The Firebombing of Tokyo

[duckduckswan]

Not sure how accurate it is but has anyone ever seen the anime movie Grave of the Fireflies or something along those lines? It's about two orphaned children coping with life after the Tokyo firebombing (I think that's the location). Pretty powerful stuff for a cartoon.

 

[BananaLee]

At least the Jews aren't yellow.

That is so true.
Hitler's mistake was obviously putting the wrong type of people into the gas chambers.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

At least the Jews aren't yellow.

Unless they have jaundice.

 

[cardgame]

War is hell.

Anything that sped the surrender of the Japanese and spared allied lives was justified, regardless of how many Japanese were killed.

The Japanese government (and by extension the Japanese people who supported that government) were entirely and exclusively responsible for any casualties they or any other power suffered as a result of their refusal to surrender.

bolding mine

 

[Kenjister]

Voted Yes, but was necessary.

Firebombing was an overly devestating way to destroy the Japanese industry. The general populace of Japan didn't exactly support the war to much of a degree, it was just the ruling elite that was adamantly opposed to surrender. However, since the government had such a grip on the populace, and given the lack of viable alternatives, the firebombing was necessary to end the war. It was the firebombing that weakened the Japanese resolve. It sapped away their morale until the bombs pushed it over the edge.

Still, that does make not the bombing itself morally justifiable. I'd say it is a war crime, but since it was a necessity to end the war quicker, it should be excused. It should still be recognized as an atrocity, hopefully making future generations hesitant of employing such methods unless the situation clearly forces it.

 

[C~G]

Most actions in war are done not to end the war, but to accomplish goals that eventually might culminate in ending the war. That being said, the firebombing of Tokyo dramatically reduced industry in the area.

Yea, it was horrible, but in context it was a justifiable act.

You're justifying the unjustifiable.

Or otherwise we can forget how to describe war crime.

I would really like to know what exactly is war crime if Firebombing of Tokyo isn't?

Malmedy massacre perhaps then?

How's possible that if few hundred soldiers who are serving their country in armed forces are gunned down by nazis after their surrender it's warcrime but bombing hundreds of thousands civilians who never individually or even as tokyans had chance to surrender is not?

Did you know that example Malmedy massacre was probably carried out in order to scare of the enemy in other words to achieve the goal defeating the enemy.

In other words if we are talking about in the context of total war, we can forget the whole justification process and all this talk about "warcrimes" altogether OR we can stop this stupid theather that firebombing of Tokyo isn't warcrime while something else like killing few soldiers after surrender might be.

Firebombing of Tokyo was warcrime of highest level. Most of the things in war are done to end the war in favour of your side. That doesn't excuse making it overkill and targeting civilians in such way as it was done.

Or the whole poll is useless and anything goes.

 

[say1988]

In general I agree with Kenjister, but would change one thing:

I would change "morally justifiable"
I do consider it morally justifiable, not "morally right" (I can't think of a good term right now).
They people were completely justified to take the action from every angle, yet at the same time, morally, it is a wrong thing to do.

Morals must be mitigated by circumstance. I would consider something "morally right" if that is morally justified in a vacuum, while "morally justified" would be something that while it may not be right in a vacuum is a morally sound decision given the circumstances. For example, I think we can agree killing is wrong, yet in a circumstance such as the defence of yourself or others it can be morally justified.

As for being a war crime, I don't know whether there were any laws against it. I don't believe there was a major treaty directly pertaining to it, but it may well have been viewed that bombing was an extension of artillery bombardment, which previous treaties applied to. To be a war crime, there would have to be a legal position against it prior to the events.

bombing hundreds of thousands civilians who never individually or even as tokyans had chance to surrender is not?

Not only does an attack have the moral obligation to minimize collateral damage, the defender must attempt to protect its own civilians.
Using this and my current knowledge, the Japanese significant blame in this situation as well. We have a city full of factories spread out amongst residential housing. This was no city with a major industrial sector that could be bombed while leaving most of the residential areas alone. Yes this was likely established well before the war, heck probably even the rise of air power, but this is the situation that was faced by Allied commanders.

