Why did US planners think Japan had to be invaded?

[TokyoBayer]

@DrDeth

This “no attempt to look for military targets” is simply false.

Let’s look at that statement in the context I gave.

@me

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.

OK, provide a cite showing otherwise, that the aim points where chosen to maximize the damage to the military targets within a city and to prioritize that over the destruction of the city itself.

I’ve provided cites which show that the aim point of the Nagasaki bomb was directed at the city center and away from the factories and the houses of the workers.

Here’s a map of the Hiroshima AP, showing that it was centered on the city and not on the military facilities in the lower right. Perhaps the “no attempt” could be “little attempt” except that it’s certain that they would have placed the AP in the same place, regardless if where the military targets lay.

@Trinopus

The other poster in question used language that was intemperate, and I responded to it.

Cite. This should be a relatively easy task.

However, one factor which would make your claim more difficult to support would be
[quotes by LaMay]
(U.S. Politicians, Officials and Administrators | American Experience | Official Site | PBS).

In the last months of the Second World War, LeMay took command of the main air effort against Japan, turning around its tactics. Instead of the established U.S. policy of daylight, precision bombing, he ripped out the armaments on 325 B-29s and loaded each plane with firebomb clusters. On March 10, 1945 he ordered the bombers out at 5 - 9,000 feet over Tokyo.

The devastation wrought that first night was catastrophic: the raid incinerated more than 16 square miles of the city, killing 100,000 people. According to the official Air Force history of the Second World War, “No other air attack of the war, either in Japan or Europe, was so destructive of life and property.” For months LeMay’s bombers went out night after night, relentlessly keeping up their fire-bombing campaign, so that by the end of the war, flames had totally or partially consumed 63 Japanese cities, killing half a million people and leaving eight million homeless.

Asked later about the morality of the campaign, LeMay replied: “Killing Japanese didn’t bother me very much at that time… I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal… Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you’re not a good soldier.”

There has been a dozen points or so which you haven’t responded to. At this stage, is there a point in continuing a discussion?

@tomndebb

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.

My emphasis.

I don’t think your argument can be supported but I would love to see any information.

I have no idea what Truman would have thought that the hundreds of B-29s each dropping tons of napalm were doing over enemy cities if the purpose had been anything but burning homes and killing people.

As I pointed earlier, one of my key interests in WWII was the process of and thoughts behind the decision to surrender, and the role the various factors played. I’ve never seen a good argument against the firebombing and atomic bombs which didn’t factor in the natural uncertainty by US leadership of Japanese intentions. No one knew what was going to be required in order to force them to surrender.

There was an ongoing debate on the terms for the demand for surrender. While the popular view is that the demand was for unconditional surrender, the one condition allowed was a constitutional role for the emperor. They balancing that was the timing of the surrender and the expected entrance of the Soviets into the war.

There was a large debate by scientists to try to stop the use of the bomb, but I haven’t read anything which would indicate that Truman was influenced that.

If the dairy entry were legitimate, then one would expect a better paper trail showing why the actual order didn’t contain the specified restrictions. The targeting committee had already rejected selecting a pure “military” target which was not in an urban setting (Their emphasis.) and that the psychological factor and maximum damage be the primary basis for the selection. Had an actual order from Truman be such as to override this selection process, it would have been documented.

[TokyoBayer]

@TokyoBayer

Had an actual order from Truman be such as to override this selection process, it would have been documented.

To follow up, this is the order authorizing the use of the bomb on urban areas. No note of any restriction to strictly military targets. The order was issued on the same day as Truman’s diary entry.

The order had been requested by the USAAF as a CYA so that they would not be held responsible for the first use of atomic weapons against civilian targets.

[tagos]

@Dissonance

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.

Agreed. You firebomb a city or drop a 2000 pound bomb on a residential street you fully intend to kill any civilians around. You either don’t care or just think the gain is worth it. Which it might well be.

