Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tokyo Fire Bombings.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tokyo Fire Bombings.

    It's a little known snippit from history, but about five months before the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima, the United States bombed Tokyo with the full intent of causing as many civilian casualties as possible. This post is about that, and I entreat you to comment about it afterward.


    In the wee hours of March 10, 1945, 300 B-29s dropped over 2,000 tons of incendiaries on one section of Tokyo (a space seven-tenths the size of Manhattan) and in 2 1/2 hours cremated over 100,000 men, women, and children alive.

    The fires started out simply, but as the winds whipped them up, they began to quickly spread. The fire front spread so fast, in fact, police often did not have time to evacuate threatened blocks even if there was an easy way out. Many people opted to jump into some of the canals through out the city, and though several did drown, more were killed when the waters became so hot that they were boiled alive. In other cases, people crowded onto the bridges, only to be killed as the steel slowly turned white hot.

    The fires were so intense, that to this day no one is quite sure how many people were killed. Reports tell of bodies being welded into pools of molten glass, and one photo shows a woman (unidentifiable) with the charred remains of her baby laying beside her. Conservative historians put the death toll around one hundred thousand, while Tokyo's own records push that number higher, in excess of two hundred thousand dead with countless wounded. What is known, is that the attack was no accident. No, it was intended to do just what it did.

    General Curtis LeMay was having problems. Precision bombing wasn't doing as well as it was in Europe, and his superiors were starting to give him a hard time about it. "This outfit has been getting a lot of publicity without having really accomplished a hell of a lot in bombing results," he complained on March 6, before deciding to order the use of Napalm on a civilian target. When later asked about the results, he stated the civilians were "scorched and boiled and baked to death." Over the next few months up to the dropping of the atomic bomb, the firebombing was repeated on several other smaller cities, some of which were wiped off the map.

    While LeMay proclaimed that the tactic was working, breaking the cottage industry that had thwarted his precision bombing campaigns, the truth is that it was having mixed results. The Japanese military still maintained the ability to continue the war, and while it could be argued the attack on Tokyo did limit their capability, it did not justify the loss of the one hundred thousand civilians.

    It's worth noting, that while the bombings of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki are widely discussed in the history books, more often than not the bombings of March 10th have nothing so much as a foot note.

    In a way it's ironic. In the 1930s, as we do today, Americans took great pride in the principle that civilian populations should not be targeted for bombing. "Inhuman barbarism," President Roosevelt called it in 1939 when told of the attacks both by the Japanese and the Germans. Indeed, that was one reason to fight the Japanese: they targeted civilians, we didn't.

  • #2
    And yet the Japanese didn't surrender as a result of that. So that raises the question of did the heads of Japan actually care about their people? I mean, according to them, seeing 200,000 people (based on their own estimates) die, civilians, not military, was not enough to give up? They had to realize they had no chance, yet instead of surrendering to save lives, knowing we'd continue doing killing their people, they stubbornly refused to give up. And despite those fire-bombings, it took over another 200,000 to die with the atom bombs.

    So is America the only one to blame? No. Militarily Japan was beat, yet Japan didn't give up. In the end, it was America killing Japanese civilians and the Japanese military not being able to do anything about it that ended the war. Only by doing that were the Japanese leadership able to see they had no chance.
    Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers

    Comment


    • #3
      I think the main reason behind it was to try to end the war anyway it could be ended with Japan surrendering. The Japanese military were actually really good. They had a strict honor system in which surrender was NOT an option, no matter what. And their vicious savagery was already demonstrated in China as well as the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It was 1945 and with the world war winding down, Japan had not even been invaded. With their military mindset, it was determined that an allied invasion would result in millions more killed, many our own. This is what eventually led to the fireboming and, ultimately, the use of atomic bombs. It's sad that it had led to this. But if you look at Japan today we helped rebuild and now Japan has enjoyed one of the highest standards on living in the world.

      Comment


      • #4
        The thing is Greenday, in 1942, Japan tried to surrender after the defeat at Midway. George Marshall, President Roosevelt's army chief of staff, would not hear of any peace attempts. They tried through the Soviets, the British and the Siamese. The problem was, the US wanted an unconditional surrender, one part of that being that the emperor would be handed over to the US to stand trial for war crimes and be "punished" for his deeds. Punished meaning hanged. The Japanese didn't want that, and went to great (and horrible) lengths to protect their "god" leader. It's worth noting that though the US always threatened that (and the Japanese believed it) the truth is that it never happened. However it was a good plan, since it kept Japan fighting. Marshall on the other hand was taking his orders from Harry Hopkins, who has been revealed as Stalin's most important spy in the US during the war.

        Did you know that Stalin never declared war on Japan? He didn't do so until the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All accounts show that Stalin actually wanted the war to continue, since it was making it easier on him to install communist governments in countries like China and Korea.

