them about it. Many treasures stolen by the Nazis were confiscated by the Soviets and taken back to Moscow, rather than returned to their rightful owners.

how many on the allied side still quote the old propaganda for bombing hiroshima and nagasaki? despite the evidence.

I wonder how many Japanese would have died in an invasion? Does the primitive nature of the knife and the gun make it okay to kill children and old people (placed on the line by their own people)? One bomb, one plane, a thousand bombs, a thousand planes, a million troops, a million deaths, I never really understood why murder with one weapon is permissible, but mass-death with a single weapon is a war crime.

[cstaylor]

the bomb was dropped on a city mainly to scare the soviets

Yes, that was the opinion of men like Secretary of State Byrnes (who, unlike Truman, had been at the Yalta conference).

the japanese were already making peace moves through third countries

Conditional peace proposals that the Truman administration refused. The Japanese put a four part peace agreement together:
- No occupation
- Japanese would disarm themselves (oh boy)
- Emperor would not be implicated in any war crimes trials
- Territorial holdings obtained before the Pacific War would be retained by Japan (Korea and the Northern Islands)
The Japanese ambassador to Russia felt that this was a highly unrealistic goal:

Sato's (the Japanese ambassador to Russia) replies insistently pointed out the lack of reality in Togo's apparent belief that there is a chance of persuading Russia to take independent action on the Eastern war. He stated very bluntly and without any coating how fantastic is the hope that Russia would be impressed by Japanese willingness to give up territory which she had already lost

also russia was about to join the war against japan.

Yes, Stalin agreed to this at Postsdam.

this had the downside that japan would have to have been divided like germany (and the rest of europe) between alied forces and the ussr.

The USSR tried to establish a separate hold within Japan (under the stipulation that USSR had fulfilled its obligation by declaring war on Japan), but MacArthur would have nothing of it. Japan was too far from Russia for the USSR to establish a control sector against the wishes of the other western allies.

it is now accepted that, once russia joined, the war would have been over in a matter of weeks

And at what loss to Japanese lives? Do you think that they would just give up?

Finally, on the first of July, Sato sent a long message outlining what he conceived to be Japan's position, which was in brief that she was now entirely alone and friendless and could look for succor from no one, that she was being exposed to continuous attack which might result in her practical extinction as a nation. He strongly advised accepting any terms, including unconditional surrender, on the basis that this was the only way of preserving the entity of the Emperor and the State itself.

He finally concluded by implying that he realized what he was saying might not be welcomed by the Government at home but that his conscience still forced him to send the message. The response to his message was that the Cabinet in council had weighed all the considerations which he had raised and that their final judgment and decision was that the war must be fought with all the vigor and bitterness of which the nation was capable so long as the only alternative was _ the unconditional surrender

many of the manhatten project scientists gave up after it was discovered that germany was not capable of producing a bomb, the whole point of the project being in case the nazis got there first. although japan had its own bomb project, everyone knew they didnt have the capability to do it.

You're partially correct. Leo Szilard, the co-discoverer of the chain reaction, who urged Einstein to write the letter to FDR about the possibility of a nuclear weapon, led the effort to have the bomb discarded or tested for display only. Other physicists like Oppenheimer were divided about the bomb before it was dropped, and others like Edward Teller (the inventor of the hydrogen bomb) were not divided at all. Please take a look at Szilard website.

the remaining scientists did not want to use the bomb on a city, but do a demonstration on an uninhabited island with representitives from the japanese military government and scientists watching.

67 scientists signed this petition:

To the President of the United States:

We, the undersigned scientific personnel of the Clinton Laboratories, believe that the world-wide social and political consequences of the power of the weapon now being developed on this Project impose a special moral obligation on the government and people of the United States in introducing the weapon in warfare.

It is further believed that the power of this weapon should be made known by demonstration to the peoples of the world, irrespective of the course of the present conflict, for in this way the body of world opinion may be made the determining factor in the absolute preservation of peace.