[spifflog]

@tagos

Agreed. You firebomb a city or drop a 2000 pound bomb on a residential street you fully intend to kill any civilians around. You either don’t care or just think the gain is worth it. Which it might well be.

Fundamentally, I think this is the answer: They just didn’t care. Killing civilians was probably not central to their thought process - they were truly indifferent.

I think some of it was leadership was just pissed off over Pearl Harbor. I think there was some, small amount or racism where Americans viewed Oriental (their term) lives differently than western lives. If there were clear, military targets separate from population areas I think they would have been bombed first. But the Army Air Corps had the manpower, the planes, the bombs and the gas, and they were going to target something. And they just didn’t care if civilians were part of that.

[Velocity]

@Trinopus

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.)

Except that it wasn’t a fight to the death. By 1944 or 1945, Japan posed virtually no threat to the United States’ existence - actually, even at the time of Pearl Harbor, Japan posed little threat to the United States’ existence.

[Velocity]

If we leave the whole military vs. civilian issue aside for a moment, burning someone alive is just about the most hideous way you can kill someone. I’m bothered by this notion that, “He’s military, so it’s fine to broil him in excruciating fashion.”
Also, dropping firebombs seems a bit distant and removed. How would you feel if American troops parachuted into Tokyo, wearing flameproof gear, and then started spraying wooden houses with flaming fuel from a flamethrower, with the civilians still inside? The effect would be similar.

[spifflog]

@Velocity

Except that it wasn’t a fight to the death. By 1944 or 1945, Japan posed virtually no threat to the United States’ existence - actually, even at the time of Pearl Harbor, Japan posed little threat to the United States’ existence.

So if you were the President on December 8, 1941 what would you have done?

[DrDeth]

@Dissonance

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. :

Can you quote the International Law or treaty signed and ratified by the USA which made such bombing illegal?

[Velocity]

@spifflog

So if you were the President on December 8, 1941 what would you have done?

I’d have gone to war.

My point is, the United States’ existence as a nation was never in real jeopardy. The quote I replied to said, “In a fight to the death, not kicking someone in the goolies could be suicidal.” I don’t think that for the *US *it was a fight to the death.

[DrDeth]

@TokyoBayer

Let’s look at that statement in the context I gave. OK, provide a cite showing otherwise, that the aim points where chosen to maximize the damage to the military targets within a city and to prioritize that over the destruction of the city itself.

I’ve provided cites which show that the aim point of the Nagasaki bomb was directed at the city center and away from the factories and the houses of the workers.

Aim Points?:dubious::rolleyes: Jesus, they considered themselves lucky to just hit the city. And with a Nuke it doesnt matter much.

They picked the “Aiming point” for Hiroshima based upon the easiest target recognition. “*The Aioi Bridge is an unusual “T”-shaped three-way bridge in Hiroshima, Japan. The original bridge, constructed in 1932, was the aiming point for the 1945 Hiroshima atom bomb because its shape was easily recognized from the air. *”

As for the second bomb, they didn’t even try to drop it on the original target (Kokura) as it was hidden by clouds and smoke, and even at Nagasaki the aim was off by about 3KM.

The “aiming points” as you call them had nothing whatsoever to do with damage, the aiming points are to *find the damn city in the first place. *

Tom already posted this " 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."

Backed up by:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a6652262.shtml

*Hiroshima was chosen because it had not been targeted during the US Air Force’s conventional bombing raids on Japan, and was therefore regarded as being a suitable place to test the effects of an atomic bomb. It was also an important military base. *

The Selection of the Target | The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki |...