        Shortly after WWII, military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote: "The Japanese, in a military sense, were in a hopeless strategic situation by the time the Potsdam convention demand for unconditional surrender was made on July 26, 1945."

        The Japanese were beaten in 42. Which brings us to the new question. What did the US have to gain by not accepting the surrender?

        I can't answer that, as I really don't know. I do know though, that if Marshall had told Roosevelt that the Japanese were beaten and ready to surrender, that in all likelihood the firebombings would have never occurred. The main problem here isn't so much that the US bombed Tokyo in a manner that could be considered a war crime. (Germany was held responsible for doing the same) The problem is, history being written by the victors now has this dark period shuffled under the rug. Students learn more about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and less about the acts that...well let's just say they don't paint the US in a good light.

        Some have said that the ends justified the means, but I don't believe that. I don't think we had the right to stoop to the level of the enemy. Did Japan bomb civilians? Yes. yes they did, as did Germany (and yes even the UK did.) That's the thing that we never did. The US prided itself in the fact that they didn't attack civilians. Yet in the end we did, and now the question comes back to not did the ends justify that, not did it save lives, not was it tactical.

        The question is simple:

        Was it RIGHT?

        Comment


        • #5
          We just don't know if it was right. Would the war have ended when it did if we didn't or would the war have continued on at that point? Because if the war would have ended later than it did, then yes, it was right.

          Also, had we accepted the original surrender, what would have Japan kept? A lot of China? A crapload of different islands in the Pacific? Surrendering to us would mean they could keep fighting China and other random places in the Pacific. Would that have been so good for the world?
          Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers

          Comment


          • #6
            I believe this post is about the Dolittle Raids.

            In my opinion, we were totally justified. Do I need to bring up Pearl Harbor?

            Japan was on a mission for blood. They needed to be stopped. If we hadn't done anything, they would have taken over the entire Pacific.....then what? Joined Germany and taken over the world?

            Imagine what kind of world we'd be living in today if they'd succeeded.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by blas87 View Post
              In my opinion, we were totally justified. Do I need to bring up Pearl Harbor?

              Japan was on a mission for blood.
              Japan never intended that it attacked before the state of war was announced, it was only due to a number of failures (read time zone translations) that this didn't happen.
              The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it. Robert Peel

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by blas87 View Post
                I believe this post is about the Dolittle Raids.
                I don't think so, blas. The Doolittle Raids took place in early 1942, shortly after Pearl Harbour. repsac is talking about the 1945 bombing campaign.

                Imperial Japan was incredibly militaristic and the population fervently supported the war effort. I don't like the idea of killing civilians, but I don't like the idea of killing soldiers either. This was total war, and the entire populace is responsible to some extent for the actions of their government and their military. Are the factory workers churning out the guns and ammunition less culpable than the soldiers who use them? It's a tricky question.

                Comment


                • #9
                  You have to love this type of discussion, as there is a basis of "us vs. them" behind it.

                  Was it right? that depends on the definition of right. Personally, I don't think so under any implication of "right" in this matter, but there is a basis for debate on the point of view.

                  Tactically it can be justified. Precision attacks were failing so you break their morale.

                  Logistically it can be justified as well. The premise was every person in japan was raised to support this activity, so the fire bombing and nuking of civilian targets means less adversaries to come up.

                  Ethically I would like to see someone justify. The belief is that Japan was out for blood, effectively making them evil, and the bombings (fire and nuke) were retaliation for Pearl Harbor. But when you look at it, there was a mass murder to retaliate for a surprise attack on a military base.

                  So I have to ask this; Assume the roles were reversed. The US engaged in a pre-emptive attack on a Japanese naval base, and in retaliation they firebomb Seattle, then later on nuke Austin and New York in an attempt to get the US to surrender. Considering that, would you be so quick to defend Japan's actions?

                  My take is, irregardless of the reason, mass murder was committed at a time when you never have to see the faces of those you killed. It made the ability to wipe millions of lives too easy, and no level of justification will never bring those lives back. A lot of the arguments brought in are simply a case of perspective, where if the roles were reversed, the point of view would be drastically different.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    My apologies, I didn't look at the date right Boozy......big duh for me!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by lordlundar View Post
                      So I have to ask this; Assume the roles were reversed. The US engaged in a pre-emptive attack on a Japanese naval base, and in retaliation they firebomb Seattle, then later on nuke Austin and New York in an attempt to get the US to surrender. Considering that, would you be so quick to defend Japan's actions?
                      Well, if we were going to continue fighting even without a decent army and not surrender, than yes, it would still be justified. We would still be a threat until we surrendered. So attack that threat is justifiable.

                      The Japanese weren't going to surrender despite being beat militarily. What else could we have done?
                      Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X