Hiroshima and Nagasaki in perspective.

[Real Talk]

Why do we talk about these so often? This excert may help put things in perspective.



The Tokyo Fire-Bombing:
"The night of March 9, 1945, began typically enough for war-weary Tokyo residents. They went to bed hungry, the distant wailing of air-raid sirens lulling them to sleep.

But World War II was about to rouse them violently from their fitful dreams into a waking nightmare. Before the new day dawned, a United States air-raid killed or injured as many as 200,000 people. It obliterated a quarter of all Tokyo's buildings, leaving more than a million people homeless.

The Americans dispatched the first wave of more than 300 bombers from Guam, Saipan and the Tinian Islands, 2,500 kilometres south of Tokyo. Each plane dropped 180 oil-gel sticks, less than a metre long, on the tightly knit neighbourhoods of wooden houses. Then two waves of planes emptied their bays of a lethal cargo: napalm. The resulting inferno unleashed hell on earth.

Kiyoko Kawasaki, then a 36-year-old mother, remembers running into the street with two buckets on her head for protection, walking into a sea of fire and seeing burning bodies floating in the Sumida River. "The prostitutes who hung out by the riverbank jumped into a nearby pond," she recalled. "But the pond was boiling so they all died."

Kyoko Arai was just a middle-school student when she witnessed her neighbourhood burn to the ground in the firebombing. She watched people perish when dancing fireballs set their hair alight. Worse, she remembers mothers running into the air-raid shelters with babies in their arms. "They would try to breast-feed the babies, but actually the babies were dead," Arai said. "Some of the mothers went crazy from the shock."

For survivors, the misery was just beginning. Takae Fujiki, then a 15-year-old high-school student, recalls being "chased" by the bombers. She says they hunted down fleeing civilians to deliberately drop bombs on them. And they napalmed the rivers to cut off an escape route, Fujiki says. "It was obvious they were trying to kill as many of us as possible.""

11 weeks later, on May 23, 520 giant B-29 "Superfortress" bombers unleashed another 4,500 tons of bombs on Tokyo obliterating Tokyo's commercial center and railway yards, and the Ginza entertainment district. Two days later, on May 25, a second strike of 502 "Superfortress" planes rained down some 4,000 tons of explosives. Together these two B-29 raids destroyed 56 square miles of the Japanese capital.

Tokyo Fire-Bombing killed many more people than did the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Even before the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombing, American air force General Curtis LeMay boasted that American bombers were "driving them [Japanese] back to the stone age."

[Note: In a bizzare act of recognition, in 1964, the Japanese government conferred the First Order of Merit with the Grand Cordon of the Rising Sun upon Gen. Curtis LeMay (the father of Strategic Bombing) - the same general who, less than 20 years earlier, had incinerated "well over half a million Japanese civilians, perhaps nearly a million"... And who as the Chief of Staff of US Air Force in 1964, had warned Vietnam that "we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age."... A phrase repeated again recently during the bombing of Afghanistan]

Gen. Douglas MacArthur's aide, Brigadier Gen. Bonner Fellers, called Tokyo-Bombings "one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of noncombatants in all history."

 

[Harshaw]

And? What is it with this obsession of yours, anyway?

 

[Ambracia]

Exactly, it was war and worse stuff happenned multiple times

 

[justabubba]

my perspective is that this account adds to the defense of Truman's decision to drop THE bomb

history has questioned whether he was too heavy handed in that decision

and if the japanese had surrendered after the first nuclear blast, that question of excessive force might be found credible

but just as the japanese refused to agree to surrender after the tokyo firebombings, the emperor continued to refuse to surrender after the slaughter that was hiroshima

clearly, it was going to require massive firepower to eliminate the need to expose American soldiers to an assault on the fortified japanese islands

nagasaki finally demonstrated that degree of firepower existed and could not be withstood


good fortune allowed me to go to high school in yamato and the university of tokyo; and i have lived amongst no people who are better than the japanese culture. but the facts presented above are, unfortunately, irrefutable

 

[bhkad]

Why do we talk about these so often? This excerpt may help put things in perspective.

Fixed.

....

 

[rathi]

If it turned out the the allies had been on the opposite side of the war crimes trials, Lemay would have been the first to be convicted. Although the strategic bombings of industry were a required strategy to ensure victory, the firebombing attacks on civilian cities were not.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki at least had a purpose to end the war. Tokyo, Hamburg and Dresden were destroyed for nothing.

