The low-level firebombings over Japan were far more deadly than either of the A-bombs

[ginscpy]

war is hell..............................

 

[whitehall]

To put it a different way you could say that two bombs killed as many people as 3,500 bombing sorties.

 

[ginscpy]

One low-level raid in Toyko killed more than 100,000

 

[whitehall]

Life was pretty cheap in 1945. Japan's navy was finished after the battle of the Philippine Sea and it's air defenses were limited to kids who could barely fly steering their planes into American ships. The country was still led by Bushido fools but they knew they lost the war. The eggheads who devoloped the Bomb were just itching to try it out on real people and the US military was ready to kill civilians wholesale to teach the Japanese military a lesson. Meanwhile the Japanese were trying to negotiate terms of surrender but Truman refused to talk. The stage was set for the only nuclear attack in history.

 

[Mad Scientist]

My wifes' Grandfather was at Hiroshima. He said Japan wasn't going to surrender unless America dropped the bomb.

But the heck with that, you wanna' see my NCAA Tournament picks?

 

[whitehall]

My wifes' Grandfather was at Hiroshima. He said Japan wasn't going to surrender unless America dropped the bomb.

But the heck with that, you wanna' see my NCAA Tournament picks?

Japan was a defeated country. It had no navy left and no air defenses. We were bombing the country in daylight raids 24/7. We wouldn't even consider it under any circumstances today but for the sake of argument let's say the A-Bomb was a legitimate last resort when negotiation failed. The problem with the legend is that Truman never tried to negotiate with the Japanese holdouts. Japan was trying to negotiate with Stalin when 180,000 civilians were killed in a single blast and another 40,000 were incinerated a couple of days later. The most important issue according to the Japanese was preventing the emperor from being tried and executed and ironically that issue was conceded after the bombs were dropped.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Truman was constrained by the agreements made at Yalta. NO separate peace, all axis powers surrender unconditionally.

He also had the casualty reports from Saipan, Iwo and Okinawa.

The Japanese were not going to give in without being convinced.

The japanese proposals were not acceptable, they were just making noise.

I personally would have preferred a peace on some other terms that meant that Russia never got involved. As it was, Russia got Manchuria and Northern Korea.

 

[dilloduck]

I think the point still stands----civilian deaths from US firebombing far surpassed those of the nukes.

 

[whitehall]

I think the point still stands----civilian deaths from US firebombing far surpassed those of the nukes.

The point is offensive. Trivializing a nuclear attack by comparing it to civilian deaths in thousands of firebomb raids is insane.

 

[dilloduck]

I think the point still stands----civilian deaths from US firebombing far surpassed those of the nukes.

The point is offensive. Trivializing a nuclear attack by comparing it to civilian deaths in thousands of firebomb raids is insane.

Offensive to whom ? Civilian deaths are horrifying whether it be by firebombing, nukes or sticks. There were more --way more that came from US firebombing. Are you trying to disguise that ?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The US took lessons learned from Europe and did incendiary raides that killed far more in a single night than both bombs combined. War is ugly.

It is not trivializing them. The Japanese government was willing to continue the war despite the firebombing. Despite the horrific causalities.

The bombs were very convincing. We should be glad of that.

 

[whitehall]

I think the point still stands----civilian deaths from US firebombing far surpassed those of the nukes.

The point is offensive. Trivializing a nuclear attack by comparing it to civilian deaths in thousands of firebomb raids is insane.

Offensive to whom ? Civilian deaths are horrifying whether it be by firebombing, nukes or sticks. There were more --way more that came from US firebombing. Are you trying to disguise that ?

You people better get hold of yourselves if you still think a nuclear attack, even back in 1945, is fine as long as the casualties are on a par with about 2,000 conventional bombing missions.

 

[dilloduck]

The point is offensive. Trivializing a nuclear attack by comparing it to civilian deaths in thousands of firebomb raids is insane.

Offensive to whom ? Civilian deaths are horrifying whether it be by firebombing, nukes or sticks. There were more --way more that came from US firebombing. Are you trying to disguise that ?

You people better get hold of yourselves if you still think a nuclear attack, even back in 1945, is fine as long as the casualties are on a par with about 2,000 conventional bombing missions.

Explain why the nuclear attacks were somehow worse/better than the firebombings.

 

[Mad Scientist]

My wifes' Grandfather was at Hiroshima. He said Japan wasn't going to surrender unless America dropped the bomb.

