PDA

View Full Version : Bombings Worse than Nagasaki and Hiroshima




disorderlyvision
08-15-2009, 06:22 PM
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0908j.asp


The world knows all too well about the atomic bombs the United States dropped on Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945 (“Little Boy”), and on Nagasaki on Thursday, August 9 (“Fat Man”). “Dropping the bombs ended the war,” said President Harry Truman.

They may have ended the war, but they did not end the bombing of Japan.

On August 14, 1945, after the two atomic bombs had been dropped on Japan, and after Emperor Hirohito had agreed to surrender because “the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage,” General Henry Harley “Hap” Arnold, to boost his already over-inflated ego (he was made a five-star general in 1944), undertook a completely unnecessary act of terror from the skies over Japan that had never before been seen. In their 1953 book The Army Air Forces in World War II, Wesley F. Craven and James L. Cate state:


Arnold wanted as big a finale as possible, hoping that USASTAF could hit the Tokyo area in a 1,000-plane mission: the Twentieth Air Force had put up 853 B-29’s and 79 fighters on 1 August, and Arnold thought the number could be rounded out by calling on Doolittle’s Eighth Air Force. Spaatz still wanted to drop the third atom bomb on Tokyo but thought that battered city a poor target for conventional bombing; instead, he proposed to divide his forces between seven targets. Arnold was apologetic about the unfortunate mixup on the 11th and, accepting Spaatz’ amendment, assured him that his orders had been “co-ordinated with my superiors all the way to the top.” The teleconference ended with a fervid “Thank God” from Spaatz. Kennedy had the Okinawa strips tied up with other operations so that Doolittle was unable to send out his VHB’s. From the Marianas, 449 B-29’s went out for a daylight strike on the 14th, and that night, with top officers standing by at Washington and Guam for a last-minute cancellation, 372 more were airborne. Seven planes dispatched on special bombing missions by the 509th Group brought the number of B-20’s to 828, and with 186 fighter escorts dispatched, USASTAF passed Arnold’s goal with a total of 1,014 aircraft. There were no losses, and before the last B-29 returned President Truman announced the unconditional surrender of Japan.
This was the largest bombing raid in history. Yet, many timelines of World War II do not even list this event as having occurred.

But although this was the largest bombing raid, it was not the deadliest. In fact, the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were not even the deadliest. Because high-altitude precision bombing was viewed as not effective enough, the Army Air Force began using incendiary attacks against Japanese cities. After months of studies, planning, and several incendiary bombing test runs, Tokyo was firebombed on the night of March 9, 1945, by low-flying B-29’s with increased bomb loads. Seventeen hundred tons of bombs were dropped in a densely populated area (an average of 103,000 people per square mile) of twelve square miles. The result was just what one would expect: as many as 100,000 dead, over 40,000 wounded, over 1,000,000 made homeless, over 267,000 buildings destroyed. The water boiled in some small canals because of the intense heat. This was the most destructive air attack in history. It killed more people than the dropping of an atomic bomb.

The Tokyo firebombing raid was followed by larger ones against Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe, some of Japan’s largest cities. Then Nagoya was hit again. All in all, 1,595 sorties had flown in 10 days, dropping over 9,300 toms of bombs. Japanese cities — large and small — were continually hit with conventional and incendiary bombs through the end of the war.

But the bombing of Japanese cities was not war, it was wholesale murder. How, then, does this act of terrorism continue to be defended almost sixty-five years later? Simple. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. In fact, nothing U.S. forces did to Japan during the war matters because of Pearl Harbor.

But even if FDR didn’t have prior knowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and even if the United States didn’t provoke Japan into firing the first shot (See Robert Stinnett’s excellent book Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, which persuasively argues that he did have prior knowledge and did provoke Japan into firing the first shot), Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor still doesn’t justify bombing the civilian population of Japan. Why is it that the 9/11 attacks on America are considered acts of terrorism but a 1000-plane bombing raid on Tokyo after the dropping of two atomic bombs isn’t?

Pearl Harbor or no Pearl Harbor, the bombing of Tokyo on August 14, 1945, was a despicable act — worse than the firebombing of Tokyo, worse than Hiroshima, and worse than Nagasaki — because it was so unnecessary.

Vessol
08-15-2009, 06:23 PM
USA can do no wrong.

Standing Like A Rock
08-15-2009, 06:27 PM
Look up the firebombing of Dresden, Germany too. It is a little more controversial though so I will keep my opinion to myself.