 

[Bugfatty300]

This is just awful. Very few of the citizens of Tokyo participated in any atrocities, should these civilians be punished for the actions of others?

IMO the Japanese nation as a whole were not innocent. That doesn't mean that the war crimes that may have committed against them were justified. Although I believe that the bombings of Japan (nuclear and conventional) were necessary end the war with as little loss of life as possible.

"Collective guilt" was something that was rammed down the German's throats by the allies during the occupation of Germany but for some reason the Japanese people escaped this chastisement. I suppose the allies were so desperate to have the war over with that Japan enjoyed favorable conditions in their surrender and they wanted a peaceful and uneventful occupation. Unlike Nazi Germany, support for the Japanese regime was nearly universal amongst Japan's population.

And I doubt they had much option not to work in the factories as the other option was likely death (through force or starvation) for most of them.

That was their predicament AFTER they willingly and unquestionably followed their hyper-aggressive government into a war of conquest and genocide. Hindsight is a ##### isn't it?

And I've never really bought the idea that Japanese populace were ignorant of the terrible things their military and government were doing overseas. Atrocities were so common and documented in China that it's hard to believe that the hundreds of thousands of returning Japanese soldiers didn't tell their friends and family about the things that they and their comrades had been ordered to do or had done themselves. And it's not like there was censorship on the atrocities. Post cards featuring photos of murdered Chinese civilians were

Keep in mind we are in a non-democratic system, and as such the people had little say in the matter.

Japan wasn't nearly as brutal or repressive against it's own people like the Nazis were. So why weren't there protests in Japan? Anti-war movements? Underground resistance? There was plenty of examples of dissidents and resistance in Nazi Germany. Why not in Japan?

 

[Imperialmajesty]

You're justifying the unjustifiable.

Or otherwise we can forget how to describe war crime.

I would really like to know what exactly is war crime if Firebombing of Tokyo isn't?

Malmedy massacre perhaps then?

How's possible that if few hundred soldiers who are serving their country in armed forces are gunned down by nazis after their surrender it's warcrime but bombing hundreds of thousands civilians who never individually or even as tokyans had chance to surrender is not?

Did you know that example Malmedy massacre was probably carried out in order to scare of the enemy in other words to achieve the goal defeating the enemy.

In other words if we are talking about in the context of total war, we can forget the whole justification process and all this talk about "warcrimes" altogether OR we can stop this stupid theather that firebombing of Tokyo isn't warcrime while something else like killing few soldiers after surrender might be.

Firebombing of Tokyo was warcrime of highest level. Most of the things in war are done to end the war in favour of your side. That doesn't excuse making it overkill and targeting civilians in such way as it was done.

Or the whole poll is useless and anything goes.

So, tell me, what was the alternative? I assume you were against the atomic bombings of Japan also.

On the Malmedy Massacre, well, the "reason" you stated is simply vacuous posturing. The massacre served no purpose.


The bombing of Tokyo, on the other hand, was on a city that was producing weapons for the enemy. Bombing it would hamper Japanese industry and its ability to make weapons to kill Americans. In effect, Japanese industrial centers became viable war targets, and anyone helping to maintain it was as much a part of the Japanese war machine as the Japanese soldier fighting in the Pacific.

Oh,

War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

 

[Winner]

If the latest bombing of Gaza is considered a war crime, then there can really be no question about a deliberate carpet bombing of civilian targets with incendiary bombs, right?

 

[Heretic_Cata]

If the Japanese wished to be treated as human beings, they should have conducted themselves as such.

Inorite ? Especially those damned children - i hate them. Looking at you with those evil squinting eyes. I hope they rot in hell for all the suffering they caused.

 

[C~G]

So, tell me, what was the alternative? I assume you were against the atomic bombings of Japan also.

On the Malmedy Massacre, well, the "reason" you stated is simply vacuous posturing. The massacre served no purpose.