 

[Renae]

If it turned out the the allies had been on the opposite side of the war crimes trials, Lemay would have been the first to be convicted. Although the strategic bombings of industry were a required strategy to ensure victory, the firebombing attacks on civilian cities were not.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki at least had a purpose to end the war. Tokyo, Hamburg and Dresden were destroyed for nothing.

Ahh, the fogged glasses of Moral Relativism attempting to peer into the past and pass judgement.

WWII was the last war fought under the concept of "total war". To end the war, all persons of the enemy country were considered legal and viable targets. The thinking is brutally correct.

Kill the civilians, and the military cannot fight. You destroy the ability of the enemy to wage war physically, mentally and you destroy morale.

Is it nice? Nope. Is it pretty? Nope. Did it work? With out a doubt.

Vietnam is a example of what happens when you start cherry picking targets and playing nice. The enemy can still survive, and still wage war. Our weapons have reached the ability to pin point many critical elements of the enemy military, and it amazes the amount of hand wringing and whining about "civilian casualties" from people.

War is hell, and the only way to win is to bring upon the enemy the unbearable fires of hell.

 

[Real Talk]

And? What is it with this obsession of yours, anyway?

Im asking a question no ones ever given me a half wayd ecent answer to.
Including you.
Sup with your post? Did it serve a purpose?
Adress the topic please. Or dont bother posting.

 

[rathi]

Ahh, the fogged glasses of Moral Relativism attempting to peer into the past and pass judgement.

No it is accurate strategic analysis. Long throughout history, slaughter and invasion were an accepted part of life, but in the 1939, we had changed. Fundamentally, we believed that conquest was not an acceptable way to take territory.

WWII was the last war fought under the concept of "total war". To end the war, all persons of the enemy country were considered legal and viable targets. The thinking is brutally correct.

No, it wasn't. Or was Hitler justified in the murder of his millions, as they were his enemies?

Kill the civilians, and the military cannot fight. You destroy the ability of the enemy to wage war physically, mentally and you destroy morale.

Incorrect. Nobody in WW2 won anything by intentionally bombing civilians. Bombing industry was what mattered, and while it resulted in high collateral damage, it did not intentionally kill civilians. In fact, Hitler lost the Battle of Britain primarily because he started bombing London instead of airfields and factories.

Is it nice? Nope. Is it pretty? Nope. Did it work? With out a doubt.

Murdering hundreds of thousands did nothing to help our cause. Germany was defeated by taking its land in a ground attack, and Japan surrendered facing the power of the nuclear bomb. Please explain how firebombing aided in either of those situations.

Vietnam is a example of what happens when you start cherry picking targets and playing nice. The enemy can still survive, and still wage war. Our weapons have reached the ability to pin point many critical elements of the enemy military, and it amazes the amount of hand wringing and whining about "civilian casualties" from people.

Wholesale slaughter would have cost us our allies and given the communists credibility in attacking us in the world stage. Furthermore, whats the point of protecting Vietnam from communists only to kill them all? If you don't care about the well being of the people, why are you there at all?

War is hell, and the only way to win is to bring upon the enemy the unbearable fires of hell.

WW2 was won by maneuver, strategy, industrial capacity and logistics. We faced the most evil powers in modern times, and triumphed with our morals mostly intact. War is brutal and destructive, but we only need kill as many as is required for victory, no more.

With an attitude like yours, who even needs to fight wars? Who cares if evil tyrants triumph in battle if we have already become evil ourselves?

 

[Real Talk]

WWII was the last war fought under the concept of "total war". To end the war, all persons of the enemy country were considered legal and viable targets. The thinking is brutally correct.

If this is the logic of western war, we are not very honest about it.

 

[Renae]

If this is the logic of western war, we are not very honest about it.

It was, times changed, now we pretend you can fight a war and be nice about it.

 

[Renae]

No it is accurate strategic analysis. Long throughout history, slaughter and invasion were an accepted part of life, but in the 1939, we had changed. Fundamentally, we believed that conquest was not an acceptable way to take territory.

Funny, Hitler started the war with just that in mind.

No, it wasn't. Or was Hitler justified in the murder of his millions, as they were his enemies?

I see you still can't get past moral relativism insidiousness. It's permeated your ability to understand the concepts and judge history based on the period history occurred and the constructs of the time without attempting to place the false "truth" of modern thinking into the mix.