KCIndy
08-15-2009, 07:40 PM
Look up the firebombing of Dresden, Germany too. It is a little more controversial though so I will keep my opinion to myself.


While we're at it, let's not forget what happened to Hamburg, Germany:
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/WW2/hamburg.htm


Just a couple more point to prove the old axiom that history is written by the winners.... :(

tangent4ronpaul
08-16-2009, 01:49 AM
Look up the firebombing of Dresden, Germany too. It is a little more controversial though so I will keep my opinion to myself.

I won't. Dresden had NO military targets. It was outright murder of civilians!

speaking of which, probably the worlds first "smart munition" was investigated for firebombing Japan - the "Bat Bomb". The idea was to drop cluster bomb type containers full of hibernating bats, each with a small incendiary device and have then take up residence in buildings before the incendiaries went off. There was a technical hickup, as the bats didn't "wake up" before they hit the ground and the project was scrapped. There is a book about it. You can also read a short write up on it at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb

-t

Flash
08-16-2009, 01:54 AM
WW2 to me was Socialism (FDR & Stalin) vs. Socialism(Hitler). Evil versus Evil.

FindLiberty
08-16-2009, 04:22 AM
WW2 to me was Socialism (FDR & Stalin) vs. Socialism(Hitler). Evil versus Evil.

...but I thought competition was a good thing?

Kludge
08-16-2009, 05:56 AM
What's interesting is that while in a public high school, we analyzed the use of the atomic bomb and firebombing, and discussed whether or not it was "right" a few times in different classes, but we never discussed the jaw-dropping atrocities of the Japanese. There were maybe two sentences in our textbooks we didn't even discuss on the Nanking Massacre. I had no idea what Unit 731 was until a couple weeks ago nor any of the corrupt deals that went on behind the scenes after Japan's defeat. I have a lot of difficulty blaming citizens for their government but... I mean, that was some terrible stuff going on, so much more outside of what I mentioned, and while I'll never support what the US did, it certainly nulled a lot of outrage I felt before. Maybe the Japanese government was able to keep all of the atrocities out of citizens' earshot, but that seems incredibly unlikely... Something I'll be reading up on, soon.

JAlli41
08-16-2009, 07:35 AM
There is now very good circumstantial evidence (I dont have it in front of me as I am at work), that Japan had been sending out peace feelers the summer of 1945 without response from he Truman Administration. After Germany had been defeated Russia took a few months off before agreeing to invade Japan from the North with the US invading in from the south. Once Truman was alerted to the news that that the A-bombs worked he immediately asked Stalin to postpone his invasion (at Potsdam) a short while and dropped the bombs on Japan in the meantime. The goal (as is speculated) was to keep Russia out of Japan, so that they would not get a piece of the post-war settlement, and to make sure that Stalin knew we had these new bombs (a show of America's strength for use in negotiation). We dropped the atomic bombs to scare the Russians, not to beat the Japanese, they had already been defeated. Little did Truman know, Stalin had already known about the atomic bombs, as he had his own spies working on the Manhattan Project. The only (possibly) positive thing that came out of the bombings was that it may have averted a future war with the Soviet Union. Either way I personally look at it, it is pretty deplorable. If you ever get the chance, read Truman's personal diary where he talks about these final days of the war and discussions he had with Secretary of State Byrnes. BTW The US's bombings of Tokyo and the carpet bombings of Dresden killed more people, but those bombings were systematic, rather than just 2 single bombs.
Also for further reading on this kind of stuff, Italian General Douhet wrote an amazing strategy article in the inter-war period in which he explains the logic and strategy behind these kinds of carpet bombings called "Command of the Air." It must've been tough to be a 21 year old male in Italy during WWI. Total War is a tough stance to take however.

