But none that they wanted to kill civilians. Civilian losses were the unavoidable effect of bombing cities, and no one was deterred by this. But the intent was to degrade communications, transport, manufacturing, and command. The intent was to destroy the city as a city, not to kill little Japanese boys and girls.
You can’t do one without the other. But the intent was to win the war, not to commit war crimes.
My reading comprehension is fine. Good on you for arrogantly thinking you’re the only one with those skills.
I didn’t agree with your comparison that Axis nationals (belligerents who were in the United States) were somehow similar with Japanese American citizens (the majority who where second or third generation American). While you did caveat it, I believe these are so completely different that I don’t believe any comparison is useful.
And yes, some German Americans were interned. 0.05% of German Americans were. But 90% of Japanese Americans in the continental United States were.
For all the attacks you are making on other posters in this thread, calling them “grossly ignorant,” the statements “a slur” and their points “a crappy debate,” you are now moving the goalposts while still denying the points which the Allied leaders themselves acknowledged in my cites. You’ve argued that the Allies were not targeting civilians but they were the unfortunate collateral damage of attacking factories, when my cite proves otherwise.
That quote by Harris (and please look up and see who he was) specifically says they wanted to kill the workers. How can that possibly be taken as meaning anything but that?
Did you even bother to read my post?
Here, I’ll quote it again to save you the three second necessary to actually look at the damn thing.
my emphasis.
Had the Allies been the ones who started the war, or if there were other options available which they elected against because they simply wanted to kill babies for killing sake, it would have been a war crime.
The reason it was not a war crime, was that it was probably necessary and one of the least ugly options. That does not erase the fact that the Allies deliberately set out to kill civilians by indiscriminate bombing. Napalm dropped on wooden structures burns infants as easy, and in fact easier than workers.
While I agree with the overall point that civilians were targeted (and I think the bombing planners on all sides came up with various reasons to justify this), I would like to nitpick this tiny little point.
On the one hand, you say that the inaccuracy of the bombing techniques of the time forced the airmen to give up trying to pinpoint specific buildings (and, I guess, moving to, effectively, area bombing), but then on the other hand you try to use the targeted “aimpoints” as proof of intent. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too! 
I think the aimpoints were only chosen because they offered a clear and unambiguios terrain feature that can be seen from 35,000 feet up. IMO, I don’t think you should claim this as evidence of intent.
Offtopic: see Operation Crossroads. A B-29 targeting the USS Nevada, painted red-orange to make it clearly stand out on the surface of the lagoon (pic, so it happened), by half a mile! With no flak or enemy fighters to worry about!
It’s not a slur; it’s a fact. That you insist upon deluding yourself into thinking otherwise even in the face of direct evidence to the contrary doesn’t make it untrue. The absurdity is that you even admit that the incendiaries used were designed with Japanese architecture in mind, but leave out the important adjective from that sentence: they were designed with Japanese residential architecture in mind, that paper and wood housing I’ve been talking out that made firebombing Japanese cities so easy. Houses, where civilians live. Feel free to take a look at the post fire-storm damage photos I linked to earlier; the only buildings left standing were those few made of concrete. You know; industrial buildings.
I made no such comparison. I compared the interment of German nationals (belligerents who were in the United States) = with Japanese nationals (belligerents who were in the United States) . The two are precisely comparable.
The internment of *American Citizens of Japanese descent *was racist and is a black mark on American history.
Note Telemarks post “Read what he wrote. You two are in agreement.”
You know the adage of close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and nuclear war. Precision bombing of factories failed because only a few percent could get close enough to actually cause serious damage. However, with area bombing, you could target industrial areas is one were so inclined. It wouldn’t be a guaranty that you hit it exactly, but there could be an intent.
The points chosen for the firebombing and atomic bombs were selected to ensure the greatest damage to the cities with no attempt to look for military targets. This damage would necessarily maximize the number of civilians killed. There simply isn’t a way to separate them.
The legal fiction I referred to is from Truman’s diary.
Right, Harry.
We know that it wasn’t simply an innocent mistake because the selection process has been:
Despite Truman’s self-proclaimed high standards, that the target was a large urban area meant they intended to destroy as many people as they could. They also specifically did not warn the residents of the cities that there would be a new, more powerful bomb in order to maximize the psychological shock.
There were a number of steps they took that maximized the number of civilian deaths. The bombing missions fit the pattern of surveillance flights, so the all clear from the air raid warnings were given before the bombs were actually was dropped. This significantly increased the number of civilian (or “women and children” as Truman phrases it) deaths.
The aim point of Nagasaki was in the center of the city, and they actually missed it widely. Ironically, many factory workers were killed because the area destroyed was more industrialized.
