Firebombing of japanese cities WW2

[qwertty]

Hi-


I was wondering how many of you agree or support the airforce's decision to firebomb almost all Japanese cities in 1945. The March 1945 raid over Tokyo resulted in 100,000 Japanese civilians dead and left 1,000,000 homeless.

According to one account "the M-69 (napalm firebombs) realeased 100-foot streams of fire upon detonating, and sent flames rampaging through densely packed wooden homes. Superheated air created a wind that sucked victims into the flames and fed the twisting infernos. Asphalt boiled in the 1,800 degree heat. With much of the fighting age male population at the war front, women, children, and the elderly struggled in vain to battle the flames or flee" One of General McArthur aides called it "one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of noncombatants in all of history." Even General Le May, the instigator of the bombings quoted "there are no inocent civilians, so it doesn't bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders". He also commented on the fact that had the US lost the war, he fully expected to be tried as a war criminal.

Tokyo wasn't the only city to suffer such fate. Kobe, Yokohama, Osaka and many more were subjected to the same punishment as Tokyo, with casulaty rates.

As far as attitudes about the Japanese were concerned, look at propaganda photos of the era portraying Tojo or the typical Japanese soldier. Wikipedia encyclodedia states " Japanese were viewed as subhuman or evolutionarily inferior" This is not much different than Nazi-Germany's view of Jewish, Slavic, and Roma people as "untermensch" which translates to under-human (or subhuman semantically). Perhaps, racism had some part in the bombings??

Typical counterarguments include, Japanese atrocities against the Chinese, Koreans and Filipinos, and of course the brutal mistreatment of US POW's of the Japanese during the war. The Japanese are certain responsible for these attrocities, however it's interesting to note that while 37% of US soldiers interned died in captivity, only 11% of US civilians captured perished. While 11% is still high, there's not sufficient evidence that this was directly due to mistreatment. Japanese troops were often short of medical supplies and had trouble feeding their own troops. But, in the case of military POW, Japanese held to the Bushido code which held that surrender was disgraceful and that prisoners lost the right to be treated humanely. Was Pearl Harbor (a suprise attack on a military target) or the internment of US MILITARY justified in seeking revenge against Japanese women, children, and the elderly in possibly the most brutal fashion?

Briefly before finishing, it should be noted that American submarines waged unrestricted warfare against Japanese merchant vessels which had been outlawed by the 1930 treaty of London (the US signed). This is not meant to support or discredit either the US or Japan, but merely to expose the truth of World War 2, which is often irresponsibly shrouded in bias. I appreciate anyone who wishes to debate the issue, but please do not use Japan's war against China, the Philipines etc...as an argument. This is regarding America at War with Japan.

America has also done some not so nice things in other Asian nations....read up on the Philippine-American War 1899-1913 which is a real eye opener. Also mention of Unit 731 vivisection of captured B-29 pilots will be countered by the Tuskegee syphilis study on African-Americans beginning in 1932.

[tom!]

Hi.

To me every type of bombardment of civil targets is a war crime.

Yours

tom!

[pdf27]

Simple. Bombardment of defended targets is permitted by the Hague convention (and the Japanese cities were clearly defended). Furthermore, because of the extremely highly decentralised nature of Japanese industry (it was far from unusual for people to keep machine tools in their own homes, running a small business from home) coupled with the way in which society was militarised - for example the legions of civilians who were trained to launch Banzai charges against invaders armed only with bamboo spears it is easy to argue that there was no such thing as a civilian target in Japan in 1944 or 45.

[Firefly]

I can see all points of view here. Was there a reason for switching from high altitude precision bombing to low altitude fire bombing?

Qwertty, welcome aboard the Forum. A top tip for the future though is to break your post up into paragraphs. It makes it easier for old eyes like mine to read. I have taken the liberty of doing this for you this time.

Cracking first post though and this Forum can certainly do with another thoughtful poster.

Cheers

F-F

[Nickdfresh]

I can see all points of view here. Was there a reason for switching from high altitude precision bombing to low altitude fire bombing?

Qwertty, welcome aboard the Forum. A top tip for the future though is to break your post up into paragraphs. It makes it easier for old eyes like mine to read. I have taken the liberty of doing this for you this time.

Cracking first post though and this Forum can certainly do with another thoughtful poster.

Cheers

F-F


And I might add that he break up separate points into separate thread topics. Indeed, there was much US propaganda with racist overtones towards the Japanese. But of course, the US propaganda against Germany also used the same fundamental tenets of racism such as stereotyping and highlighting negative cultural perceptions. So, I highly doubt one can attribute the ruthless bombing campaigns to simple racist dehumanization. The US also savagely bombed German cities of blond haired, blue eyed peoples. And BTW, that racism went both-ways, as the Japanese told their civilians that US Marines/soldiers were cannibalistic barbarians, often leading to mass suicides on Saipan and Okinawa..

And to answer your question Firefly, I believe the US bombing strategy changed because the B-29 squadrons had difficulty with the high altitude winds over Japan, which not only hindered their bombing success, but made it possible for the weakened Japanese Air force to mount a defense. I believe (and this is all from memory, so I could be wrong) that US bombers had to fight savage high altitude cross winds that slowed their air-speeds significantly...

[jacobtowne]

Yes, the winds.

The high altitude winds were a type of jet stream that blew out of Siberia at 250 mph. Hit from the side, the bombers would skid sideways, As a tail wind, the planes flew too fast for the Norden bombsights to work. As a headwind, the plane slowed and became a sitting duck for AA.

The first B-29 raid from China on June 15th, 1944, was made against steel mills in Kyushu. Sixty planes flying at 30,000 feet reached the target, but only one bomb hit the plant. More bombs landed on rice paddies than on steel furnaces, and many planes were lost.

It was at this point that Gen. Hap Arnold dispatched Gen. Curtis Lemay to the Pacific. With the capture of Saipan, Curtis moved the B-29 operation to the Marianas. His first attempt, employing Air Force doctrine of high altitude bombing, failed.

Lemay decided to turn doctrine on its head, and go in low at night. In the darkness, there would be no precision and he would bomb indiscriminately.
He also guessed that the Japanese had little anti-aircraft coverage between three and ten thousand feet. He also figured that Japanese fighters would not rise to meet him in the dark, so he stripped the Superforts of guns, ammo., and gunners, enabling each plane to carry 2,700 pounds of extra napalm.

To test his theories, he sent his bombers to Tokyo on March 9th, 1945. Everyone thought he was crazy and that he had issued his crews a death sentence. From three islands in the Marianas - Guam, Saipan, and Tinian - 334 B-29s formed parallel streams 400 miles long.

Sixteen square miles of Tokyo burned to the ground that night, killing some 100,000 people. Lemay had been right.

Most of this information is from James Bradley's Flyboys.


JT

[Gen. Sandworm]

Simple. Bombardment of defended targets is permitted by the Hague convention (and the Japanese cities were clearly defended). Furthermore, because of the extremely highly decentralised nature of Japanese industry (it was far from unusual for people to keep machine tools in their own homes, running a small business from home) coupled with the way in which society was militarised - for example the legions of civilians who were trained to launch Banzai charges against invaders armed only with bamboo spears it is easy to argue that there was no such thing as a civilian target in Japan in 1944 or 45.

Have to agree with pdf27 on this one. However the losses suffered is sad. Then again if you dont like getting bombed stop starting wars.

[pdf27]

The jetstream was the major reason for the initial switch to low altitudes. Part of the reason for staying down low was simply that the B-29 was a very high performance aircraft and the Japanese had a hard enough time intercepting it by day. That pretty much rendered the protection offered by extra altitude irrelevant by night.

[arhob1]

Total war means total war.

If a civilian area is specifically excluded from bombing then it won't take long for that area to be used as barracks or for light industry etc using the civilians as cover.

Civilians were an integral part of the war machine releasing men to fight and keeping industry working.

There can't be a military target any where that doesn't have a cluster of civilians working near by or in it so every bomb dropped is a war crime if you state armchair philosophy like "To me every type of bombardment of civil targets is a war crime."

[pdf27]

That chain of thought leads logically and irrevocably to the conclusion that all war is a crime. While that may have some merit, unfortunately the only people willing to accept law as a constraint on their actions are the very people least likely to cause trouble in the first place. The net result is that the lunatics prosper while the rest of the world gets screwed.

[Nickdfresh]

Yes, the winds.

The high altitude winds were a type of jet stream that blew out of Siberia at 250 mph. Hit from the side, the bombers would skid sideways, As a tail wind, the planes flew too fast for the Norden bombsights to work. As a headwind, the plane slowed and became a sitting duck for AA.

The first B-29 raid from China on June 15th, 1944, was made against steel mills in Kyushu. Sixty planes flying at 30,000 feet reached the target, but only one bomb hit the plant. More bombs landed on rice paddies than on steel furnaces, and many planes were lost.

It was at this point that Gen. Hap Arnold dispatched Gen. Curtis Lemay to the Pacific. With the capture of Saipan, Curtis moved the B-29 operation to the Marianas. His first attempt, employing Air Force doctrine of high altitude bombing, failed.

Lemay decided to turn doctrine on its head, and go in low at night. In the darkness, there would be no precision and he would bomb indiscriminately.
He also guessed that the Japanese had little anti-aircraft coverage between three and ten thousand feet. He also figured that Japanese fighters would not rise to meet him in the dark, so he stripped the Superforts of guns, ammo., and gunners, enabling each plane to carry 2,700 pounds of extra napalm.

To test his theories, he sent his bombers to Tokyo on March 9th, 1945. Everyone thought he was crazy and that he had issued his crews a death sentence. From three islands in the Marianas - Guam, Saipan, and Tinian - 334 B-29s formed parallel streams 400 miles long.

Sixteen square miles of Tokyo burned to the ground that night, killing some 100,000 people. Lemay had been right.

Most of this information is from James Bradley's Flyboys.


JT

Bradley's book has all sorts of disturbing and graphic information. I can't access in now since I'm on the road, but Bradley also indicates that part of the reason for the firestorm was the tinderbox that was Japanese housing, which often used light wood and paper. Many elements came together to make it the "perfect firestorm," and it was indeed hell on earth for those unfortunate Japanese civilians. And this is no doubt deeply saddening and regretful. But had the shoe been on the other proverbial foot, I've no doubt the Japanese Imperial high command would have hesitated one second to reduce LA or San Francisco...

[Digger]

Yes, for the Tokyo raid and subsequent raids it was figured a higher mix of incendaries would be more effective. While it is easy to criticize the conduct of the war today, remember it was truly a battle of survival. Make no mistake, the Japanese did target civilians and to preclude China in this thread is wrong, because it was the 'China Incident' which indirectly led to the fire bombing of Tokyo.

Regards to all,
Digger.

[Chevan]

Hi-


I was wondering how many of you agree or support the airforce's decision to firebomb almost all Japanese cities in 1945. The March 1945 raid over Tokyo resulted in 100,000 Japanese civilians dead and left 1,000,000 homeless.

According to one account "the M-69 (napalm firebombs) realeased 100-foot streams of fire upon detonating, and sent flames rampaging through densely packed wooden homes. Superheated air created a wind that sucked victims into the flames and fed the twisting infernos. Asphalt boiled in the 1,800 degree heat. With much of the fighting age male population at the war front, women, children, and the elderly struggled in vain to battle the flames or flee" One of General McArthur aides called it "one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of noncombatants in all of history." Even General Le May, the instigator of the bombings quoted "there are no inocent civilians, so it doesn't bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders". He also commented on the fact that had the US lost the war, he fully expected to be tried as a war criminal.