Incorrect. Nobody in WW2 won anything by intentionally bombing civilians.

From the beginning of the war the German Luftwaffe engaged in massive air raids against most Polish cities[20][21] bombing civilian infrastructures[21][22], hospitals[19][21], schools[23] as well as civilian population[24][25] including refugees.[20][26][27][28] The refugees and troops becoming mixed in the road and suffering terribly.[29] Notably, the German Luftwaffe bombed cities like Warsaw, Wieluń and Frampol.

The war started out.. with civilians as prime legal targets...



You should really understand WWII for what it was, not for what you judge it to be.

Bombing industry was what mattered, and while it resulted in high collateral damage, it did not intentionally kill civilians. In fact, Hitler lost the Battle of Britain primarily because he started bombing London instead of airfields and factories.

And why did he do? Let us peer into history a bit:

Hitler's No. 17 Directive, issued 1 August 1940 on the conduct of war against England specifically forbade Luftwaffe to conduct terror raids on its own initiative, and reserved the right of ordering terror attacks as means of reprisal for the Führer himself,[89] despite the raids conducted by RAF Bomber Command against industries located in German cities since May 1940. This was echoed in Göring's general order issued on 30 June, 1940 on the the air war against the island fortress:
The war against England is to be restricted to destructive attacks against industry and air force targets which have weak defensive forces. ... The most thorough study of the target concerned, that is vital points of the target, is a pre-requisite for success. It is also stressed that every effort should be made to avoid unnecessary loss of life amongst the civilian population.[90]
On August 8 1940, the Germans switched to raids on RAF fighter bases.[91] To reduce losses, the Luftwaffe also began to use increasing numbers of bombers at night.[92] By the last week of August, over half the missions were flown under the cover of dark. Despite Hitler's orders not to attack London, the city had already been bombed on 15 August, resulting in 60 deaths.[citation needed] There were further minor[citation needed] attacks on London at night in August, on the 18/19, 22/23, 24/25, 25/26 and 28/29[93]. The raid of 22/23 August, the first Luftwaffe raid on central London, was described as 'extensive' by British observers.[94] On August 24, fate took a turn, and several off-course German bombers accidentally bombed residential areas of London.[95][96][97][98] The next day, the RAF bombed Berlin for the first time, targeting Tempelhof airfield and the Siemens factories in Siemenstadt[99], but were seen as indiscriminate bombings by the Germans due to their inaccuracy, and infuriated Hitler;[100][101][102] he ordered that the 'night piracy of the British' be countered by a concentrated night offensive against the island, and especially London.[103] In a public speech in Berlin on 4 September 1940, Hitler announced that:"The other night the English had bombed Berlin. So be it. But this is a game at which two can play. When the British Air Force drops 2000 or 3000 or 4000 kg of bombs, then we will drop 150 000, 180 000, 230 000, 300 000, 400 000 kg on a single night. When they declare they will attack our cities in great measure, we will eradicate their cities. The hour will come when one of us will break - and it will not be National Socialist Germany!"[104]

Murdering hundreds of thousands did nothing to help our cause. Germany was defeated by taking its land in a ground attack, and Japan surrendered facing the power of the nuclear bomb. Please explain how firebombing aided in either of those situations.

Sure thing, I'll use History, not your... misguided view of war.

During the first few months of the area bombing campaign, an internal debate within the British government about the most effective use of the nation's limited resources in waging war on Germany continued. Should the Royal Air Force (RAF) be scaled back to allow more resources to go to the British Army and Royal Navy or should the strategic bombing option be followed and expanded? An influential paper was presented to support the bombing campaign by Professor F.W. Lindemann, the British government's leading scientific adviser, justifying the use of area bombing to "dehouse" the German workforce as the most effective way of reducing their morale and affecting enemy war production.
Mr. Justice Singleton, a High Court Judge, was asked by the Cabinet to look into the competing points of view. In his report, that was delivered on 20 May 1942, he concluded that "If Russia can hold Germany on land I doubt whether Germany will stand 12 or 18 months’ continuous, intensified and increased bombing, affecting, as it must, her war production, her power of resistance, her industries and her will to resist (by which I mean morale)".[115][116][117] In the end, thanks in part to the dehousing paper, it was this view which prevailed and Bomber Command would remain an important component of the British war effort up to the end of World War II. A very large proportion of the industrial production of the United Kingdom was harnessed to the task of creating a vast fleet of heavy bombers—so much so other vital areas of war production were under-resourced. Until 1944, the effect on German production was remarkably small and raised doubts whether it was wise to divert so much effort – the response being there was no where else the effort could have been applied to greater effect.