But the heck with that, you wanna' see my NCAA Tournament picks?

Japan was a defeated country. It had no navy left and no air defenses. We were bombing the country in daylight raids 24/7. We wouldn't even consider it under any circumstances today but for the sake of argument let's say the A-Bomb was a legitimate last resort when negotiation failed. The problem with the legend is that Truman never tried to negotiate with the Japanese holdouts. Japan was trying to negotiate with Stalin when 180,000 civilians were killed in a single blast and another 40,000 were incinerated a couple of days later. The most important issue according to the Japanese was preventing the emperor from being tried and executed and ironically that issue was conceded after the bombs were dropped.

Did you not read what I wrote? My wife's Grandfather was at Hiroshima. He said America HAD to do it because Japan was NOT going to surrender.

He was Japanese.
He was there.
You were not.

 

[whitehall]

My wifes' Grandfather was at Hiroshima. He said Japan wasn't going to surrender unless America dropped the bomb.

But the heck with that, you wanna' see my NCAA Tournament picks?

Japan was a defeated country. It had no navy left and no air defenses. We were bombing the country in daylight raids 24/7. We wouldn't even consider it under any circumstances today but for the sake of argument let's say the A-Bomb was a legitimate last resort when negotiation failed. The problem with the legend is that Truman never tried to negotiate with the Japanese holdouts. Japan was trying to negotiate with Stalin when 180,000 civilians were killed in a single blast and another 40,000 were incinerated a couple of days later. The most important issue according to the Japanese was preventing the emperor from being tried and executed and ironically that issue was conceded after the bombs were dropped.

Did you not read what I wrote? My wife's Grandfather was at Hiroshima. He said America HAD to do it because Japan was NOT going to surrender.

He was Japanese.
He was there.
You were not.

You really want to pursue that issue? I admire your grandfather's service but how the hell is he qualified to judge whether Japan would have surrendered?

 

[whitehall]

Offensive to whom ? Civilian deaths are horrifying whether it be by firebombing, nukes or sticks. There were more --way more that came from US firebombing. Are you trying to disguise that ?

You people better get hold of yourselves if you still think a nuclear attack, even back in 1945, is fine as long as the casualties are on a par with about 2,000 conventional bombing missions.

Explain why the nuclear attacks were somehow worse/better than the firebombings.

You don't understand the strategic difference between nuclear and conventional bombings dildoduck? Let me splain. The reasons for killing civilians to put pressure on the governmant are rather hazy but let's say we soften up the military resistance with several conventional bombings and we kill five or ten thousand civilians and wait for a response. What's the sense of killing 135,000 civilians with a single bomb? Life was cheap back in 1945 but it is grotesque to kill 135,000 (low estimate) civilians with a single bomb and do it a couple of days later and kill 65,000 civilians before the government had a chance to respond. We never considered using the Bomb on people who looked like us in Europe and the Allies apologized all over the place for the terror bombing of Dresden, Germany. Racism was always a factor in our relations with Japan in the early 1900's. At first we were reluctant to believe that the near-signted little yellow people were capable of building a plane or a ship and later we decided to eradicate them with the only use of nuclear weapons in the (civilized?) world to date. It's insulting to try to justify the use of nuclear weapons by comparing it to the destruction of 5 or ten thousand bombing raids.

 

[JimP66]

Hi all,

With regards to Japans surrender, an excellent book on the subject is 'Nemesis' by Max Hastings. As usual, in his books, the author presents the facts back up by eye witness accounts, and without putting a contempory bais either way on the events.

It should be remembered that while Japans military was virtually incapable of effective offensive actions at the time (excluding the Kamikaze attacks, which couldn't have prevented a conventional Allied invasion if needed), the Military did stage an unsuccesfull coup in order to continue the war when the civilian officials and Emperor were about to announce the surrender (there is an exceptional Japanse movie on the subject called "Japans Longest Day). This was after Nagasaki, after consistent bombing raids on Japans cities, after the US Navy "cruising" around Japan and attacking any and all targets at will, and after the overwhelming Soviet attacks in Manchuria.

With the Allied Potsdam Declaration, prior to Hiroshima, the Japanese Government was given warning of the coming "total and utter destruction" that was to follow , this "surrender" demand was somewhat "softened" from the previous Unconditional demands, the Japanese Government replied was "silence".

Regards
Jim

 

[editec]

war is hell..............................

Yup.