Tokyo wasn't the only city to suffer such fate. Kobe, Yokohama, Osaka and many more were subjected to the same punishment as Tokyo, with casulaty rates.

As far as attitudes about the Japanese were concerned, look at propaganda photos of the era portraying Tojo or the typical Japanese soldier. Wikipedia encyclodedia states " Japanese were viewed as subhuman or evolutionarily inferior" This is not much different than Nazi-Germany's view of Jewish, Slavic, and Roma people as "untermensch" which translates to under-human (or subhuman semantically). Perhaps, racism had some part in the bombings??

Typical counterarguments include, Japanese atrocities against the Chinese, Koreans and Filipinos, and of course the brutal mistreatment of US POW's of the Japanese during the war. The Japanese are certain responsible for these attrocities, however it's interesting to note that while 37% of US soldiers interned died in captivity, only 11% of US civilians captured perished. While 11% is still high, there's not sufficient evidence that this was directly due to mistreatment. Japanese troops were often short of medical supplies and had trouble feeding their own troops. But, in the case of military POW, Japanese held to the Bushido code which held that surrender was disgraceful and that prisoners lost the right to be treated humanely. Was Pearl Harbor (a suprise attack on a military target) or the internment of US MILITARY justified in seeking revenge against Japanese women, children, and the elderly in possibly the most brutal fashion?

Briefly before finishing, it should be noted that American submarines waged unrestricted warfare against Japanese merchant vessels which had been outlawed by the 1930 treaty of London (the US signed). This is not meant to support or discredit either the US or Japan, but merely to expose the truth of World War 2, which is often irresponsibly shrouded in bias. I appreciate anyone who wishes to debate the issue, but please do not use Japan's war against China, the Philipines etc...as an argument. This is regarding America at War with Japan.

America has also done some not so nice things in other Asian nations....read up on the Philippine-American War 1899-1913 which is a real eye opener. Also mention of Unit 731 vivisection of captured B-29 pilots will be countered by the Tuskegee syphilis study on African-Americans beginning in 1932.

Thanks qwertty, very interesting post
And welcome to the our hot company.
I 'm fully agree with you and strongly sure that the Allies firestorm tactic in Japane and Germany was the "cruel prelude" for the more worst action - Atomic bombing of Japane.(As you know the total number of victims of a-bombing is about 500 000 today(!!!)
Certainly Japanes atrocities in South Asia were the unhuman, but this is not the argument to kill the civilians using the worst method then even nazi did.

Cheers comrades ;)

[Digger]

Chevan, I am really glad the Allies won the war so you can live in your revisionist paradise. To further gladden your heart, the bombing of German cities helped prevent the eradication of the Soviet Union, the genocide and enslavement of it's people.

Regards to all,
Digger.

[Chevan]

Total war means total war.

If a civilian area is specifically excluded from bombing then it won't take long for that area to be used as barracks or for light industry etc using the civilians as cover.

Civilians were an integral part of the war machine releasing men to fight and keeping industry working.

There can't be a military target any where that doesn't have a cluster of civilians working near by or in it so every bomb dropped is a war crime if you state armchair philosophy like "To me every type of bombardment of civil targets is a war crime."

arnob, this sounds like the terrorist ideology -"civilians as cover".
The contemporary terrorist also don't separate the soldiers and civils peoples.
In its essence, the bombardment of Japanese was a big terrorist attack on the state level. One state (US) made a attack the city of another state (Japane) for its political purposes. This attacks hadn't much military loses for the Japane and it did not accelerate its capitulation.
In spring 1945 Japane already lose the war it was absolutly clear. The sea and air blocade of Japane islands did its work enough good(Japane losed practicaly all its war and trade fleet and hadn't the resource to continie the war at least to the November of 1945).
So i don't belive in any "arguments" which justify the bombing the Japane cities in 1945.

[Chevan]

Chevan, I am really glad the Allies won the war so you can live in your revisionist paradise. To further gladden your heart, the bombing of German cities helped prevent the eradication of the Soviet Union, the genocide and enslavement of it's people.

Regards to all,
Digger.

Digger, yourself understand what you wrote?
How the cruel burning of practicaly broken Germany in 1944-45 could help to prevent the eradication of the Soviet Union?

[pdf27]

The first truly effective firestorm (on Hamburg) was in Summer 1943, at which point Stalin was screaming for a "second" front as fast as possible due to the threat the Soviet Union was under. Raids after that were merely extensions of the same policy - one I would note that the Germans first adopted at many years before, with the destruction of Guernica being an early symptom.
Incidentally, had the RAF been able to repeat Hamburg a few times there were a number of high-ranking Nazis who thought it would have knocked Germany out of the war. Sadly, they were unable to do so.

[Chevan]

Hi.

To me every type of bombardment of civil targets is a war crime.

Yours

tom!

Hi tom, nice to see germans are here
I don't agree with you
Not any bombardment of civil targets(cities) is a war crime.
As example Stalingrad was bombed out to the crushed stone, but it was a cruel war action not the war crime becouse there were the many of soviet troops and it was the ruthles the battle for the survival.
Also Berlin was a legitime target - it was the capital of Germany and the place of german high command stuff.
London, Moscow were also a legitime targets on my mind, becouse it was a war reason.
But as example in Dresden was a quite different situation. The official target was the realway station which was so little damaged than bagan to work on full power already next day.
Why ? Becouse most of the bombs were dropped on the centre of city ( where were a handrets thousands of refuges).
Indeed,the british sources ( at least the memours of Artur Harris) confirmed that the real terget was the centre of the city.
So what was the war effect of distraction of Dresden?
How was much it help for Red Army to captured the city? It was Zero help.
Thus the bombing of Dresden was the real matter of International Military tribunal in Nurenberg, becouse unsensless distraction of villiges and cities were on definition the war crime.
I'm not pity for the germans in 1945, understand me correctly.
One of my grandfather died in 1942 in front. And i know the must worst of its criminals nazi did in Eastern front in Russia , Ukrain and Poland.
But i good imagine that strategic bombers (like and strategic rockets) are the wearpon of genocide of civilians.
This wearpon is extremaly weak against defence military objects, but deadly for the cities.

[Chevan]

The first truly effective firestorm (on Hamburg) was in Summer 1943, at which point Stalin was screaming for a "second" front as fast as possible due to the threat the Soviet Union was under. Raids after that were merely extensions of the same policy - one I would note that the Germans first adopted at many years before, with the destruction of Guernica being an early symptom.
Incidentally, had the RAF been able to repeat Hamburg a few times there were a number of high-ranking Nazis who thought it would have knocked Germany out of the war. Sadly, they were unable to do so.

"Effective firestorm in Hamburg"...?
What do you mean as effective pdf?
Yes it was murdered at least 50 000 civilians(And Hoebbels propoganda immediatly used it) , but the sea docks were the less damaged and already through month the Hamburg's port was fully reconstructed.
Moreover the allies loses were a very big ( as i remember 12%) and allies not bombed Humburg again 4 month ( for this the war indastry was ful reconstracted).
In common view ,pdf, i seriously don't understand the 'strategic bombing" tactic of allies.

by the way and british historian John Fuller in work( The Second World War 1939-1945. A Strategical and Tactical History. — London, 1948) wrote

To destroy with the aid of those existed then means entire or large part of the German defense industry was clearly impossible. It was considered that the military plants of Germany were placed in the territory into 130 sq. miles and to subject to their bombardments even for several years it would require, possibly, such astronomical quantity of aircraft, that all industrial resources of England would not make it possible to build them.
This is why one ought not to have undertaken the attempt, which, however, was made. If Churchill thought strategically, instead of thinking about the devastation, then it would become clear that the objects of bombardments had to be not industrial enterprises themselves, but their energy sources, i.e., coal and oil. If these sources steadily were weakened, then in the final analysis German industry to 90% was stopped. Against this there were only two possible objections. The first consisted in the fact that carbon mines is difficult to destroy, and the second - that the oil is produced in few and, therefore, strongly protected points; therefore films on them would dear .The first difficulty, however, it was not more than that being seeming. If we continuously bombard the railroads, which lead into the carbon regions of the ruhr and saar (each roads they were close purposes), then coal could not be exported.
However, none of these arguments, probably, was not discussed also for that simple reason, that the destruction of industry was only the part of the general plan of the devastation of Germany and terrorization of its citizen. In any case, this is confirmed by the measures, which up to the spring 1944 can be distributed to two stages: 1) economic offensive, 2) moral offensive. The first stage can be divided into two periods. The time from May 1940 until March 1942 is characterized as the period of the so-called "precise" bombardments, which were being produced mainly at night by English aviation.
In the period from August 1942 until March 1944 American aviation accomplished the daylight raids on the German plants, important in strategic sense. In the first period, in spite of the destruction, caused to the populated regions, action on the German production of armament was insignificant. Production not only was not reduced, but, on the contrary, it grew by rapid rates.
In the report of American administration for the study of the results of strategic bombings in the division "European war" is said:
"since German economy on the elongation of the larger part of the war find in the state of far from complete mobilization, then the industry of Germany without a special effort maintained the air raids".
The experience of Germans showed, it is spoken in the report, "that whatever was the system of the objects of bombardment, not one important branch of industry was render inoperableed by single film. Was required numerous films ".

Furthermore, since Germany and occupied by it the country exceeded Great Britain on the area 12 times, available in Great Britain into 1940 - 1942 of air facilities was insufficient in order to be achieved the perceptible results. This period was the useless expenditure of forces, it was "uneconomical" and was not the period of "strategic" bombardments.

The second period began from the arrival into Europe of the air forces OF THE USA. The command of American aviation considered that "important enterprises in some fields of industry and economy are the most advantageous attack targets in the economy of enemy", and it assumed that "for the precise defeat of these objects the films should be produced with day".
In spite of this, as it communicates in the report, the "films", which were being carried out by American air forces "during 1942 and first halves of 1943, they did not give significant results".
During January 1943, when were developed these barren actions, at the conference in Casablanca before the Anglo-American strategic air forces were set the following purposes: "destruction and the disorder of German military, industrial and economic system and the undermining of the moral spirit of German people to such an extent, when his capability for armed resistance is finally weakened". During June these solutions began to be realized; in this case instead of the submarine bases as the objects the plants of the German aircraft industry were indicated.
The first film was perfected to the ball bearing plants in Schweinfurt. It followed an entire series of the films, during which to these plants were discarded 12 thousand t of bombs. But with the film on 14 October American losses were so big , that further bombardments of Schweinfurt were postponed for four months, during which the plants were restored so, that, as it was said in the report, it remained "none it was indicative that the films in the enterprises of ball bearing industry noticeably influenced this important branch of defense economy".
The daylight raids on the distance, which exceeded the radius of action of escort fighters, were sharply limited after this. So it was prior to the arrival during December of aircraft R -51 "mustang" - destroyers with the long range of action. Then again send to the daylight raids, and into the last week of February of 1944 began the strongest bombardments of German aircraft plants. Nevertheless in the report it is said: "for a long time production was not reduced. On the contrary, during only 1944 German air forces, as it communicated, obtained 39 807 aircraft of all types. In 1939 were produced 8295 aircraft, while in 1942. - 15 596, in this case then plants underwent no films...
During March, the month after the strongest film, the entering of aircraft in the part became above, than during January, and it continued to grow... Restoration occurred almost immediately after plants underwent destruction ".
The failure of attempts to blow up the industry of Germany by bombardments required a change in the tactics. Thus far the escort aircraft only covered bombers. Now by them it was ordered by itself provoke German destroyers and tie by it battle at the first opportunity. As a result of the loss of German fighter aircraft and fighter pilots they began continuously to grow, and the resistance of German air forces was lowered to the spring 1944. However, in the report it is indicated that "in the summer of 1944 the production of destroyers in Germany continued to rise and during September it reached the highest number - 4375 aircraft".
About the fact that the offensives of strategic bombardment aviation for three years proved to be completely barren, testifies senator Kilgor in his "report about the state of the German of production" comprised on the basis "the official report of the German ministry of armaments and defense industry for 1944 g.".
Following a few endurances from the report speak they themselves for itself: "in the document it is graphically shown that, in spite of the bombardments of allies, Germany was able to restore and to enlarge plants and to increase the release of the defense production to the final crushing defeat of German armies. German industry never lost its enormous capability for restoration ".
"report shows that in 1944 in Germany worried to death by war was produced 3 times more armor combat vehicles, than in 1942 g.".
"in 1944 the production of bomber- destroyers in Germany into 3 and the more of times exceeded level 1942 g."
"in 1944 of night fighters it was produced 8 times more than in 1942 g.".
"in 1944 in Germany defense economy grew not only in comparison with the previous years; on certain I see productions it was noted an increase of the release in the last block of 1944 in comparison with the first quarter of the same year ".