*"The work on the actual selection of targets for the atomic bomb was begun in the spring of 1945. This was done in close cooperation with the Commanding General, Army Air Forces, and his Headquarters. A number of experts in various fields assisted in the study. These included mathematicians, theoretical physicists, experts on the blast effects of bombs, weather consultants, and various other specialists. Some of the important considerations were:

The range of the aircraft which would carry the bomb.
The desirability of visual bombing in order to insure the most effective use of the bomb.
Probable weather conditions in the target areas.
Importance of having one primary and two secondary targets for each mission, so that if weather conditions prohibited bombing the target there would be at least two alternates.
Selection of targets to produce the greatest military effect on the Japanese people and thereby most effectively shorten the war.
The morale effect upon the enemy.
These led in turn to the following:

Since the atomic bomb was expected to produce its greatest amount of damage by primary blast effect, and next greatest by fires, the targets should contain a large percentage of closely-built frame buildings and other construction that would be most susceptible to damage by blast and fire.
The maximum blast effect of the bomb was calculated to extend over an area of approximately 1 mile in radius; therefore the selected targets should contain a densely built-up area of at least this size.
The selected targets should have a high military strategic value.
The first target should be relatively untouched by previous bombing, in order that the effect of a single atomic bomb could be determined.*"
"Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. To quote a Japanese report, “Probably more than a thousand times since the beginning of the war did the Hiroshima citizens see off with cries of ‘Banzai’ the troops leaving from the harbor.”
“The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries.”

[TokyoBayer]

@Velocity

If we leave the whole military vs. civilian issue aside for a moment, burning someone alive is just about the most hideous way you can kill someone. I’m bothered by this notion that, “He’s military, so it’s fine to broil him in excruciating fashion.”

Then are you fine with "let’s let tens of millions of civilians in China and other countries starve to death because of the Japanese occupation?

[KarlGauss]

I am coming late to this debate but still must take exception to those who continue in this thread to repeatedly lump the Dresden attack in with the Tokyo Fire Raids, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

The Dresden raid did not cause anything close to the number of deaths that the others mentioned above did. To claim otherwise is to perpetuate the distortion started by one Joseph Goebbels. The chief Nazi propagandist literally added a zero to the approximate figure of deaths, called it a crime, and, well, evidently it still has traction.

Non-Wiki cite

Wiki-cite.

[Velocity]

@TokyoBayer

Then are you fine with "let’s let tens of millions of civilians in China and other countries starve to death because of the Japanese occupation?

That’s really a false dichotomy, to be honest.

[Dissonance]

@DrDeth

Can you quote the International Law or treaty signed and ratified by the USA which made such bombing illegal?

You’re joking, right? I already said in a later post “nor apparently the definition of a combatant going back to the Hague conventions on the Laws and Customs of War on Land.” See Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899 CHAPTER I.–On the Qualifications of Belligerents Article 1 and tell me how civilian arms workers qualify as belligerents rather than civilians:

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination “army.”

See also Art. 25.

The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

[TokyoBayer]

@Velocity

That’s really a false dichotomy, to be honest.

How so?

Do you have any idea?

[DrDeth]

@Dissonance

You’re joking, right? I already said in a later post “nor apparently the definition of a combatant going back to the Hague conventions on the Laws and Customs of War on Land.” See Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899 CHAPTER I.–On the Qualifications of Belligerents Article 1 and tell me how civilian arms workers qualify as belligerents rather than civilians:See also Art. 25.

I am not concerned about the definition of “belligerent”, that is a side issue. Where does it say bombing of cities is illegal?

“The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.” indeed does not apply as those towns were defended, they were not “open cities”.

Indeed, they next section shows that is perfectly normal to bombard cities:* In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.*

Again, show me a treaty the USA signed and ratified that makes it illegal to bomb a enemy city?

[Trinopus]

@TokyoBayer

LeMay replied: “Killing Japanese didn’t bother me very much at that time… I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal… Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you’re not a good soldier.”

Not one word in this quote supports the idea that he intended to kill civilians. He says it didn’t bother him, and that’s something I’ve never argued against.

