Hiroshima

[pardus]

The firebombing of Dresden killed a hell of a lot of people, too. If the US would have lost the war, I'm pretty confident there would have been some war crimes trials over it. That and the firebombing of various Japanese cities, including Tokyo, are reported to have killed more people than one or both of the nukes. Yet you don't often hear about the firebombings. And they definitely weren't enough to end the war.

WWII was pretty much the last time that Western powers saw civilian populations as legitimate military targets during a time of war. It is also the last time that we won a convincing military victory outside of the Western hemisphere. I wonder if the two are related.

I agree there probably would've been war crimes if the boot was on the other foot, and they would've been justified too. Though it would be rather ironic to have the Nazi's and Japs presiding over war crimes trials after what they perpetrated.

I have heard nothing that said the bombing of civilians did anything but steel the resolve of the respective civilian populations.

My personal opinion is that unless there is a legitimate military target to be destroyed civilan areas should not be legitimate targets. It's terrorism.

 

[Marauder06]

Well, this thread is a prime example of how targeting the civilian population ends wars. Japan was getting defeated militarily right and left, at huge cost to both sides, and they weren't quitting. Two bombs later... war's over.

The ultimate aim in any war is to defeat the will of the populace, not necessarily to destroy the other side's military, correct? Without hitting the people where they live, either literally or figuratively, there is little incentive for them to pressure their government to change, or to submit to the will of another government.

Without destroying the infrastructure that supports the war effort (including the population) and denying sanctuary, the enemy can re-generate combat power in perpetuity. We can see that in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Do you think our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan would have lasted as long as they did/have if the other side was able to target our civilian infrastructure? I don't think so.

I think a case can be made that Western society has become far too risk-averse and overly-conscious of "collateral damage" and civilian casualties, to the point where we're paralyzed by indecision and hamstrung by half-measures. This, perversely, ultimately results in greater loss of life than would occur by crushing the enemy WWII style.

 

[AWP]

The firebombing of Dresden killed a hell of a lot of people, too. If the US would have lost the war, I'm pretty confident there would have been some war crimes trials over it. That and the firebombing of various Japanese cities, including Tokyo, are reported to have killed more people than one or both of the nukes. Yet you don't often hear about the firebombings. And they definitely weren't enough to end the war.

WWII was pretty much the last time that Western powers saw civilian populations as legitimate military targets during a time of war. It is also the last time that we won a convincing military victory outside of the Western hemisphere. I wonder if the two are related.

I think it was LeMay and possibly Arnold who thought that by the fall/ winter of '45 the Japanese would surrender due to starvation. I'm sure some of that was the "bomber mafia" in them speaking, but I used to wonder if they were right or not. Having read about Leningrad's state in 41-42, I don't think our blockade and bombings were enough to eliminate Japanese opposition. Regardless, another overlooked variable in our mentality back then was the Japanese defense of the Marianas, but especially Okinawa that sealed Japan's fate. The tenacious defense, mass suicides by civilians, and high casualties closed the door on Japan.

The firebombings....those were horrific. LeMay's squadrons actually ran out of napalm....as in "almost all of it in the Pacific" ran out of napalm. That played a factor in switching B-29 missions to mining harbors; what the subs didn't kill the mines did. So, another successful piece in the defeat Japan puzzle was a result not of strategy but because we'd expended almost every drop of napalm in the entire theater, forcing the retasking of the delivery assets. Bomber crews flying at 10,000 feet could smell the burning flesh.

Let that rattle around in your brain for a bit.

So, to repeat my earlier points, a lot of factors went into the decision, it wasn't a simple cut-and-dried reason, but numerous factors. Also, I don't think we should judge the past based on our worldview, but that at the time of the events. What is "barbaric" today was "ho hum, shrug" 50, 100, 500 years ago.

 

[pardus]

Well, this thread is a prime example of how targeting the civilian population ends wars. Japan was getting defeated militarily right and left, at huge cost to both sides, and they weren't quitting. Two bombs later... war's over.

The ultimate aim in any war is to defeat the will of the populace, not necessarily to destroy the other side's military, correct? Without hitting the people where they live, either literally or figuratively, there is little incentive for them to pressure their government to change, or to submit to the will of another government.

Without destroying the infrastructure that supports the war effort (including the population) and denying sanctuary, the enemy can re-generate combat power in perpetuity. We can see that in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Do you think our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan would have lasted as long as they did/have if the other side was able to target our civilian infrastructure? I don't think so.

I think a case can be made that Western society has become far too risk-averse and overly-conscious of "collateral damage" and civilian casualties, to the point where we're paralyzed by indecision and hamstrung by half-measures. This, perversely, ultimately results in greater loss of life than would occur by crushing the enemy WWII style.