So dear pdf, i see the serious reason to refute your "effective" Hamburg firestorm.

[qwertty]

I would like to thank you all for your replies.

The point I was trying to make was that the firebombings of Tokyo and pretty much most other Japanese cities (Osaka, Yokohama etc...) was intended as both "strategic bombing of industries" and "terror bombings" of the Japanese civilian population. I don't think Japanese atrocities commited by the Japanese military in China, the Piillipines, Korea etc... really merits wanton destruction of innocent Japanese women, children, and old men by the USAF. Japanese cities were constructed of flimsy wood and paper (these are effective safety measures against Japanese earthquakes), and dropping incendiaries in large concentration were inevitably create a firestorm as seen in Hamburg and Dresden.

Firestorms are unique in that they create their own weather systems. The intense heat creates strong updrafts, tornadic winds which spiral out from the furnace spreading embers and burning debris a considerable distance which in turn set off additional fires. At the same time powerful winds are sucked into the storm (bascially it's feeding itself w/ oxygen) which are strong enough to pick people up and toss them into the inferno. As a result, firestorms spread rapidly and are very diffcult to control.

In Tokyo, firefighting consisted of people tossing buckets of water onto flamming house which had no effect whatsoever on the flames (in fact the water evaporated before even reaching the houses). The radiant heat was strong enough to spotaneously set people on fire, melted asphalt, and boiled rivers where some had sought refuge. I have even read of reports of some B-29's flying down low and straffing escaping civilians. Napalm is adhesive and sticks like "stink on poop", burning at 1500-2000 degrees F. According to Kim Phuc, the famous photo of a young girl runing down a street naked screaming in pain following a napalm strike during the Vietnam War, has quoted that napalm "is the most terrible pain you can imagine". So it's clear that those unfornuates died in the most painful of fashions.

In response to Digger's comment, incendiaries were certainly more effective in destroying Japanese cities, but these bombs were not aimed at factory installations. Pathfinders made a big flamming bullseye over a working class neighborhood, so the target was civilian and not military. Le May knew well, from the combination of wooden/paper structures and dropping countless firebombs that this would generate a firestorm. Major industries would be struck by the inferno and destroyed, but many civilians would be killed in the process. He even admitted before the raid that many Japanese women and children would be killed that night. Furthermore, napalm is known to release large amounts of carbon monoxide, which by the 1925 Geneva Protocal is illegal since it proscribes that the use of asphyxiating gas or liquid is prohibited. The United States signed this treaty. Futhermore, the Hague Draft "Rules of Air Warefare" of 1922-1923 legitimizes air bombardment only when directed against a military target. The bombs that fell over Tokyo were directed at a densely packed working class neighborhood, which is a direct violation of the treaty. True Japanese cottage industries existed, but didn't exist in every single residence. There's no good evidence to show the target had an overwhelming majority of these industries to justify it as a military target.

As far as China is concerned, I still don't understand how this relates to the US firbombing of the city. Had it been the Chinese airforce, this would be different. B-29's bombing Tokyo as "reprisal" for Japanese atrocities commited in China follows the same logic as person A from Boston kills person B in New York City, therefore person C from New Jersey who gets infuriating over hearing about it on the nightly news decides to kill person D from Boston as a justification for the murder........LOGIC???????? Besides, seeing how the Americans saw the Japanese as subhuman, vermin, inferior in race, do you honestly believe that the US held any more esteem for the Chinese? The Chinese were merely a political ally, so prejudice against them was muted. The Japanese also saw themselves as superior to the Whites, I believe they refered to them as "hairy barbarians", so racsim was well reciprocated. Getting back to the Chinese, are you aware following the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, only 567 were reported. According to Wikipedia "hundreds of casualties in Chinatown went ignored and unrecorded due to the racsim at the time." Another fact is the virtually unheard of "Phillipine-American War 1898-1913". Long story-short the Philippines declared indepence from Spain following the Spanish-American War, but the US was determined to annex it. A protracted guerilla-type war ensured resulting in mass civilian killings. General Jacob Smith ordered all Filipinos aged 10 or older to be killed. Other Army leaders quoted that the war was a "N-word (racist) killing buisness" Whole villages were burned, water torture were employed against combatants and non-combatants alike. Many civilians were killed or forced into concentration camps where an estimated 250,000-1,000,000 died from the war, malnutritution, or cholera..interestingly cholera is spread through drinking contaminated water...perhaps germ warfare???? Only 3300 US troops died of disease during the campaign. Please read up more about this. The point is, the Japanese commited great atrocities at Nanking, Manila, but was the US so innocent in treatment of Asians, or the Native Americans in it's history????

My last point I'd like to make, is that despite the B-29 firebombings, Japanese resolve to fight on didn't weaken.....In fact it grew stronger. Between March 10-18 B-29's hit Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe, and Nagoya (the bulk of Japan's industrial hubs). Beginning April 1, 1945 the US started a campaign against Okinawa. By the end of the battle in June
US ARMY losses
7th division: out of 21,929 1,225 KIA/MIA about 5.59% fatalitly rate
27th division: out of 16,143 735 KIA/MIA about 4.55% fatality rate
77th division: out of 20,981 1,058 KIA/MIA about 5.04% fatality rate
96th division: out of 22,330 1,518 KIA/MIA about 6.79% fatality rate

US MARINE losses
1st division: out of 26,274 1,156 KIA/MIA about 4.4% fatality rate
6th division: out of 24, 356 1,637 KIA/MIA about 6.72% fatality rate

AT Sea: 34 Navy ships sunk and over 300 damaged w/ 5,000 navy personal killed by kamikaze strikes.

1 Aircraft Carrier sunk, 3 more hevaily damaged.
march 18 1945: Wasp heavily damaged w/ 101 killed and 269 wounded
april 7 1945: Hancock heavily damaged w/ 72 killed and 82 wounded
march 19, 1945: Franklin heavily damaged w/ 745 killed and 265 wounded
may 4, 1945: Shanganan sunk w/ 46 killed and 116 wounded
may 11, 1945: Bunker Hill heavily damaged w/ 396 killed and 264 wounded

some of Destroyers sunk include
april 2, 1945: Dickison w/ 54 killed and 23 wounded
april 6, 1945: Colhoun w/ 35 killed and 21 wounded
may 28, 1945: Drexler w/ 158 killed and 52 wounded
june 29, 1945: Calaghan w/ 47 killed and 73 wounded
march 26, 1945: Halligan w/ 153 killed and 39 wounded
may 4, 1945: Luce w/ 149 killed and 98 wounded
may 4, 1945: Marrison w/ 159 killed and 102 wounded
april 12, 1945: Monert L. Able w/ 79 killed and 35 wounded
june 16, 1945: Twiggs w/ 152 killed and 64 wounded

there are more ships of course, but I'm too lazy to write them all down

In the Air:

Although Japanese night defenses against B-29's were virtually non-existant in early 1945, by May Japanese moved in AA and commited more aircraft to assault the B-29's. By May 1 many Japanese cities had been firebombed but,

May 11: 480 B-29 raid results in 11 shot down
May 19: 286 B-29 raid results in 3 shot down
May 23: 525 B-29 raid results in 17 shot down
May 25: 470 B-29 raid results in 26 shot down
May 29: 461 B-29 raid results in 7 shot down
June 1: 474 B-29 raid results in 10 shot down
June 5: 481 B-29 raid results in 11 shot down

after June 5, the Japanese decide to save their aircraft for the anticipation of US invasion. Losses drop dramatically, but Japanese AA still poses a threat

June 22: 362 B-29 raid results in 5 shot down
June 26: 510 B-29 raid results in 6 shot down

With military, naval, and air losses it seems unconvincing that Le May's firebombing had seriously hampered the Japanese war effort or shorten the war. The Japanese seemed willing to fight to the death.

[Nickdfresh]

I would like to thank you all for your replies.

The point I was trying to make was that the firebombings of Tokyo and pretty much most other Japanese cities (Osaka, Yokohama etc...) was intended as both "strategic bombing of industries" and "terror bombings" of the Japanese civilian population. I don't think Japanese atrocities commited by the Japanese military in China, the Piillipines, Korea etc... really merits wanton destruction of innocent Japanese women, children, and old men by the USAF. Japanese cities were constructed of flimsy wood and paper (these are effective safety measures against Japanese earthquakes), and dropping incendiaries in large concentration were inevitably create a firestorm as seen in Hamburg and Dresden.
....

I'm not sure I really see your point. In starting another thread, or not putting it in either the US "Pacific War" forum, or the Japanese forum. But to answer your question, no, no Japanese women and children "deserved" to die as collective punishment for the sins of their countrymen. Most assuredly as none of what amounted to virtually every German women, girl, and a few boys deserved to be systematically raped by Soviet soldiers effectively as punishment for their husbands or boyfriends may or may not have massacred a Russian village in retaliation for a partisan attack. Or that starved Chinese villagers deserved to have their food confiscated because the Imperial Japanese Army had really shitty logistics. Read James' Bradley's book "Flyboys" for more info on this, in which he recounts Japanese mothers running to the Tokyo Bay, or virtually any river of creek bed to get away from the firestorm, only to find that the children strapped to their backs were "cooked." War is indeed horrifying, and should be remembered as such. Which is why no one should start them.

And yes. Gen. LeMay was an almost psychotic zealot that almost came to blows with John F. Kennedy a few times over the Cuban Missile Crisis, but you cannot limit the blame to him. I think the Japanese high command deserves much of the blame also, not because of what they did in Manchuria or Vietnam, but because they were effectively waging total War with their population, and turning even women and children into both shields and weapons for the coming invasion of Japan. Check the suicide statistics of Japanese civilians on Okinawa for instance to see the extent that the totalitarian IJ gov't had psychologically prepped their population to end their lives rather than give in to the "barbarian cannibals."

[Dani]

[...] In starting another thread, or not putting it in either the US "Pacific War" forum, or the Japanese forum. [...]

Threads merged and moved.

[Chevan]

I would like to thank you all for your replies.