tangent4ronpaul
08-16-2009, 08:12 AM
There is now very good circumstantial evidence (I dont have it in front of me as I am at work), that Japan had been sending out peace feelers the summer of 1945 without response from he Truman Administration. After Germany had been defeated Russia took a few months off before agreeing to invade Japan from the North with the US invading in from the south. Once Truman was alerted to the news that that the A-bombs worked he immediately asked Stalin to postpone his invasion (at Potsdam) a short while and dropped the bombs on Japan in the meantime. The goal (as is speculated) was to keep Russia out of Japan, so that they would not get a piece of the post-war settlement, and to make sure that Stalin knew we had these new bombs (a show of America's strength for use in negotiation). We dropped the atomic bombs to scare the Russians, not to beat the Japanese, they had already been defeated. Little did Truman know, Stalin had already known about the atomic bombs, as he had his own spies working on the Manhattan Project. The only (possibly) positive thing that came out of the bombings was that it may have averted a future war with the Soviet Union. Either way I personally look at it, it is pretty deplorable. If you ever get the chance, read Truman's personal diary where he talks about these final days of the war and discussions he had with Secretary of State Byrnes. BTW The US's bombings of Tokyo and the carpet bombings of Dresden killed more people, but those bombings were systematic, rather than just 2 single bombs.
Also for further reading on this kind of stuff, Italian General Douhet wrote an amazing strategy article in the inter-war period in which he explains the logic and strategy behind these kinds of carpet bombings called "Command of the Air." It must've been tough to be a 21 year old male in Italy during WWI. Total War is a tough stance to take however.

Correct to a point. You might recall how difficult it was to take some of the Pacific island where they were dug in and Japan at the time was getting ready to fight to the last man, woman and child. They were doing things like sharpening bamboo shoots and training children to use them as bayonets. Invading Japan would have been very costly, in terms of lives and potentially impossible to pull off. It would be like someone trying to invade Switzerland today.

In short, Truman saved a lot of American lives by dropping the bombs. However, continuing with the firebombing would probably have had the same effect. Also, IIRC, he had an offer of surrender BEFORE he dropped the second one, but after he dropped the first.

-t

Pod
08-16-2009, 08:44 AM
Correct to a point. You might recall how difficult it was to take some of the Pacific island where they were dug in and Japan at the time was getting ready to fight to the last man, woman and child. They were doing things like sharpening bamboo shoots and training children to use them as bayonets. Invading Japan would have been very costly, in terms of lives and potentially impossible to pull off. It would be like someone trying to invade Switzerland today.

In short, Truman saved a lot of American lives by dropping the bombs. However, continuing with the firebombing would probably have had the same effect. Also, IIRC, he had an offer of surrender BEFORE he dropped the second one, but after he dropped the first.

-t

And who the hell said Japan needed to be invaded? :rolleyes:

JAlli41
08-16-2009, 08:45 AM
Correct to a point. You might recall how difficult it was to take some of the Pacific island where they were dug in and Japan at the time was getting ready to fight to the last man, woman and child. They were doing things like sharpening bamboo shoots and training children to use them as bayonets. Invading Japan would have been very costly, in terms of lives and potentially impossible to pull off.-t

This history is actually exactly what I was referring to as being debated. I found the paper I am refering to, called "Why the United States Dropped the Atomic Bomb" by Gar Alperovitz. Which was published in Technology Review Aug/Sep 1990 issue.
The paper is copywritten and a PDF so I can't post the entire thing here, but it is well sourced and was used in an ethics class, so I take it s being pretty respectable. To take just a few quotes from it...

"Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emporer asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believes Japs will fold before Russia comes in..." - From President Truman's personal journal July 1945. pg 6.

"Not only was Japan known to be on the verge of surrender, but an attack by the Red Army would clearly be disasterous, especially because Germany's capitulation had left Japan isolated. Indeed, the position of the 'war party' within the Japanese Cabinet rested heavily on keeping the Soviet Union neutral. This is an area where new evidence is particularly important... Repeated intelligence studies also judged as early as mid-1945 that 'the entry of the USSR into the war would... convice most Japanese at once of the inevitability of complete defeat.'" pg. 5

"President Truman's oft-quoted estimate that a US invasion might have cost a million American lives is the basis for much of the conventional wisdom about why the bomb was dropped. Unfortunately that figure has no basis in military planning records. Stanford historian Barton Bernstein has shown that the Joint War Plans Committe - a high level advisory group to the US joint chiefs of staff- concluded that about 40,000 Americans would die if an assault were launched on both the island of Kyushu and, thereafter, the main Japanese homeland. But as early as mid-June 1945 - and even without a Soviet attack - it appeared that the smaller Kyushu landing alone might "well prove to be the decisive operation which will terminate the war," according to the committee." pg. 3.

"The consensus among scholars is that the bombing was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan... It is clear that other alternatives were to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.' The writer is not a radical revisionist, but rather J. Samuel Walker, chief historian of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nor is this personal opinion: Walker is summing up the weight of modern historical studies in the respected journal Diplomatic History." pg.1

If you can find this article it is a great read.