I confess that my argument appears to have undergone goal-post shifting, but this is because I did not take arms-factory workers into account. I accept that they were targets; this was something I simply overlooked. It doesn’t change my basic argument: the allied bombing campaign was not based on intentional murder of non-combatants. There was the fig-leaf of strategic targeting.

Obviously, this discussion is at an impasse, and, if you will permit me, I’d like to withdraw from it. You and tomndebb are both much more knowledgeable than I am, and I cannot prevail here, even if I happen to believe I am not in error.

[Trinopus]

@Velocity

If we leave the whole military vs. civilian issue aside for a moment, burning someone alive is just about the most hideous way you can kill someone. I’m bothered by this notion that, “He’s military, so it’s fine to broil him in excruciating fashion.” . . .

@TokyoBayer

Then are you fine with "let’s let tens of millions of civilians in China and other countries starve to death because of the Japanese occupation?

@Velocity

That’s really a false dichotomy, to be honest.

Both yes and no… If the aggression wasn’t countered somehow, then true innocents would suffer as badly or perhaps worse than the suffering caused by the response.

Let’s face it, gunshots, grenade bursts, artillery explosions, bayonet stabs, drowning at sea, etc. aren’t nice either. War is a damn nasty business.

Saving lives on your side is a very significant justification. On Okinawa, flamethrowers were used, because they worked. They saved allied lives, at the horrible cost of hideous burns on the defenders. It would have been immoral not to have used such an effective weapon, as that reluctance would have led to the deaths of hundreds or thousands of soldiers and Marines.

If we were a rational species, we wouldn’t do this.

[TokyoBayer]

@Trinopus

Not one word in this quote supports the idea that he intended to kill civilians. He says it didn’t bother him, and that’s something I’ve never argued against.

I confess that my argument appears to have undergone goal-post shifting, but this is because I did not take arms-factory workers into account. I accept that they were targets; this was something I simply overlooked. It doesn’t change my basic argument: the allied bombing campaign was not based on intentional murder of non-combatants. There was the fig-leaf of strategic targeting.

My emphasis.

Who are you arguing with? Has anyone said that the Allied bombings were murder?

Obviously, this discussion is at an impasse, and, if you will permit me, I’d like to withdraw from it. You and tomndebb are both much more knowledgeable than I am, and I cannot prevail here, even if I happen to believe I am not in error.

The problem is not your obvious lack of knowledge in an area where you are venomously arguing against statements which no one has made. The problem in the inability to articulate a coherent argument based on logic.

You are in error because you are conflating intentional killing with murder. Legally and morally, this is mistaken as there are many cases where intentionally killing is not considered murder. Police officers shooting people, in most circumstances is not. Self defense or killing someone to prevent serious harm to another can be justified. OTOH, there are acts which done recklessly in which someone dies, which is manslaughter.

The position of the Allies was that the acts committed by the enemy states were war crimes but some of the similar or even same acts done by the Allies were justified under the concept of total war and because these acts were necessary for a greater cause.

[Dissonance]

@DrDeth

I am not concerned about the definition of “belligerent”, that is a side issue. Where does it say bombing of cities is illegal?

If you are unconcerned with the definition of “belligerent”, them why the hell did you ask me for proof of my statement

@me

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. :

How is it possible to be unconcerned if they are civilians or belligerents when that is the entirety of what you are questioning?

@DrDeth

“The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.” indeed does not apply as those towns were defended, they were not “open cities”.

Of course it applies, the Allies were bombing undefended towns, villages, dwellings or buildings.

@DrDeth

Indeed, they next section shows that is perfectly normal to bombard cities:* In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.*

Cities that are defended by armies are sieged. The Allies were clearly not besieging German or Japanese cities they were dropping firebombs on, nor was there a defending army in the city under siege by an Allied one just outside of it.

@DrDeth

Again, show me a treaty the USA signed and ratified that makes it illegal to bomb a enemy city?

I just did; clearly you are either arguing in bad faith or incapable of understanding written English.