Mind you, I agree with them. It was horrible but necessary. I’ve done a fair amount of reading on the Japanese decision to surrender and the psychological shock, including the unbelievably huge number of “women and children” killed, was a large factor.
Let’s keep it civil, folks. Any further and warnings will occur.
This “no attempt to look for military targets” is simply false.
The other poster in question used language that was intemperate, and I responded to it.
I honestly am not trying to move the goalposts, and I apologize if that’s how it seems.
It’s a little unfair of you to try to imply that I do not know who Harris was. It would be like me saying to you, "Tojo and Yamato – please look up and see who they were – " This thread is already uncomfortable enough without aggressive imputations of ignorance of that kind. I very readily acknowledge your superior education and knowledge regarding these issues, but I am not wholly unlettered here.
I think there is room for some dispute as to whether factory workers in munitions and arms production are “civilians.” Factories are held to be legitimate military targets, and not civilian targets such as houses, schools, churches, hospitals, and so on.
I apologize, but, in this instance, I do not agree. I believe that the intent was to destroy the functionality of the city, but not to kill civilians. At very least, we need a new classification of civilian arms workers, to indicate that they are legitimate targets in war time. The word “civilian” has connotations that are not carried over to “workers in arms factories.”
I absolutely agree that children were casualties, and that the allied high command knew this, and that they weren’t deterred by it. I’m only saying that they were never the intended victims of the bombing.
Leaving aside the issue of a distinction without a difference, I do not think that your position is really defensible.
In Europe, Harris made no bones about the decision to inflict death on the civilian population. Cities were specifically targeted with ring fires that were intended to obliterate everything–and every one–in them. They did not focus on the suburbs where the majority of the factories were located, but went after the center cities that had existed for hundreds of years prior to the Industrial Revolution and rarely included major factories. Hap Arnold held on to the notion of precision bombing, in part because he did not agree with Harris’s philosophy. (I am sure that his “pride of authorship” regarding precision bombing, that he had helped develop, also played a role in his decision, but he did oppose the tactics of Harris.) Arnold had to repeatedly shut down the pleas of Curtis LeMay to have the Eight Air Force join with Harris in all-out assaults on the civilian population. When LeMay was transferred to the Pacific, away from the restraining hand of Arnold, he changed the B-29 tactics from attacking factories and military installations to fire-bombing cities.
The notion that Harris and LeMay just wanted to kill the factory workers and the deaths of their families was an unintended consequence is not supported by either their actions or their words.
Regarding the diary entry by Truman: He may very well have simply been playing CYA in his memoirs. On the other hand, his visceral reaction to bombing cities was probably based on reports from London during the Blitz. The level of carnage brought about by Harris and LeMay was orders of magnitude greater and he may or may not have actually understood that. Note, for example, that Hiroshima was the headquarters for both the Second Army and the Fifth Division, and was the controlling headquarters for the defenses of all Southern Japan. Nagasaki was the primary anchorage for the Sasebo Naval District. They had both military and industrial importance that cities such as Tokyo did not.
I am not claiming that Truman did or did not intend to kill civilians and lie about it. I only note that lacking further information, it is plausible that he understood the civilians deaths to have been collateral damage as opposed to a primary intent.
Really, that’s all I’ve been trying to say.
I confess, at first, I didn’t think of workers in munitions factories as civilians. When the charge was made that the allies deliberately targeted civilians, I should have said, “If you’re counting workers in munitions factories, then so what? Those are legitimate military targets.”
This is made more murky yet by the idea that some war production was outsourced to home workshops. If that is true – if workmen took small parts and sub-sub-components home with them to work on after hours – then their homes become more like legitimate military targets than, say, someone’s grandmother’s home, where no war production at all occurred.
Your point may give Truman some cover.
It does nothing to provide a defense of Harris or LeMay or, by extension, the U.S. or U.K. Their policies of deliberately targeting the wider civilian populations without regard for whether those civilians could be actually tied to any industry are a matter of the historical record.
No, there isn’t. They are very clearly civilians. That you personally don’t like the idea of killing civilians, or the idea that the Allies deliberately killed civilians does not change that fact.
Civilian arms workers are not legitimate targets in wartime; under no international treaty or protocol are they considered legitimate targets of military force or anything other than civilians. We really don’t need a new classification to consider them legitimate targets either; you are also either being very dodgy or simply lacking in your understanding of the philosophy of total war in constantly referring to arms workers and arms factories. There is no nice neat split of factories and a nation’s economy into munitions production and everything else. The target in total war is a nation’s entire economy; you’ll notice the targets of strategic bombing are repeatedly referred to as industrial targets and the civilians being bombed as the industrial workforce. Hell, let’s go back to the post that started this all up, notice the comment by Little Nemo that is quoted:
Then we get into absurdities like posting a single civilian in front of a factory so that it can’t be bombed. Since factories are legitimate targets, factory workers pretty much have to be.
That doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said. The city was the target: a center of communications, transport, manufacturing, and command. Show me a way to destroy a city without harming the people living there…and I still won’t be in favor of it, but it would be a slight improvement.
Perhaps to get around the military vs civilian casualty argument, we might consider the terms “combatant” and “non-combatant”? Or the Clerks argument about civilian contractors working on the Death Star?
Anyway, going back to the OP, the tenaciousness of Japanese forces on the defensive during the invasions of Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and Saipan (not to mention the civilians who killed themselves jumping off “Suicide Hill” rather than submitting to Allied occupation) probably influenced the decision to try untried WMDs before invading.
I think many more Japanese and of course Americans would have died in an invasion of Japan than by the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Oh, and they didn’t know it at the time of the decision, but it turned out that a couple weeks after the planned invasion day, at a location where the planners had decided to park the US Fleet near Japan, there was some sort of weather event, a typhoon or something, that would have caused a lot of damage to the fleet there. Sort of like a divine wind for the Japanese.
No. Factory workers who are working inside factories being bombed might be considered legitimate targets, or, at least, acceptable collateral damage.
Creating firestorms of the sort that went after the entire populations of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, and other cities are hardly examples of collateral damage.
We disagree… The cities still had factories, railroads, ports, and the dispersed manufacturing mentioned earlier. The cities were still legitimate strategic targets.
One further moral question to explore: if cities are – as they were – highly inflammable, doesn’t it make sense to exploit that weakness? The allies can obtain much greater results that way than they could with greater numbers of raids, thus costing them more losses in bombers and crews. It could be seen as improper and immoral not to capitalize on the enemy’s weakness in this fashion. (This is a separate issue, and I raise it without really having an answer either way. It’s classically unchivalrous – like kicking someone below the belt – but in a fight to the death, not kicking someone in the goolies could be suicidal.)
I’ve lived my entire life in the shadow of nuclear deterrence. If, some day, I get flash-fried, I may pay the karmic debt for my ancestors’ sins. Yet, hideous as it is, I support the concept of nuclear deterrence, considering it slightly (!) better than another civilization-maiming war like that one.
Again, you clearly do not understand the philosophy behind total war, nor apparently the definition of a combatant going back to the Hague conventions on the Laws and Customs of War on Land. A factory worker is a non-combatant and a civilian, and not a legitimate target for military force. Factories aren’t legitimate targets either, see below. As I said you keep going on about arms and munitions factories and workers, missing the point that the target is a nation’s economy as a whole, and that industrial doesn’t mean munitions.
It contradicts everything you said. You keep talking about arms factories and munitions factories, and munitions factory workers and wanting to come up with a way to not classify them as civilians to make killing them okay ‘by the book’, which misses the entire point of total war. Again, the target is the enemy economy as a whole and its entire industry. The light industry outsourced to home workshops in Japan and the wider dispersal of light industry as a whole throughout residential areas of Japanese cities wasn’t civilians going home to manufacture bullets or some such as you seem to think, and industrial does not equal munitions and arms. To give you a well known example, ball bearings were a vulnerable bottleneck for Germany early in the bombing campaign, and two disastrous attacks were made on them in Schweinfurt. Now tell me, do you consider workers at a ball bearing plant to be munitions workers? Do you think that we need to come up with a new classification for them aside from civilian to make killing them, or better yet killing them and their families in their homes while they are off work okay? How about workers in steel mills? The petro-chemical industry? The company that manufactures rivets and bolts? The company that manufactures riveting tools? That makes sleepers for railroads? That manufactures asphalt or concrete? Because these are all the sorts of things that are industrial targets for strategic bombing in total war, and the civilians working in them are also in and of themselves the target of strategic bombing, being the industrial workforce to be killed, made homeless and forced to be evacuated.
The factories, railroads, ports, and the bridges and highways used to connect distributed manufacturing could be attacked without burning the people in the cities. In those cases, the civilians killed would be considered collateral damage. It is not necessary to burn the entire city–with its population–to destroy that infrastructure.
I have not actually addressed the morality of the bombings. I have simply responded to your truly odd claim that the forces carrying out the fire raids were not really trying to kill the people when all the evidence, including statements by Harris and LeMay, indicate that the civilian deaths were, indeed, a primary objective.
_Operation_Crossroads_Target_Ship.jpg){kind=link}