The point I was trying to make was that the firebombings of Tokyo and pretty much most other Japanese cities (Osaka, Yokohama etc...) was intended as both "strategic bombing of industries" and "terror bombings" of the Japanese civilian population. I don't think Japanese atrocities commited by the Japanese military in China, the Piillipines, Korea etc... really merits wanton destruction of innocent Japanese women, children, and old men by the USAF. Japanese cities were constructed of flimsy wood and paper (these are effective safety measures against Japanese earthquakes), and dropping incendiaries in large concentration were inevitably create a firestorm as seen in Hamburg and Dresden.

Firestorms are unique in that they create their own weather systems. The intense heat creates strong updrafts, tornadic winds which spiral out from the furnace spreading embers and burning debris a considerable distance which in turn set off additional fires. At the same time powerful winds are sucked into the storm (bascially it's feeding itself w/ oxygen) which are strong enough to pick people up and toss them into the inferno. As a result, firestorms spread rapidly and are very diffcult to control.

In Tokyo, firefighting consisted of people tossing buckets of water onto flamming house which had no effect whatsoever on the flames (in fact the water evaporated before even reaching the houses). The radiant heat was strong enough to spotaneously set people on fire, melted asphalt, and boiled rivers where some had sought refuge. I have even read of reports of some B-29's flying down low and straffing escaping civilians. Napalm is adhesive and sticks like "stink on poop", burning at 1500-2000 degrees F. According to Kim Phuc, the famous photo of a young girl runing down a street naked screaming in pain following a napalm strike during the Vietnam War, has quoted that napalm "is the most terrible pain you can imagine". So it's clear that those unfornuates died in the most painful of fashions.

Very interesting qwertty.Are you from USA?
Your critical poin is very untupical.
I studied a big material about firestorm (and we had a hot discussion in early thread) so i can agree with your terrible picture of firestiorm.

In response to Digger's comment, incendiaries were certainly more effective in destroying Japanese cities, but these bombs were not aimed at factory installations. Pathfinders made a big flamming bullseye over a working class neighborhood, so the target was civilian and not military. Le May knew well, from the combination of wooden/paper structures and dropping countless firebombs that this would generate a firestorm. Major industries would be struck by the inferno and destroyed, but many civilians would be killed in the process. He even admitted before the raid that many Japanese women and children would be killed that night. Furthermore, napalm is known to release large amounts of carbon monoxide, which by the 1925 Geneva Protocal is illegal since it proscribes that the use of asphyxiating gas or liquid is prohibited. The United States signed this treaty. Futhermore, the Hague Draft "Rules of Air Warefare" of 1922-1923 legitimizes air bombardment only when directed against a military target. The bombs that fell over Tokyo were directed at a densely packed working class neighborhood, which is a direct violation of the treaty. True Japanese cottage industries existed, but didn't exist in every single residence. There's no good evidence to show the target had an overwhelming majority of these industries to justify it as a military target.

I didn't know that napalm was illegal.
I hear about phosphorus bombs in German cities. It was terrible, german police had the order to shot the victims of phosphourouse bombing which were still alive but nobody couldn't help them, becouse the phosphorus was unpossible put out(in air it inmediatly fire again).
I can't imagine more cruel execution.

As far as China is concerned, I still don't understand how this relates to the US firbombing of the city. Had it been the Chinese airforce, this would be different. B-29's bombing Tokyo as "reprisal" for Japanese atrocities commited in China follows the same logic as person A from Boston kills person B in New York City, therefore person C from New Jersey who gets infuriating over hearing about it on the nightly news decides to kill person D from Boston as a justification for the murder........LOGIC????????

I say more.
As you maybe know China also had the civil war in that period (communists against Gomindan)
And the victims of Japane atrosities were mostly poorest peasants - the tupical comminist sumpatized peoples. The most cruel fight against Japanes had the pro-communists power in China ( in difference of Gomundant who more troubled fight with communists then fight agains Japanes occupant).
So the pro-communist were the most suffered from Japane atrosities ( it known fact). And try to think that US revenged the Japane for atrosities in China at least naive (if not say cynicaly).

Besides, seeing how the Americans saw the Japanese as subhuman, vermin, inferior in race, do you honestly believe that the US held any more esteem for the Chinese? The Chinese were merely a political ally, so prejudice against them was muted. The Japanese also saw themselves as superior to the Whites, I believe they refered to them as "hairy barbarians", so racsim was well reciprocated. Getting back to the Chinese, are you aware following the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, only 567 were reported. According to Wikipedia "hundreds of casualties in Chinatown went ignored and unrecorded due to the racsim at the time." Another fact is the virtually unheard of "Phillipine-American War 1898-1913". Long story-short the Philippines declared indepence from Spain following the Spanish-American War, but the US was determined to annex it. A protracted guerilla-type war ensured resulting in mass civilian killings. General Jacob Smith ordered all Filipinos aged 10 or older to be killed. Other Army leaders quoted that the war was a "N-word (racist) killing buisness" Whole villages were burned, water torture were employed against combatants and non-combatants alike. Many civilians were killed or forced into concentration camps where an estimated 250,000-1,000,000 died from the war, malnutritution, or cholera..interestingly cholera is spread through drinking contaminated water...perhaps germ warfare???? Only 3300 US troops died of disease during the campaign. Please read up more about this. The point is, the Japanese commited great atrocities at Nanking, Manila, but was the US so innocent in treatment of Asians, or the Native Americans in it's history????

I got a shock, i never hear about Phillipine-American War 1898-1913 and about 250 000 -1 000 000 died of civilians

With military, naval, and air losses it seems unconvincing that Le May's firebombing had seriously hampered the Japanese war effort or shorten the war. The Japanese seemed willing to fight to the death.

Yes , i agree that bombing of Japane cities (also like and German) hadn't a real war effect. This point supported by many professional historians ( include british an American).

[Chevan]

Most assuredly as none of what amounted to virtually every German women, girl, and a few boys deserved to be systematically raped by Soviet soldiers

Have a nice day Nick ;)
You forgot to say that except german women, girl and a few boys all soviet soldier rapid also 80-90 years old ladies and home animals.
And not systematically - constantly 24 hours in day.
Thay even hadn't time to fight the german army becouse they just rapid the Germans population. Therefore if allies not bombed the German cities this war could continie endless.
And Nick i think that Germans must be very thankfull for the Allies Air-Hight Command - thay saved at least 600 000 (official number of civilians dead the firestorm tactic in German cities) from the soviet rapid.
Those guys were a big gentlements , they simply burn german population (together with children) but those dirty soviet soldiers only rapid the german women (what's bastards).

[Nickdfresh]

Have a nice day Nick ;)
You forgot to say that except german women, girl and a few boys all soviet soldier rapid also 80-90 years old ladies and home animals.
And not systematically - constantly 24 hours in day.
Thay even hadn't time to fight the german army becouse they just rapid the Germans population. Therefore if allies not bombed the German cities this war could continie endless.
And Nick i think that Germans must be very thankfull for the Allies Air-Hight Command - thay saved at least 600 000 (official number of civilians dead the firestorm tactic in German cities) from the soviet rapid.
Those guys were a big gentlements , they simply burn german population (together with children) but those dirty soviet soldiers only rapid the german women (what's bastards).


Cheven, your "East vs. West" trolling is beyond pathetic at this point...

The Germans 'thanked' the Soviet Red Army from saving them from the dastardly and treacherous Allied strategic 'fire-bombing?' Who knew?

Golly, I always thought that Germans actually continued the War for over a week after Hitler's suicide so that the majority of the population could flee eastern Germany to British and American sectors. It is also the reason why the Germans largely ended resistance in the West while withdrawing troops and attempting to send them eastward to continue resistance.

Again, God forbid somebody mention that the Soviet Red Army was brutal and undisciplined in its march westward, whilst we dwell on strategic bombing. BTW Cheven, how many German civilians is it estimated that the Soviet Red Army murdered, often indiscriminately? How many German POWs were held into the 1950s, and died in Soviet "POW" camps?

I bet those numbers would dwarf Allied bombing. And BTW Chev, the Soviets conducted indiscriminate bombing attacks as well. The only reason why they didn't kill more was the Red Air Force simply didn't have the bombers....

Here is some info. on the glorious liberation of Germany under "The Great Patriotic War": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_atrocities
Discussion of Red Army atrocities committed in Germany and throughout Eastern Europe by the end of the World War II and in its aftermath is still taboo in Russia [1], and with rare exceptions (notably Alexander Solzhenitsyn) the evidence is based on Western sources.

When the Red Army entered German and Hungarian territory it engaged in plunder, rape, and murder of civilians, although the laws of the Red Army officially prohibited such activities. The common notion is that this activity was a revenge for German atrocities in the territory of the Soviet Union. This explanation is disputed by military historian Anthony Beevor, at least with regards to the mass rapes. Beevor claims in his findings that Red Army soldiers also raped Russian and Polish women liberated from concentration camps completely undermines the revenge explanation.[2]

German sources listed below estimate that at the end of World War II, Red Army soldiers raped more than 2,000,000 German women, an estimated 200,000 of whom later died from injuries sustained, committed suicide, or were murdered outright. After June 1945 the Soviet high command imposed punishments for rape ranging from arrest to execution. In 1947 Soviet troops were completely separated from the residential population of Berlin. Estimations of rape victims are distributed as follows: Eastern Provinces: 1,400,000; zone of Soviet occupation excluding Berlin: 500,000; Berlin: 100,000. [1][2][3][4][5][6] The 2,000,000 rape victims estimate is also supported by the research of historian Norman Naimark.[3] In addition, many of these victims were raped repeatedly, some as many as 60 to 70 times. [4]

During the occupation of Budapest (Hungary) it is estimated that 50,000 women were raped.[5][6]

Fleeing from the advancing Soviet forces, possibly more than two million people in the eastern provinces of Germany (East Prussia,Silesia,Pomerania) died, many of cold and starvation, but many were murdered by Soviet forces, or killed while being caught up in combat operations.

And 600,000 "official" dead is just an off-year for Stalin...

[Firefly]

Interesting though the latter posts may be, can we please stick to the topic here.

Cheers.

[Nickdfresh]

Interesting though the latter posts may be, can we please stick to the topic here.

Cheers.

I wish I knew what the "topic" was, it seems to split off into several stream-of-consciousness rants about the horrors of America in South East Asia, which do have some truth to them, but also seem exaggerated and "cherry-picked" with a lack of comparative historical context. So I'll address the awkward and revisionist American 'Holocaust' in the Philippines. And again, I'm far from a US nationalist apologist, but I think one has to be fair regarding condemnations, and historically accurate. Especially when they're steaming tea-pot calling out the kettle (Cheven, who nit picks at every "Bomber Harris" thread he can find, while in total denial regarding the tens of millions killed under Stalinism, or Nazism for that matter --since he is an admitted Holocaust denier).

And I really think the thread starter needs to provide links to online sources or books, because his facts are wrong in some cases.

While certainly, The Filipino-American War was America's first "dirty war," and there was much nastiness, it simply did not kill anywhere near as many as presented. 34,000 Filipino Muslims were killed as a direct result of American military activity, and "as-many-as" 200,000 died in a cholera epidemic. But blaming an epidemic on the US is sort of like blaming a meteor strike on Martians. They may have had something to do with it, but certainly, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a direct correlation of American activity such as bio-warfare. That was a distinction essentially reserved for the unfortunate Native Americans, and (mostly) before the US was an independent country...

And there were no "concentration camps." Villagers were resettled into the fortified hamlet concept similar to what Britain would successfully employ in the 'Malaysian Emergency,' but these were not "camps." And the Filipino guerillas, although fighting US imperialism, were not paladins riding in on white steads. They also used terror and extreme violence as much against their own as they did against US Army soldiers.