Note here that the British felt bombing the **** out of the Nazi's was the way to go... and they did win the war.

Oh and as for Japan:

The United States strategic bombing of Japan took place between 1942 and 1945. In the last seven months of the campaign, a change to firebombing tactics resulted in great destruction of 67 Japanese cities, as many as 500,000 Japanese deaths and some 5 million more made homeless. Emperor Hirohito's viewing of the destroyed areas of Tokyo in March 1945, is said to have been the beginning of his personal involvement in the peace process, culminating in Japan's surrender five months later.[127]

Wholesale slaughter would have cost us our allies and given the communists credibility in attacking us in the world stage. Furthermore, whats the point of protecting Vietnam from communists only to kill them all? If you don't care about the well being of the people, why are you there at all?

That really was the thinking of those in charge... and look, we lost the war!

WW2 was won by maneuver, strategy, industrial capacity and logistics. We faced the most evil powers in modern times, and triumphed with our morals mostly intact. War is brutal and destructive, but we only need kill as many as is required for victory, no more.

And how do you do that when you cannot ensure you can hit a target?

With an attitude like yours, who even needs to fight wars? Who cares if evil tyrants triumph in battle if we have already become evil ourselves?

You mistake my attitude for evil, which is common with people who have no moral comprehension of what is going on.

I believe that the number one priority of a nation at war, is to win said war. And doing so in a way that minimizes your countries casualties. If you can firebomb a city (or in modern methods, B-52 carpet bombing) before you send in your troops. Aces. If you can force the other side out of the war by destroying it's ability to fight a war, DO IT.

War is not the time for hand wringing about "gee is this the nice way to win?"

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II[/ame]

 

[Real Talk]

It was, times changed, now we pretend you can fight a war and be nice about it.

And hold others to standards that when the **** hits the fan we dont hold ourselves 2.

 

[Renae]

And hold others to standards that when the **** hits the fan we dont hold ourselves 2.

WTF are you blathering about?


As a general rule, the USA is the nicest opponent you can have. Do expand on your statement.

 

[Real Talk]

WTF are you blathering about?


As a general rule, the USA is the nicest opponent you can have. Do expand on your statement.

This is ncomplete nonsense. The nicest enemy you can have doesnt carry the highest body counts in world history.


Not to mention that my statement is objectively correct: THe U.S.A holds other powers responsible to a level of conduct in war that, when the **** hits the fan, it doesnt apply to itself.

 

[Renae]

This is ncomplete nonsense. The nicest enemy you can have doesnt carry the highest body counts in world history.


Not to mention that my statement is objectively correct: THe U.S.A holds other powers responsible to a level of conduct in war that, when the **** hits the fan, it doesnt apply to itself.

Can you ya know, provide some evidence of these accusations or are you just repeating crap you heard from some website?

 

[bhkad]

Im asking a question no ones ever given me a half wayd ecent answer to.
Including you.
Sup with your post? Did it serve a purpose?
Adress the topic please. Or dont bother posting.

What is your question??

 

[Real Talk]

What is your question??

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Why do we talk about these so often? relative to the firebombing of tokyo.

 

[Renae]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Why do we talk about these so often? relative to the firebombing of tokyo.

Because they changed the world. Most people understand why the war was fought the way it was fault. Some people have issues with guilt over such things.

 

[rathi]

Funny, Hitler started the war with just that in mind.

And we went to war with him to show that it wasn't acceptable.

I see you still can't get past moral relativism insidiousness. It's permeated your ability to understand the concepts and judge history based on the period history occurred and the constructs of the time without attempting to place the false "truth" of modern thinking into the mix.

I seem to recall some war crimes trials at the time in which people used the same moral standard I am talking about right now. Judging the Mongol Hordes would be incorrect, as nobody really gave a damn back in the day.

The war started out.. with civilians as prime legal targets...

For the Germans yes, who did a lot of things so terrible we put them on trial for it.

Sure thing, I'll use History, not your... misguided view of war.

So basically you have no argument. You have presented no facts or evidence to support your statement.

Note here that the British felt bombing the **** out of the Nazi's was the way to go... and they did win the war.

By bombing industry yes, not by firebombing civilian population centers.