Therefore we recommend that before this weapon be used without restriction in the present conflict, its powers should be adequately described and demonstrated, and the Japanese nation should be given the opportunity to consider the consequences of further refusal to surrender. We feel that this course of action will heighten the effectiveness of the weapon in this war and will be of tremendous effect in the prevention of future wars.

the military didnt like this, and thought it was better to see what the effects on a real city would be, and more terrifying

?

the only other country, besides the usa and nazi germany, that had the capability to produce a bomb was the ussr.

Not really, but of course the Americans didn't know that some of the British agents for the Manhatten project were Soviet spies. Szilard believed that if the bomb was never even tested, the USSR wouldn't bother spending any resources building atomic weapons]the bombs were a warning.[/quote]The bomb was a weapon, a means to bring the war to an end. If it was a "warning", then all Americans would need to do is invite Russian scientists to view the explosion at Trinity.

(also note that after the war churchill advised the american government to bomb moscow before russia got a bomb of their own. luckily the usa was not so nasty as to listen to him.)

Please post that quote here, I'd like to read it. The only quote I know of from Churchill about the Russians was "we should shake hands with the Bear as far East as possible"

if your "use the technology" idea had any grounding in reality, then the bomb would have been used in every war since

Not when the enemy has access to similar weapons. MacArthur pushed for the use of tactical weapons in Korea, but Truman was worried about the Soviet response. Khrushchev put tactical nuclear weapons (with remote launch authority) into the hands of Soviet field commanders in Cuba during the missile crisis. The only reason that these weapons were not used after the WW2 were the consequences of retaliation.

grow up.

How's this: go read a book Mike... especially one that disagrees with your point of view. That way you'll "grow up" yourself, and might even expand your viewpoints.

[cstaylor]

are you suggesting american soldiers would go around shooting and knifing children?

What would you expect them to do when they're faced with bamboo-wielding 12 year old boys defending Kyuushu?

(...well considering that even in peace time some of them gang-rape 13 year old schoolgirls, who knows...)

I've noticed something about you Nick: you don't know how to argue. This is another example of your penchant for strawman tactics. What does criminal acts by marines in Okinawa have to do with the use of the nuclear bomb.

but how can you avoid but kill civilians when you perform (cowardly) air attacks on populated areas?

Okay, you're correct. It's much easier to differentiate between civilians and soldiers at five paces than 30,000ft up in the air.

of course all killing is wrong

All the Japanese had to do was surrender. You keep avoiding this fact, so I guess you have resolved to ignore it.

on the numbers: (secret) evaluations at the time suggested that perhaps twenty thousand american troups would be killed if an invasion dragged on, and a great deal more japanese soldiers. (the official propoganda of 2 million american troups was never a real military estimate).

Again, you avoid my question. How many Japanese civilians would die in a conventional invasion and occupation? 500,000? 2,000,000? 5,000,000?

the point here is, soldiers, not civilians, of which over a million died in hiroshima and nagasaki alone.

Data please. Official totals as far as credible sources I have seen are approximately 200,000 combined for both sites. Okinawa lost 1/3rd of it's population (100,000 casualties) during the conventional invasion without the use of nuclear weapons.

i also see on another post that you seem to think that the american troups are in japan now to protect japan rather than for the same reason they are in south korea

Yes, they are there until the Japanese and South Korean central governments ask them to leave.

to contain anyone from challenging american dominance in the region.

Who would you prefer dominate the region? Don't you think North Korea, with its present leadership, is a dangerous menace to both countries?

on which note i wonder why im even bothering to debate with someone who doesnt really know what theyre talking about, is obviously in the "i hate japan" stage of culture shock, and has more time on their hands than they know what to do with (given that you produce over 10% of all posts on this site!)

Now you've gone from strawman to ad hominem. Please, don't know what I'm talking about? I've seen about, let's see here, a single link to some facts that were incomplete. I'd like to see your points, but all I have is an unknown person named "Mike" telling me what he thinks of the use of nuclear weapons. That's fine, you have an opinion, whether or not it's based upon facts.

thats all folks

Running? You're just going to ad hominem and disappear?

enjoy your lives, and dont hate japan too much, its quite nice when you get to know it...

Who hates Japan? There are problems with its government (50 years of the same political party [ -18 months in the 90's ] ), but overall I like it here.