The war between the United States and the forces of the Philippine revolution began in 1899 and lasted over three years. Almost every unit of the U. S. Army served in the Philippines during the conflict, as well as a number of state and federal volunteers. Of some 125,000 Americans who fought in the Islands at one time or another, almost 4,000 died there. Of the non-Muslim Filipino population, which numbered approximately 6,700,000, at least 34,000 lost their lives as a direct result of the war, and as many as 200,000 may have died as a result of the cholera epidemic at the war's end. The U. S. Army's death rate in the Philippine-American War (32/1000) was the equivalent of the nation having lost over 86,000 (of roughly 2,700,000 engaged) during the Vietnam war instead of approximately 58,000 who were lost in that conflict. For the Filipinos, the loss of 34,000 lives was equivalent to the United States losing over a million people from a population of roughly 250 million, and if the cholera deaths are also attributed to the war, the equivalent death toll for the United States would be over 8,000,000. This war about which one hears so little was not a minor skirmish.

http://www.wooster.edu/History/jgates/book-ch3.html

And while no doubt, the US massacred some Filipinos, captured, disarmed US troops were also murdered. And the US policy in the Philippines was far from one of simple terror. It was the carrot-and-stick counterinsurgency approach that also included a "hearts and minds" aspect of building schools and infrastructure. And many Filipinos in the police and militia "collaborated" with the US and later become the genesis of the modern Army and security forces of the Philippines.

From the above link:

Considerable evidence exists, however, to support the argument that atrocious acts of war, for all their widespread publicity, were neither the major nor the most important feature of the (U.S.) army's approach to pacification, as the leaders of the Philippine revolution recognized at the time. They feared what they called the army's "policy of attraction," the term used to describe such army activities as the establishment of schools, municipal governments, and public works projects. The leaders of the revolution feared that the Americans would succeed in winning Filipino acceptance of American rule through such an enlightened policy, and many guerrilla leaders ordered acts of terrorism against their own people in an attempt to counter it. Terror, however, did not prevent all Filipinos from collaborating with the Americans as the army created a positive image of the benefits of colonial rule by the reforms implemented in the occupied towns.

The reform orientation of the army's leaders, not brutality, was the most significant element in the American approach to pacification. Literally from the moment they occupied Manila, American officers had begun efforts to reform the city's government and improve the lives of the people in their charge, initiating their work at a time when many of them assumed that the United States would not be retaining the islands. Later, as tension between the Americans and the Filipino revolutionaries mounted, General E. S. Otis, the second commander of the expeditionary force, hoped that many of the reforms implemented by his military government would obtain Filipino acceptance of American rule and avoid war by demonstrating the sincerity of McKinley's pronouncements stressing America's benevolent intentions in the islands. After hostilities began, Otis continued in his belief that enlightened government was a more important tool of pacification than forceful military operations. Even when condemned by some of his own men for being too cautious, Otis persisted in a policy of pacification emphasizing good works instead of more draconian measures, leading one correspondent to remark that the Americans were "humane to the point of military weakness."[11]

And if you're going to bring up the Philippines in regards to WWII history, you might want to compare US and Japanese occupation, or Spanish occupation for that matter. I think I can factually and historically say that they preferred US occupation.

[pdf27]

"Effective firestorm in Hamburg"...?
What do you mean as effective pdf?
By the fact that according to some sources I've read (but at the moment cannot find and hence give references to) production in Hamburg never recovered to pre-raid levels until after the war, with it being nearly 6 months before there was any substantial production. I'm pretty sure these numbers come from Speer (who really ought to know) but can't reference them and hence can't quote them to back myself up.
Further, Speer is on record as stating that a handful more raids like that in a short time frame would have knocked Germany out of the war, and IIRC stating that Hitler thought much the same.
Incidentally, I wouldn't take Fuller's work too seriously. The first two paragraphs betray an utter lack of understanding of both the way industry works and the strategic position the UK was in at the time. As these two are absolutley critical to his arguament, the rest falls over immediately.

[Digger]

In answer to your earlier question. Yes I do know what I am saying. Like it or not the Allied bombing speeded up the end of the war in Europe and the Pacific, despite what some esteemed historians or statistics tell you.

History books don't always tell the truth.

Of course it was unfortunate civilians died from bombing, but in war all sides kill civilians, whether it be one or one million it goes against all moral codes. But the greatest crime is if you are forced to fight a war and you don't use every resource at your disposal to destroy the enemy. And I mean destroy, because if you are attacked by another nation, they are determined to destroy you.

The one rule of war, is to forget the rules. If you don't, you die.

Regards Bob.

[pdf27]

Furthermore, napalm is known to release large amounts of carbon monoxide, which by the 1925 Geneva Protocal is illegal since it proscribes that the use of asphyxiating gas or liquid is prohibited.
Umm... anything burning inefficiently produces a lot of CO. The Geneva protocol only refers to weapons specifically designed to asphyxiate or poison - not those which may produce a poison as a side-effect. If so, both lead bullets and any form of propellant would have to be banned. That clearly was not their intention.

[pdf27]

Futhermore, the Hague Draft "Rules of Air Warfare" of 1922-1923 legitimizes air bombardment only when directed against a military target. The bombs that fell over Tokyo were directed at a densely packed working class neighborhood, which is a direct violation of the treaty.
Two points there:
1) The draft treaty was never signed - hence has no legal force. You're suggesting the USAAF broke a treaty that never existed.
2) In any case, both the Germans and Japanese shredded it long before the Allies did.

[pdf27]

The point is, the Japanese commited great atrocities at Nanking, Manila, but was the US so innocent in treatment of Asians, or the Native Americans in it's history????
The US has a far from glorious record in that regard. It still has nothing like the evil of the Rape of Nanking in it's history. Japan has a large number of such instances from WW2.

[Nickdfresh]

And BTW, Napalm was not "illegal" during WWII, as it had only recently been invented. It was "outlawed" in the 1970s I believe, after the post Vietnam fallout...

[qwertty]

Pdf27, Nickdf,

1) TREATY TO THE USE OF SUBMARINE AND NOXIOUS GASES IN WARFARE
signed Febuary 6, 1921 by the United States (Charles Hughes, Henry Lodge, Oscar underwood)
Was ratification of The Haague Conference declaration 2 regarding the use of prjectiles the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases...and extended to by this treaty to any liquids, materials, devices in the use of war to be prohibited.

NAPALM IS AN ASPHYXIATING AGENT. Not only does it release large amounts of carbon monoxide, and is also a powerful deoxygenating agent. Acording to Wikipedia "In the case where the Japanese (soldiers) were protected by the flames (from napalm squiting flamthrowers) often consumed oxygen suffocating the occupants". This happened in Tokyo and Dresden as well where victims who weren't burned suffocated to death. The US Army and chemists knew very well that napalm had the exceptional ability to deprive oxygen, much more so the regular gasoline. Therefore, Napalm was illegal as an asphyxiating agent. Besides Napalm, US troops regularly used White Phosphorous motars and grenades (esp. during the Normandy Campaign but also in the Pacific) which is highly toxic in addition to creating exceedingly severe burns. 20% of motar rounds used at Normandy were white phosphorous.

The above treaty also made unrestricted warefare against commercial ships a war crime, without giving the personel aboard a place for saftey. The US Navy blatantly used submarines against Japanese cargo ships. A US submarine targeted the Tsushima Maru an evacuation ship on August 21, 1944 killing 1484 civilians including 767 children. Was this a war crime? Damn right it was.

I am really shcoked about Nickdf's regards to the Phillipine-American War. Filipino's were confined in large groups without due process or law the very defintion of a "concentration camp" (the word concentration means "having a large number of things or amount of something together in one area). This war was one of extermination of a racially "inferior" people.
Quotes: " The Filipino is an incumbrance to be got rid of, unless he accepts the mandates of a purchasing and conquering power"

"The is no question that our men do "shoot N....... (racial slur)" somewhat is the SPORTING SPIRIT, but that is war and their environments have rubbed off the thin veneer of civilization undoubtedly. They do not regard the shooting of Filipinos just as they would shooting of white troops. This is partly because they are "N........." and because they partly disperse them for their treacherous srevility...The soldiers feels they are fighting w/ savages and not w/ soldiers"

" They (the Filipinos) are "N......." and entitled to all the contempt and harsh treatment administered by white overloards".....that sounds a little like Nazi racial idealogy...?????

And of course, "most American historians "downgrade it as the "Phillipine Insurrection"-if they even bother to mention it". To call it an "insurrection" which by def. is a "rebellion against the government or rulers of country" is a fu***** farce, seeing that the Filipinos declared their independence and were only annexed by force. If you wish to read more about it, please do so esp. water torture inflicted upon the "insurrectors", the concentration camps which were so poorly mainted that cholera spread like wildfire due to contaminated drinking water which obviously the guards were immuned from magically, probably because they had their own drinking supply. This war killed 200,000-1,000,000 civilians (although I have seen 200,000-600,000). The air war over Japan killed an estimated 600,000 civilians, while Pearl harbor resulted in only 68 civilians killed, and B-17's flying at 17,000 feet bombing strategic factories at Schweinfurt killed only 213 civilians on the ground. The Nanking massacre resulted in 300,000 Chinese civilians killed.
As far as germ-warfare is concerned, the Japanese deliberately infected Chinese civilians with anthrax, and Unit 731 was notorious for vivisecting a crew of B-29 pilots captured along with other medical tests. Then again beginning in 1942 the US Public Health Service conducted a test on 399 black men infected with syphilis. These men were never informed about the disease simply they had "bad blood" By 1947, Penicillin was widely available effectively curing syphilis, yet these unfortunates were denied any treatment. The experiment continued until 1972 (30 years later). Syphilis is a slow acting disease, but cardiovascular and worse neurosyphilis develop within 30 years at most. Untreated syphilis leads to deafness, paralysis, psychosis, blindness, heart complications. So, Japan committed heinous acts, but then so did the US. However, the civilian populations in both countries were not involved in direct massacres, so the fact remains that civilian massacres remain completly unjustified regardless of the conduct of the country's government and military.

[Nickdfresh]

Pdf27, Nickdf,

1) TREATY TO THE USE OF SUBMARINE AND NOXIOUS GASES IN WARFARE
signed Febuary 6, 1921 by the United States (Charles Hughes, Henry Lodge, Oscar underwood)
Was ratification of The Haague Conference declaration 2 regarding the use of prjectiles the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases...and extended to by this treaty to any liquids, materials, devices in the use of war to be prohibited.

NAPALM IS AN ASPHYXIATING AGENT. Not only does it release large amounts of carbon monoxide, and is also a powerful deoxygenating agent...

You are guilty of engaging in misnomering semantics here. Napalm was not outlawed in WWII, I'm not even sure if it is against the rules of land warfare today, but the US has chosen not to use it in any case after its controversial use in Vietnam. Your interpretation is clearly wrong since the treaty is meant to cover chemical weapons, which by your stilted definition covers virtually every explosive used. Napalm does not emit "gases." They were talking about poison gases that caused asphyxiation, specifically mustard and chlorine gas, and I think that's pretty apparent. And Napalm is not illegal as an "asphyxiating agent," since asphyxiation can only come in a confined space, a tactic that continues today as the Russian airforce uses thermite bombs to burn the oxygen out of the air of caves in which guerrillas might be hiding in Chechnya, in order to suffocate them. Is that "chemical warfare" also? Napalm emits nothing of a gas. It is simply a device not covered by the treaty, as were none of the other available incendiary devices, which all deoxigenate the air by nature, yet were not expressly prohibited as of then.

