The Firebombing of Tokyo

[Dachs]

So now you're claiming Indonesians are yellow, huh? RACIST! If anything, they're little brown brothers.

That'd be the Filipinos. Get your slurs straight.

 

[Lord Baal]

That'd be the Filipinos. Get your slurs straight.

Bah, all Asians look alike.

 

[privatehudson]

Still, I have to say that what I am reading here is quite shocking. Some pretty morbide opinions here. I think this should have been closed after the first page. I mean, making that poll is okay, I'd say, but these statements... For example, no mentally healthy man should consider droping atomic bombs an option. Seriously. If you still do, you are morally not better then massmurders. The only difference between you and those are: they did these bad things - you only would. Furthermore, I wouldn't say that a warcrime automatically justifies another. That's "eye for an eye..."-philosophy which is simply wrong in my eyes.

I don't think the use of fire-bombing raids and the atom bomb was justified by the Japanese war crimes. I think they were justified because Japan's leaders were refusing to see sense and come forward with a proposal to end the war on grounds acceptable to the allies. Furthermore considering the alternatives that were on the table such as an invasion of the Home Islands or a naval blockade combined with a strategic bombing campaign deliberately targeting industrial and transport targets the use of either the Atom Bomb or Fire-bombing raids was to quote Henry Stimson the "least abhorrent choice".

That might seem an unusual claim since you'd think that targeting industrial and transport sites was less likely to kill civilians. In reality Japan's system of transporting food relied heavily on either a vulnerable rail network or coastal shipping. The Japanese Merchant Navy had virtually ceased to exist so if the Americans had succeeded in knocking out the rail network (which it was calculated could be achieved by taking down just 6 targets) the bulk of the population on Honshu would have been cut off from food shipments. With a functioning system and a civil administration in place the food ration in Tokyo dropped in May 1946 to just 1042 calories per day. Imagine what the effects of a damaged or destroyed rail network could have had.

It is easy to dismiss the atom bomb raids as mass murder or a war crime. Its much harder to explain how the war could have been ended on terms that the Allies would find acceptable without a scenario that involves as many if not more people dying.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

I think I really need to apologise for my earlier post in the thread. I made it as a knee-jerk reaction to people suggesting that the US and the Emipre of Japan were morally equivalent, but I went way too far with the rhetoric. Collective punishment may be justifiable in strictly theoretical terms, but actually applying the principle to millions of real people is obviously not an acceptable thing to do.

Firebombing and atomic bombs were justified because they resulted in less casualties overall, not because they were a just punishment for the activities of the Japanese people.

However, it is still important to remember that all responsibility for starting the war (and its continuation long after Japan's defeat became clear) lies with the Japanese government, military and people (who enthusiastically supported them). If unnecessary Japanese casualties were caused, the blood would certainly not be on the hands of the Allies.