If your reasoning were true the Japs/Germans would've surrendered after the fire bombings that killed more than the nukes.
The nukes achieved what they did because of the awesome power they had in one bomb. (IMO)

The Nazi targeting/of the civilan population in the USSR turned the population against them in the Ukraine that was initially sympathetic.
The bombing campaign against the UK in 1940 steeled the resolve of the British people and helped get the USA involved I'm sure.

The Russians tried the kill everything plan in Afghanistan in the 80's and it wasn't the reason they were winning. Vietnam, the reason we weren't making progress was because we were not attacking the enemy's infrastructure/supply lines effectively.

Now that all said, I do agree 100% that we are far too collateral damage shy nowadays, but the deliberate targeting of civilians (unless you are going to go Roman/Mongol on a population) doesn't seem to work.

I don't think we should judge the past based on our worldview, but that at the time of the events. What is "barbaric" today was "ho hum, shrug" 50, 100, 500 years ago.

Exactly.

 

[Polar Bear]

Interesting thread. My Aunt from marriage, her mom lived through the bomb. She is the one that makes me shrimp fried rice at Thanksgiving. I have always been afraid to ask her about her experiences during that time.

 

[MikelP]

Too many people try to view 1945 events with 2013 thinking.

I live in a large liberal dominated srea and am used to it.

We did the best we could back then with the tactics and technology of the times.

I grew up in an area where WW2 involved everybody-I think one would have to have lived it to really understand.

No apologies are due any of the aggressors of those times.

The "victims" of our responses need blame their own systems.

 

[Jettie]

As I remember it, all bomb strikes on Japan were military-industrial targets, not civilian. I studied at Heilongjiang Uni in Harbin in the 1980s. Check out what the Japanese did there: besides taking over to rake up all the minerals, check out their medical Unit 731. I also taught English at Nagasaki's Junshin Jyoshi Gakuen all-girls Catholic high school, which was destroyed by the fat-boy bomb. The people in that city never hated me (maybe because many are Catholic), unlike the folks in Hiroshima who seem to hate all Westerners. And Nagasaki was pick 2 for the nuke bomb, because clouds obscured Kokura.

 

[AWP]

As I remember it, all bomb strikes on Japan were military-industrial targets, not civilian.

check out their medical Unit 731.

Not entirely true. The thinking at the time was that the Japanese had moved a lot of manufacturing into workshops in and around the home, to to mention that factories (as in Germany) were located in cities. High altitude bombing by B-29's was wildly ineffective with less than 10% of the bombs falling near their targets. LeMay had led bomber wings in Europe and knew the power of incendiary attacks against cities; the construction of Japanese homes only made the situation worse for the Japanese. The strategic bombing survey found that manufacturing was generally unaffected directly by the raids, but the deaths and injuries on the civilian populace coupled with the loss of infrastructure decreased production by 54%.

The atomic bombing sites were chosen based upon both military and civilian criteria.
http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html#D

Dr. Stearns described the work he had done on target selection. He has surveyed possible targets possessing the following qualification: (1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August. Dr. Stearns had a list of five targets which the Air Force would be willing to reserve for our use unless unforeseen circumstances arise.

Unit 731...the guy who headed it up, and some of his staff, were brought to the US and given immunity. They worked on US biological weapons after the war. Whether we like it or not, Nazi and Japanese medical experimentation on unwilling human subjects advanced the cause of medicine and weaponry. Hypothermia and hypoxia knowledge? Most of that was built upon Nazi experiments.

 

[pardus]

Unit 731...the guy who headed it up, and some of his staff, were brought to the US and given immunity. They worked on US biological weapons after the war. Whether we like it or not, Nazi and Japanese medical experimentation on unwilling human subjects advanced the cause of medicine and weaponry. Hypothermia and hypoxia knowledge? Most of that was built upon Nazi experiments.

I just watched a doco on unit 731, interesting.
I don't know how many shows I've seen that talk about the "pointless and medically irrelevant" human experiments the Nazis conducted.
Quite erroneous as Freefalling has stated.
There is still much to be learnt that we can only learn through these types of experiments today.

 

[SpitfireV]

Some of them were pointless and irrelevant, IIRC they did one experiment where they did something with virgin teenage Jews to keep aircrew warm or something. Details hazy.

 

[pardus]

Some of them were pointless and irrelevant, IIRC they did one experiment where they did something with virgin teenage Jews to keep aircrew warm or something. Details hazy.

I'm not sure about the virgin teenage thing, but I know there were (Ive seen footage and it was of adult males as test subjects) altitude and temperature tests being conducted that didn't end well for the subjects.
--------------------------------


I came across this Oliver Stone documentary about why the bombs were dropped that I found quite interesting indeed. While I know Stone is very liberal and biased, if the quotes from the historical figures are true, it is food for thought.

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewv...The_Untold_History_of_the_United_States_ep03/