And BTW, flamethrowers are also illegal as chemical weapons by your definition? Well then, you've just justified the US use of it even if it was 'illegal,' since the Germans and Japanese clearly used flamethrowers first!

And white phosphorus was used in Normandy? So what? The Germans used it, the Allies where not allowed too now? BTW, where are you getting your '20%' statistic from?

Do you think there is a nice way of killing people in battle?

The above treaty also made unrestricted warefare against commercial ships a war crime, without giving the personel aboard a place for saftey. The US Navy blatantly used submarines against Japanese cargo ships. A US submarine targeted the Tsushima Maru an evacuation ship on August 21, 1944 killing 1484 civilians including 767 children. Was this a war crime? Damn right it was.

So, every other country could wage unrestricted undersea warfare with the exception of the United States? The treaty became null and void when one side (the Germans and Japanese) began unrestricted warfare. Were any German Kriegsmarine or Imperial Japanese Navy officers ever tried for violating this prohibition? No...

And if the sinking of the "Tsushima Maru," then you have a long list of officers from all Allied and Axis navies to prosecute, so your focus one particular case is actually pretty bizarre, since the Japanese also killed numerous civilians, as did the Germans, Russians, British, and Italians.

I am really shcoked about Nickdf's regards to the Phillipine-American War. Filipino's were confined in large groups without due process or law the very defintion of a "concentration camp"...

You're "shocked?" You're wrong is what you are. You present no sources except Wilki, which, while useful, varies widely in its reliability. You also do this without providing any links.

Go ahead, give an accurate historical assessment of a US "concentration camp" in the Philippines! Again, semantics! And irregardless, there is nothing inherently illegal about having a "concentration camp" anyways...

BTW, your definition of "concentration camp" now applies to every armed village or city in the world with any defenses or walls. Well done troll. And LOL at:

"This war was one of extermination of a racially 'inferior' people.
Quotes: " 'The Filipino is an incumbrance to be got rid of, unless he accepts the mandates of a purchasing and conquering power'"

Ridiculous!! You're presenting hyperbolic opinion as fact. Who are you quoiting? Again, you provide no links. And to refer to that War as one of "extermination" is utterly laughable, since the US pretty much failed to "exterminate" the Filipino population apparently, who are generally pro-American to this day. Indeed, America could not have defeated the guerrillas without significant support of the native population. And I never argued that Americans weren't racist, as was pretty much every other colonial power was at that time. Nor have I stated that the US Army did not do some horrifying things there, but the US Army also obviously did some positive things as well, to the point they were criticized as "weak" by their own press...

"The is no question that our men do "shoot N....... (racial slur)" somewhat is the SPORTING SPIRIT, but that is war and their environments have rubbed off the thin veneer of civilization undoubtedly. They do not regard the shooting of Filipinos just as they would shooting of white troops. This is partly because they are "N........." and because they partly disperse them for their treacherous srevility...The soldiers feels they are fighting w/ savages and not w/ soldiers"

" They (the Filipinos) are "N......." and entitled to all the contempt and harsh treatment administered by white overloards".....that sounds a little like Nazi racial idealogy...?????

So, what you are doing is cherry-picking a few letters (with grievous spelling errors I might add, which is rather dubious) and presenting them as a complete and total truth? Yeah, that's historically valid. Perhaps you can compare them to all the wonderfully politically correct, nonracist letters written by soldiers in your home county?:rolleyes:

And what you refer to as "Nazi" ideology again shows your lack of education, since this was the typical racist vernacular and the concepts of "The White Man's Burden" (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Kipling.html) era of colonialism, there's a difference. And the US, while not innocent, was far less harsh than many of its European contemporaries. Just look at the mess Africa is, especially the Congo. Was the US ever there? Compare the nation-states of Africa to the current Republic of the Philippines, and get back to me with one of your no doubt brilliant, completely unbiased and knowledgeable assessments..

Con'td

[Nickdfresh]

And of course, "most American historians "downgrade it as the "Phillipine Insurrection"-if they even bother to mention it". To call it an "insurrection" which by def. is a "rebellion against the government or rulers of country" is a fu***** farce, seeing that the Filipinos declared their independence and were only annexed by force. If you wish to read more about it, please do so esp. water torture inflicted upon the "insurrectors", the concentration camps which were so poorly mainted that cholera spread like wildfire due to contaminated drinking water which obviously the guards were immuned from magically, probably because they had their own drinking supply. This war killed 200,000-1,000,000 civilians (although I have seen 200,000-600,000). The air war over Japan killed an estimated 600,000 civilians, while Pearl harbor resulted in only 68 civilians killed, and B-17's flying at 17,000 feet bombing strategic factories at Schweinfurt killed only 213 civilians on the ground. The Nanking massacre resulted in 300,000 Chinese civilians killed.

Oh, now you're just full of it! First of all, the source I provided on the War referred to it as a "Revolution" troll. So, try actually reading my posts. Over 1,000,000 died in the Philippines? Who says? What historical sources is this magic number based on? The worst I've seen is 250,000, and it was a pretty critical assessment of the US counterinsurgency campaign ("Flyboys" by Bradley). And you're blaming a cholera outbreak on the US? Maybe the US Army, like most fighting forces of the world at the time, had started instituting protocols for hygiene to prevent disease? So that means they are guilty of killing people with cholera? And the US campaign in the Philippines was exaggerated in its overall harshness in the US of all places, during the Vietnam era, where the worst human rights abuses, which were on the fringe, somehow became the "norm," including the US Army being blamed for cholera...

Oh, and BTW, cholera outbreaks were pretty common in the Philippines before the US ever went in there, but I guess it's all some US engineered conspiracy too? :rolleyes:


As far as germ-warfare is concerned, the Japanese deliberately infected Chinese civilians with anthrax, and Unit 731 was notorious for vivisecting a crew of B-29 pilots captured along with other medical tests. Then again beginning in 1942 the US Public Health Service conducted a test on 399 black men infected with syphilis...

Yes, it was pretty awful, and racist. And it was exposed by the US press. So again, what's your point? Imperial Japan's racism was not as bad as racism in the US?

How can you possibly compare Unit 731's deliberate infections of thousands...
http://www.aiipowmia.com/731/vivisection.jpeg
...and live dissections to the "Tuskegee Experiment?!?"

So, Japan committed heinous acts, but then so did the US. However, the civilian populations in both countries were not involved in direct massacres, so the fact remains that civilian massacres remain completly unjustified regardless of the conduct of the country's government and military.

I couldn't agree more, no civilians deserve to die for the sins of their gov't and military, I think I stated as much early in this thread. But, what is your point in singling out the US in this? Every country engaged in prolonged combat in WWII and targeted civilians, in the case of air raids and battles in the case of the Allies, and in death camps and hideous occupation practices after conquests in the case of the Axis.

BTW, the US also helped to end fascism, and deposed the bastards that started the War to begin with, and also conducted a very humane occupation of Japan and Germany, spending billion$ to rebuild both which turned out to be mutually beneficial. Again, your decontextualizing of history in an effort of grind some axe seems pretty myopically applied to the US. Whatever...but applying one standard to the US while giving every other party to the War a free pass to murder is pretty stilted and obvious trolling. And BTW, the only reason that Germany and Japan didn't kill 100,000s via strategic bombing was because they simply didn't have the capability to do so...

[Digger]

qwertty, can you tell me one thing, what does venereal disease have to do with fire bombing of Japanese cities.

Bugger all I would suspect.

Regards to all, Digger.

[Chevan]

By the fact that according to some sources I've read (but at the moment cannot find and hence give references to) production in Hamburg never recovered to pre-raid levels until after the war, with it being nearly 6 months before there was any substantial production. I'm pretty sure these numbers come from Speer (who really ought to know) but can't reference them and hence can't quote them to back myself up.
Further, Speer is on record as stating that a handful more raids like that in a short time frame would have knocked Germany out of the war, and IIRC stating that Hitler thought much the same.

I think you mean the memours of Albert Speer. OK.
I read also some of his work, and i forced to distress you:

A.Speer ."Recollection of minister of the Reich defence industry"

Happiness, which I experienced from the creation of new organization, successes and acknowledgement in the first months of work, soon yielded the place for gloomier moods. Problems with the labor resources and the raw material, palace intrigues did not make it possible to be weakened. Moreover British airplane attacks began to have so serious an effect on production, that even they forced me to the period to forget about Borrman, Zaukele and control of centralized planning. True, all difficulties mentioned above raised my authority, since, in spite of the destruction of the number of plants, we not only did not decrease, but all increased the release of the defense production. With bombing war arrived to the territory of Germany now we daily feelled its respiration in the burning, ruined cities, and this impelled us to do everything on us depending. Neither bombardments nor deprivation weakened the morale of people. On the contrary, attending military plants, associating with the simple people on the streets, I he felt, as the combat spirit of simple Germans becomes stronger. The loss of 9 percent of production capacities with the interest was compensated by our joint efforts.

I think you understand what did Speer mean as "moral of people"?
He certainly mean the devotion to the Fuehrer.
So i actualy don't see the reason to consider the citiy's bombing as effective in war sence, becouse it didn't decrease the war industry and didn't had a "moral effect" to the german population.
Yes, a agree that germans were forced to hold in about 2 000 of 88-mm AA-guns and much of Luftwaffe in defence of Germany. Certainly those resources were neded in Eastern front? but say honestly how much a billion dollars were spended by britons and Americans for the bilding of super-dears strategic bombers?
As may be you know Allies had a problems with a sea and air transport since begining of active offensive in the Nothern Africa and after D-day in France.
Montgomery told that he could more effective fight with germans if had a enough transports aircraft for the material supplies of its troops.
But Britain can't bild the more air and sea transports means of supplies becouse ....... practicaly half of war budget of Britain was absorbed by the RAF
(and the lion part of RAF money ware needed for the prodaction (or lend-lise) of strategic bombers)


Incidentally, I wouldn't take Fuller's work too seriously. The first two paragraphs betray an utter lack of understanding of both the way industry works and the strategic position the UK was in at the time. As these two are absolutley critical to his arguament, the rest falls over immediately.
Well i don't think that Fuller was absolutry right. I agree with your critic of first two parts of Fuller's work.
But he is professional historian and he lived and worked during WW2. In its work he used the official US an British documents (which confirmed the Speers datas) thet the strategic bombing didn't decreased the german war prodaction and moreover didn't reached its political and psychological targets.
So could you say that this official documents are "not serious"? ;)

Cheers.

[Chevan]

In answer to your earlier question. Yes I do know what I am saying. Like it or not the Allied bombing speeded up the end of the war in Europe and the Pacific, despite what some esteemed historians or statistics tell you.

It's amazing Digger, but the strategic bombardment of allies continied the war indeed.
If US and Britain concentrated its efforts on the building of sea and air- transport means they easy could landed in France in 1942 or at least in 1943 while the 70% of the german war mashine was on the Eastern front. And instead of "help of comrade Stalin" by lend-lise and material supplies (lion part of which was in 1943-44) they could easy fucked the Germans and finished this war in the 1943-44 and saved the Eastern Europe from the "Soviet liberation".
But they prefered the sensless "strategic" bombing and oparation in Italy (which also was a strategic mistake) and let the Germany time to accumulate the forces and forced the war industry.

History books don't always tell the truth.

Certainly not all historian tell the truth. Whan do i read the "historian" Solzenitsin and his last antisemitic work "200 years torgether" (where he blamed the jews in Russia) i begin understand that shit he wrote about 20/40 millions victims of GULAG.
Well Digger, give me please the list of historians who "don't always tell the truth". Next time i will not use them in my posts. :) ;)


The one rule of war, is to forget the rules. If you don't, you die.