That really was the thinking of those in charge... and look, we lost the war!

Yes, because it wasn't worth winning the first place. Vietnam going communist in the end had absolutely no impact in the greater scheme of things. We would have been better off never wasting the money and lives in the first place.

And how do you do that when you cannot ensure you can hit a target?

You accept collateral damage. However, the thing that separates the firebombings from other strategic bombing was that the civilian deaths were not collateral damage. They were intentional targets.

You mistake my attitude for evil, which is common with people who have no moral comprehension of what is going on.

No, you don't have moral comprehension to understand the difference between un-intentional civilian deaths and deliberate slaughter.

 

[bub]

Why do we talk about these so often? This excert may help put things in perspective.



The Tokyo Fire-Bombing:
"The night of March 9, 1945, began typically enough for war-weary Tokyo residents. They went to bed hungry, the distant wailing of air-raid sirens lulling them to sleep.

But World War II was about to rouse them violently from their fitful dreams into a waking nightmare. Before the new day dawned, a United States air-raid killed or injured as many as 200,000 people. It obliterated a quarter of all Tokyo's buildings, leaving more than a million people homeless.

The Americans dispatched the first wave of more than 300 bombers from Guam, Saipan and the Tinian Islands, 2,500 kilometres south of Tokyo. Each plane dropped 180 oil-gel sticks, less than a metre long, on the tightly knit neighbourhoods of wooden houses. Then two waves of planes emptied their bays of a lethal cargo: napalm. The resulting inferno unleashed hell on earth.

Kiyoko Kawasaki, then a 36-year-old mother, remembers running into the street with two buckets on her head for protection, walking into a sea of fire and seeing burning bodies floating in the Sumida River. "The prostitutes who hung out by the riverbank jumped into a nearby pond," she recalled. "But the pond was boiling so they all died."

Kyoko Arai was just a middle-school student when she witnessed her neighbourhood burn to the ground in the firebombing. She watched people perish when dancing fireballs set their hair alight. Worse, she remembers mothers running into the air-raid shelters with babies in their arms. "They would try to breast-feed the babies, but actually the babies were dead," Arai said. "Some of the mothers went crazy from the shock."

For survivors, the misery was just beginning. Takae Fujiki, then a 15-year-old high-school student, recalls being "chased" by the bombers. She says they hunted down fleeing civilians to deliberately drop bombs on them. And they napalmed the rivers to cut off an escape route, Fujiki says. "It was obvious they were trying to kill as many of us as possible.""

11 weeks later, on May 23, 520 giant B-29 "Superfortress" bombers unleashed another 4,500 tons of bombs on Tokyo obliterating Tokyo's commercial center and railway yards, and the Ginza entertainment district. Two days later, on May 25, a second strike of 502 "Superfortress" planes rained down some 4,000 tons of explosives. Together these two B-29 raids destroyed 56 square miles of the Japanese capital.

Tokyo Fire-Bombing killed many more people than did the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Even before the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombing, American air force General Curtis LeMay boasted that American bombers were "driving them [Japanese] back to the stone age."

[Note: In a bizzare act of recognition, in 1964, the Japanese government conferred the First Order of Merit with the Grand Cordon of the Rising Sun upon Gen. Curtis LeMay (the father of Strategic Bombing) - the same general who, less than 20 years earlier, had incinerated "well over half a million Japanese civilians, perhaps nearly a million"... And who as the Chief of Staff of US Air Force in 1964, had warned Vietnam that "we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age."... A phrase repeated again recently during the bombing of Afghanistan]

Gen. Douglas MacArthur's aide, Brigadier Gen. Bonner Fellers, called Tokyo-Bombings "one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of noncombatants in all history."

Actually when the japs invaded China, they also killed thousands of civilians. In fact I think it was much worse than all the destruction that has happened in Japan.

I don't say that it was a "good thing" to bomb cities, but remembering the context of the time helps to considerate Hiroshima with some perspective.

 

[DamnYankee]

This is ncomplete nonsense. The nicest enemy you can have doesnt carry the highest body counts in world history.


Not to mention that my statement is objectively correct: THe U.S.A holds other powers responsible to a level of conduct in war that, when the **** hits the fan, it doesnt apply to itself.

:rofl

Leftist kookiness is so damn hilarious.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Why do we talk about these so often? relative to the firebombing of tokyo.

Lefties hate the fact that the United States won WWII.

Other than that, don't expect a Leftie to make any sense.