War without the rules - this slogan of Nazi's total war ( and they were realy did it in Eastern front).

[Chevan]

...And Napalm is not illegal as an "asphyxiating agent," since asphyxiation can only come in a confined space, a tactic that continues today as the Russian airforce uses thermite bombs to burn the oxygen out of the air of caves in which guerrillas might be hiding in Chechnya, in order to suffocate them.

Yea Nick i'm here and glad to hear you too. ;)
OMG i can't believe, again those devil russians.
My imagination represent the terrible picture:
"peaceful" Chechen guerrillas sit in the cave , pray to Allah and prepare next terrorist action. Terrible Russian airforce suddenly flies and begins to burn (oh my God ) - Oxugen ... Where is the Rembo-hero ??
BTW Nick do you know that this is the war crime ?
I'm sure, the Huge convention of 1907 determined the termit bombing of Chechen "guerrillas" in caves as a war crime.
There is very clearly said that :
US atomoc and napalm bombing of Japane cities -this is not military crime ( it saved the "million" lives)
US mass bombing of Vietnam villiges by napalm - certainly it was not crime( it was for the preventive treatment- wikipedia clearly prove it)
Even the application of phosphorouse bombs in Iraq for the suppression of anti-American uprisings in Falugi not so long time ago - it was all OK, Nick (Huge convention recommended it: Al-Qaida is everywhere).
But when those russians bombed the Chechens in caves - this is is abominable ,certainly this is war crime ;);)


Is that "chemical warfare" also?

Certainly it was the chemical warfire, who is doubt?

And BTW, flamethrowers are also illegal as chemical weapons by your definition? Well then, you've just justified the US use of it even if it was 'illegal,' since the Germans and Japanese clearly used flamethrowers first!

.. it's just prove that US used the simular methods like Nazi and Japane did (but sometimes US did it much worst).
Your tupical logic is like that-" if the Japane had the a-bomb they compulsorily it used against LA or New York , so we're good boys that did it first".
This is nazi's logic

Here is some info. on the glorious liberation of Germany under "The Great Patriotic War": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_atrocities


... You present no sources except Wilki, which, while useful, varies widely in its reliability.

So, read this "source" yourself.
:)

[pdf27]

I think you mean the memours of Albert Speer. OK.
I read also some of his work, and i forced to distress you:
From your quote (presumably from)Inside the Third Reich:

Moreover British airplane attacks began to have so serious an effect on production, that even they forced me to the period to forget about Borrman, Zaukele and control of centralized planning.
In other words, British bombing became the biggest single impediment to increasing production - and wasn't before the offensive took off under Harris.

[Chevan]

From your quote (presumably from)Inside the Third Reich:

Yes , his work "Inside the Third Reich" certainly, paragraf 20:AIRPLANE ATTACKS.

In other words, British bombing became the biggest single impediment to increasing production - and wasn't before the offensive took off under Harris.
Yes , it was the impediment. And Speer determinated in numeric loss as 9%.
Is it not strange for you that Britain spended half of its war budget to make the impediment of 9% for the Germany(which was easy reconstructed and overstimated )? Not too much pay for 9%?

[Nickdfresh]

Yea Nick i'm here and glad to hear you too. ;)
OMG i can't believe, again those devil russians.
My imagination represent the terrible picture:
"peaceful" Chechen guerrillas sit in the cave , pray to Allah and prepare next terrorist action. Terrible Russian airforce suddenly flies and begins to burn (oh my God ) - Oxugen ... Where is the Rembo-hero ??
BTW Nick do you know that this is the war crime ?
I'm sure, the Huge convention of 1907 determined the termit bombing of Chechen "guerrillas" in caves as a war crime.
There is very clearly said that :
US atomoc and napalm bombing of Japane cities -this is not military crime ( it saved the "million" lives)
US mass bombing of Vietnam villiges by napalm - certainly it was not crime( it was for the preventive treatment- wikipedia clearly prove it)
Even the application of phosphorouse bombs in Iraq for the suppression of anti-American uprisings in Falugi not so long time ago - it was all OK, Nick (Huge convention recommended it: Al-Qaida is everywhere).
But when those russians bombed the Chechens in caves - this is is abominable ,certainly this is war crime ;);)


Certainly it was the chemical warfire, who is doubt?

Oh, another brilliant and biased post from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. So, what you are saying is that using incendiaries that deoxigenation the air as a tactic to reach hard to hit targets in deep caves is only "chemical warfare" when the US uses it as a tactic in say Japanese island-hopping campaign circa 1944, but it is not the case when the Russian air forces does this in Chechnya today to seal off caves and kill Chechen guerrillas circa 2005?

BTW Chev, when did I pronounce any moral judgements on the "evil" (your word, not mine) Russian and force for using thermite bombs against Chechen "freedom fighters" (according to Gwertty, I mean if Filipino guerrillas were freedom fighters circa 1899-1903, who could deny the same about the Chechen "insurgents?") When did I say this was 'illegal,' and against the Geneva or Hague conventions? It is merely a contemporary example consistent with Gwertty's logic.

.. it's just prove that US used the simular methods like Nazi and Japane did (but sometimes US did it much worst).
Your tupical logic is like that-" if the Japane had the a-bomb they compulsorily it used against LA or New York , so we're good boys that did it first".
This is nazi's logic


So, read this "source" yourself.
:)

I never mentioned Japan having the "A-bomb," I only said "strategic bombing." And it is a fact, is it not? Germany nor Japan had any four-engine bombers with similar capabilities, did they? But they did engage in both terror and firebombing within their capabilities, and attempted to set forest fires in North America using 'balloon bombs.' They also bombed civilian areas of Honolulu AFTER Pearl Harbor with sea-planes in a little known small scale air raid.

BTW, is the Soviet "fire-bombing" and indiscriminate night raids on Berlin and Koenig also war crimes? Since the only difference from RAF Bomber Command operations was scale and death, not in tactics nor intent.

And being accused of using "Nazi-logic" by one that is an admitted Holocaust denier bent on accusing the world media of being "Jewish controlled" is just rich! What can I say?!

I wonder what Gwertty would think of that?

[Nickdfresh]

Yes , his work "Inside the Third Reich" certainly, paragraf 20:AIRPLANE ATTACKS.

Yes , it was the impediment. And Speer determinated in numeric loss as 9%.
Is it not strange for you that Britain spended half of its war budget to make the impediment of 9% for the Germany(which was easy reconstructed and overstimated )? Not too much pay for 9%?

What about the impediment to Germany's fuel and lubricant supplies? Was not strategic bombing successful in that?

And BTW, there was a second front in North Africa, and later Italy. There were also Allied "feints" that effectively tied down large numbers of German occupation troops in Western European countries, Greece, and the Balkans. And construction of the Atlantic Wall was itself an enormous drain on Reich resources. And the US was engaged in what was effectively a two-front war as it was fighting Japan, with enormous resources going to the Pacific as well, so it was not as simply as easy as you make it sound to create an invasion fleet for American armored and infantry forces that simply did not yet exist. The US Army by January 1942 numbered just over 1,000,000 men, and then only because conscription was introduced (very controversially) in 1940, in which case the US Army had been under 200,000 men at the beginning of 1940!

And your arguments against Allied strategic bombing also fail to take into account the enormous resources that the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht had to use in defending against them, in air, radar, fighter production, AAA guns, etc. Was not the Luftwaffe almost totally outnumbered on the Eastern Front by the Soviet Red Air Forces even though the ME109 was the largest produced fighter ever? Perhaps you can explain how this was? Allied strategic bombing, while I agree was a bit of a waste of resources, was as much a war of attrition as it was a direct attack on Germany's manufacturing base..

[pdf27]

Yes , it was the impediment. And Speer determinated in numeric loss as 9%.
Is it not strange for you that Britain spended half of its war budget to make the impediment of 9% for the Germany(which was easy reconstructed and overstimated )? Not too much pay for 9%?
Nope. The UK was producing at full tilt on everything, and hence what it spent was controlled by it's industrial base. The industrial base was setup to produce a high fraction of large aircraft, and as a practical matter to retool and retrain it would have taken several years.
This leaves the UK with the option of either fighting with what it's got (i.e. Bomber Command and the RN) or not fighting at all for the rest of the war, as it wasn't until late 1943 or so that it became apparent that Douhet's theories weren't going to work. Furthermore, given the size of the German war economy and how close a thing WW2 was, it is arguable that the efforts of Bomber Command tipped the balance enabling a conventional end to WW2.

[Librarian]

Honorable gentlemen,

Excuse me for my impertinence, but it seems to me that evident lack of trustworthy factographic databases has caused a quantity of pretty unnecessary conflicts as well as consequential deficiency of rationally evaluated and logically supported conclusions. Therefore I took the liberty of conveying some reliable, till now undisputed resources.

The first one is The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, established by the US Secretary of War on November 3, 1944, pursuant to a directive from the President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was established for the purpose of conducting an impartial and expert study of the effects of our aerial attack on Germany, to be used in connection with air attacks on Japan and to establish a basis for evaluating air power as an instrument of military strategy, for planning the future development of the United States armed forces, and for determining future economic policies with respect to the national defense.

A summary report and some 200 supporting reports containing the findings of the Survey in Germany have been published. On 15 August 1945, President Truman requested the Survey to conduct a similar study of the effects of all types of air attack in the war against Japan.

Aforementioned document is located here:

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm

And here:

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

Here is, for example, one very interesting passage:

The city attacks of the RAF prior to the autumn of 1944, did not substantially affect the course of German war production. German war production as a whole continued to increase. This in itself is not conclusive, but the Survey has made detailed analysis of the course of production and trade in 10 German cities that were attacked during this period and has made more general analyses in others. These show that while production received a moderate setback after a raid, it recovered substantially within a relatively few weeks. As a rule the industrial plants were located around the perimeter of German cities and characteristically these were relatively undamaged.

Commencing in the autumn of 1944, the tonnage dropped on city areas, plus spill-overs from attacks on transportation and other specific targets, mounted greatly. In the course of these raids, Germany's steel industry was knocked out, its electric power industry was substantially impaired and industry generally in the areas attacked was disorganized. There were so many forces making for the collapse of production during this period, however, that it is not possible separately to assess the effect of these later area raids on war production. There is no doubt, however, that they were significant.

This colossal and utterly important piece of intellectual effort proffers sufficiently veracious answers to some already allotted questions.

However, we are facing here some much more important questions, honorable ladies and gentlemen, perhaps the most decisive question at all – the problem of human suffering during the war. And I think that honorable Mr. Chevan definitely has the point:

War without the rules - this slogan of Nazi's total war ( and they were realy did it in Eastern front).

Indeed, with every armed conflict – no matter what kind of it - a tribal conflict, a royal battle between two provinces or just a simple demand of a powerful leader to become more powerful, some rules of engagements were always established not just to protect life but also to show a certain respect towards the enemy. During the European medieval times, for example, the knighthood contained within it several basic rules, which covered the protection of their own lives as well as the lives of others. This is why we still refer to the so-called "principle of chivalry".

Jean-Jacques Rousseau emphasized in his work, The Social Contract, that a war is not an occurrence between individuals, but between states, and one's status as an enemy is based just on a coincidence. The goal of these humanitarian rules of engagement was and still is the reduction of human suffering in an armed conflict. Rousseau's perspective provides the fundamental basis of today's international humanitarian law, that the physical destruction of an enemy may never be the goal of a military action. International humanitarian law and the Convention on certain conventional weapons has to be understood against the backdrop of these basic, intrinsically humanistic principles.

The original turn within international law was initiated by Henry Dunant, who observed the effects of munitions on soldiers at the Battle of Solferino in 1859. Until then Europe’s aristocracy had seen war as glorious. Dunant’s documentation of the reality in A Memory of Solferino changed this perception. In 1863 he and four other Geneva dignitaries created the International Committee of the Red Cross and drew up the First Geneva Convention, which protects sick and wounded soldiers and those caring for them from further attack. The past 100 years have seen many turns of this continuous humanistic cycle, as well as some magnificent, but – alas - almost forgotten codifications of this benevolent will. Regrettably, insignificant, mainly academic personalities were interested for those scholastic contraptions.

You don’t belive this? No problem. Tell me, gentlemen, who on earth knows, for example, for Declaration of Saint Petersburg – the very first and still effective formal agreement prohibiting the use of certain weapons in war?

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/130-60001?OpenDocument

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/130?OpenDocument

It had its origin in the invention, in 1863, by Russian military authorities of a bullet which exploded on contact with hard substance and whose primary object was to blow up ammunition wagons. In 1867 the projectile was so modified as to explode on contact with a soft substance. As such the bullet would have been an inhuman instrument of war Russian Government, unwilling to use the bullet itself or to allow another country to take advantage of it, suggested that the use of the bullet should be prohibited by international agreement. The Declaration to that effect adopted in 1868, which has the force of law, confirms the customary rule according to which the use of arms, projectiles and material of a nature to cause unnecessary suffering is prohibited. This rule was later on laid down in Article 23 (e) of the Hague Regulations on land warfare of 1899 and 1907. And still, gentlemen, who knows for that? Even better – who cares for some forgotten, ancient balderdashings of old academic fools? What? Unnecessary suffering? :shock: To hell with that – forget the rules or you will die!

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Deadsovietpilot.jpg

Death by flames in WW II - horrific example of unnecesarry suffering

Yes, honorable gentlemen - generally, history is - alas - nothing else but a junk-yard of glorious humanistic ideals. Have you ever heard for International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War, proposed in Brussels, on August 27th 1874? No? Well, I am not surprised. Just imagine, in that idiotic legal suggestion there was a chapter about Sieges and bombardments, with some really odd suggestions. Please, just look at that stupidity:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/135?OpenDocument

Just a few examples:

Art. 15. Fortified places are alone liable to be besieged. Open towns, agglomerations of dwellings, or villages which are not defended can neither be attacked nor bombarded.

Art. 16. But if a town or fortress, agglomeration of dwellings, or village, is defended, the officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.

Art. 17. In such cases all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to art, science, or charitable purposes, 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 by distinctive and visible signs to be communicated to the enemy beforehand.

Art. 18. A town taken by assault ought not to be given over to pillage by the victorious troops.

Sweet Jesus! Egg-headed academic idiots! They were never engaged in a real combat! How can we make a war successful with such a foolhardy regulations. Damned civilians! They are completely unproductive – they have produced nothing really usable, just a pile of true senselessness. And, above all, honest tax-paying citizens have financed that with their hard cash! My Lord…:eek:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO?OpenView

Of course, all previous statements are just embroidered examples of popular triviality regarding international regulations. Tragedy and a hope of contemporary world is concentrated in a verity that no country is exempt from the risks and costs of doing things without regulations. Arming ourselves with the historical facts perhaps we will be able to avoid more then 200 years old malediction and a warning diagnostic pronounced by a Voltaire:

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. :(

[pdf27]

The section on bombardment went straight into the Hague convention, which was in force during WW2, although ISTR that the bit in article 15 about "fortified" was changed to "defended" as the importance of fortifications changed (by that time, trenches were an effective form of fortification).
From a moral standpoint, there is also the question of when it becomes moral to use the devil's tools to fight the devil as happened during WW2.

[Nickdfresh]

Exactly. My father, from my grandfather, actually has a pre-War book on air power that I recall reading years ago. In that book, airpower or specifically strategic bombing, is written of as something cataclysmic, almost akin to nuclear war. The capabilities were known, and the technology of aeronautics had made leaps and bounds by the 1930s. Although the capabilities of strategic bombing had been exaggerated as a "city-killer," the high cost was either known by the high commands and political leadership of both Germany and Japan, or they damn well should have been aware of it! They started a brutal war, or a series of wars, out of sheer hubris and inhumanity. I have criticized both Curtis LeMay (who should have been forced to retire after WWII, and who was nearly strangled by JFK for his insolence and war mongering during the Cuban Missile Crisis) and 'Bomber' Harris as "bastards," but to solely blame them and their nations and to condemn them to war criminal status is clearly a bizarre thought-experiment into surreality. I think to paraphrase a line from "Apocalypse Now" that to speculate as such is akin to, "charging somebody with murder in this place is like giving out speeding tickets at the Indy500." What both LeMay and Harris did were in the context of battle and conflict, not occupation and domination. Japan and Germany "sowed the wind, and (they) reaped the whirlwind."

So, instead of obsessing over particular incidents engaging in revisionist semantics and mindless, droning, selective, and hypocritical nation-bashing, perhaps we should acknowledge that Tecumseh Sherman was correct when he stated "War is hell!" Such horrors should be used to better understand why wars should never be waged offensively, and why people should never follow despots and believe revisionist conspiracy theories that enable tyrants (i.e. anti-semitism, racism, hubris, etc.) and follow the lawless ideals of the totalitarian. Because some here clearly haven't learned these lessons.

[pdf27]

Yeah, if you want to pick anyone out for villification it should be the Italians and Douhet in particular. By the time WW2 kicked off it was too late to do anything about it.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Librarian your pic is labeled Dead soviet pilot........assuming this person died in a plane crash. Were you just trying to show the horror's of being burned to death???? ........... because would have assumed it would be a japanese person given the topic.

[Digger]

Yes, when fighting a war you forget the rules, if you want to win, especially if you have been attacked. there is nothing wrong with that and every victorious nation of WWII were forced to fight in a way that was barbarous, inhuman, against the grain of basic human decency. They were forced to fight this way because of nations determined to kill and enslave people who they believed were inferior to their warped view of the world.

And I thank everyone who fought for our freedom.

As far as the truth goes, some sources are less reliable than others and I would not dare to quote any author for lying or distorting the truth. There are liable laws against that.

More than anything else the truth is mainly distorted by inaccuracies, lack of information, sources or even the era a published article is written. No author is perfect and they can only go with the information at hand. Thankfully since the 1980's there has been a flood of information from official and private sources which has filled in many gaps of WWII history.

One classic example of this is Galland's post war memoir 'The First and The Last.' This is a great book, but suffers from some 'thin' treatment of subjects, especially the late war period. Compare that to JV44 The Galland Circus which is far more comprehensive.

Lastly when looking at history in any shape or form it all boils down to interpretation. It's human nature, individual people will have individual views of the same set of facts.

And that is why debating subjects such as this are so fascinating and I applaud the contribution of anyone, no matter how heated the debate becomes.

Regards to all,
Digger.

[Librarian]

From a moral standpoint, there is also the question of when it becomes moral to use the devil's tools to fight the devil as happened during WW2.

Touché, honorable Mr. Pdf27 – yes, you have the point here. However, the main problem with this stance is the verity that aforesaid posture of yours actually represents a descriptive one – it suggests explanation how things are ore they were, whereas normative or prescriptive theory of ethics tells us how things ought to be (for example: people ought to be honest). Ethics and its conclusive social construct – law – is always about what ought to be, not what actually is or was.

Consequently, from the standpoint of normative ethics, as well as from the standpoint of legal normativity, it never becomes ethical or lawful to use the devils tools to fight the devil, because the single act of usage makes you devilish too. After all, the whole wonderful building of International Humanitarian Law is raised upon this fundamental cornerstone.


They started a brutal war, or a series of wars, out of sheer hubris and inhumanity…

Absolutely true, my dear Mr. Nickdresh. Only problem is the fact that previous statement has nothing to do with the principles of International Humanitarian Law, which has the universal character: the regulations of International Law hold for everyone, regardless of time, place, color of uniform, social status, race, sex or other social or individual determinants of people involved. The rights secured by regulations of International Law or Institutions of Justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests. They are impartial. This principle forbids us from treating one person different than another. What to hell I am blabbering about? Well, allow me, please one unreservedly known example. Yes, I know – I am leaving the direct theme of our thread, but – alas – I don’t know how to otherwise explain this indeed knotty, and - basically - strict and stringent legal problematic.

I’m sure you know for the terrible occurrence known as Malmédy massacre, which happened during the Western Campaign in 1944 – for the unashamed murder of American POWs at Malmédy. There is no controversy over what happened. A number of American prisoners had been assembled at the Baugnez crossroads, near aforementioned Malmédy, as spearhead units of I SS Panzer Corps streamed past. They were guarded by two PzKpfw 4 tanks and their crews. German sources claim that only some 20 POWs were involved, Belgian witnesses say around 35, and the American claim over 120. Whatever the numbers involved, undeniable fact is that a crewman in tank number 731, a Romanian Volskdeutsche named Georg Fleps, fired his submachine gun into the mass of prisoners. As they scattered the other German soldiers opened fire and prisoners were killed.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Malmedymasacre.jpg

Malmédy masacre

You see, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh, from the standpoint of International Law this was clarly a crime for which the perpetrators would have to be brought to justice. Unconditionally. For the International Law it is completely insignificant whether Fleps was angry, feared, sexually frustrated, deprived because his sisters were killed in American bombing-raid, or perhaps rancorous because some American GI told him in a good, ole rebellious Texan way "Up to y….s, you bovine-looking Kraut" – all previously mentioned is completely unimportant – the only really important thing is the fact that he has pulled the trigger an blatantly murdered unarmed soldiers after they had surrendered, and that aforesaid verity was direct and undisputable violation of regulations submitted by Art. 23 (c). of the CONVENTION RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND, namely this rows:

To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

Briefly, my der Mr. Nikdfresh, he was a brazen killer and he deserved his penallty. The case is clear. Period.

However, supposing that every rational human being is able to regard herself or himself as a subject of International Law, and that everyone who is sufficiently mentally cogent will legislate exactly the same, bold, intrinsically humanistic universal principles, I am forced to admit that the very same regulations, the corresponding punishment, as well as all societal repercussions are completely applicable to misdeeds of this personality, this time one in the uniform of US Army, namely to the 1st Lt. Jack Bushyhead, Executive Officer of a I Company, 3rd Battalion, 157th Infantry Regiment, of the U.S. 45th (Thunderbird) Division, who had illegitimately and dishonestly massacred with his Browning model 1919A4 machine gun 346 german prisoners of war on April 29, 1945.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/BushyheadJack1stLt.jpg

1st Lt. Jack Bushyhead – US war criminal

Veracity that aforesaid personality has committed already mentioned atrocity is beyond reasonable doubt. All relevant factographic material concerning this question is located here:

http://www.humanitas-international.org/archive/dachau-liberation/

I think that clear-cut lawful, and if nothing else, my personal stance about actual question of this thread is now completely clarified.

Don’t worry my dear Mr. Nikdfresh - no one on this planet could possibly seek to condone or justify the actions of the Einsatzgruppen, the Gestapo, blatant murders of innocent civilians, Japanese decapitators, ferocious rapists, etc. etc. Those monstrous personalities, no matter in what kind of a uniform, as well as those aforesaid organizations or institutions must go down to