Of course it served.

Aha, you mean that germans just killed them for fun or because they are "evil" or something like that?

Of course Allies would never do that. Like for...revenge example or show the "yellows or nazis a lesson"?

Partly Germans killed them because they wanted to inspire fear and break the morale of allied troops.

Is that reason enough or do you want to continue blah-blah how killing huge patch civilians who have no way of saving/surrendering themselves isn't warcrime but killing few soldiers whose side firebombs their cities is?

The bombing of Tokyo, on the other hand, was on a city that was producing weapons for the enemy. Bombing it would hamper Japanese industry and its ability to make weapons to kill Americans. In effect, Japanese industrial centers became viable war targets, and anyone helping to maintain it was as much a part of the Japanese war machine as the Japanese soldier fighting in the Pacific.

Yeah, but of course allied soldiers in the Bulge aren't part of any warmachinery, right?

What do you suggest a man/woman/child in Tokyo would do when he lives there and his government is in the war against US? Stop working on the factory? He/she can die anyway in the firebombing?

Please, I want to hear how you "justify" such acts and crimes against humanity.

War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

Like I wouldn't know that and I saw that coming miles away.

Would you enlighten me why you consider it necessary to the point that it can be erased as warcrime?

What allied doings in WWII to you constitute as warcrime and why?

Or do you think that if americans would have killed lots of japanese POWs it would have been warcrime but firebombing not?

The firebombing was wanton destruction alright. You can forget that "not justified" there since it's the winners that make those rulings after all. If we cannot make our own mind about that now, then we are as screwed as the nazis were.

Firebombing of Tokyo is a warcrime because it was an overkill when considering the purpose and jeopardised the lives of thousands of civilians who probably wanted have anything to do with the war. Many of them hadn't any choice and some of them even probably wanted to surrender just like those soldiers in Malmedy.

They are both outrageous warcrimes and crimes against humanity or otherwise we can clear up "warcrimes" entirely from our wordbooks and this all talk is rather absurd.

 

[xchen08]

Or do you think that if americans would have killed lots of japanese POWs it would have been warcrime but firebombing not?

To put it simply, yes. And the few known cases of American soldiers killing Japanese POWs, are warcrimes, and there most likely would have been more had Japanese soldiers not mostly fought to the death. You seem to confuse warcrime with "things that are bad," or "things I find morally appalling." There is an actual definition of warcrime, and it's not that. I'll repeat, warcrimes, like any other crimes, are dependent on laws and customs. In this case, we are talking the military custom of the day, and various international treaties. The firebombing might vaguely fit under the "crimes against humanity" label, which is itself pretty much an obvious example of victor's justice however deserved it might be, but not warcrimes.

They are both outrageous warcrimes and crimes against humanity or otherwise we can clear up "warcrimes" entirely from our wordbooks and this all talk is rather absurd.

Why? The word has an actual meaning. That that meaning is not what you wish it were does not prove it has no meaning.

 

[Kenjister]

What I don't get is why most consider the Japanese populace as giving total support to the war. Japan was a very homogenous society, with a culture with a strong focus on conformity. Unlike Germany, Japan's populace was not as radically divided politically, and the militaristic faction did not actively strip away rights of segments of the population. For that reason, there was little reason whatsoever for underground resistance movements to form.

Furthermore, the populace didn't necessarily support the war, but since the propaganda portrayed us Americans as uncompromising murderers, they were duty bound to support resistance since they had no idea that surrender was an option (due to gov't propaganda). Their support however, was very halfhearted, the loss of family members affected them as much as us. Coupled with general lack of food and commodities, they all realized to some degree that defeat was approching quickly. They supported the central government out of duty, not because they were all militant crazies. If the gov't had surrended, the rest of Japan would of gladly gone as well.

 

[Lord Baal]

Wait, you mean Japs are humans!?
I thought they were on the same ranks as Jews.

Maybe if we'd signed the Tripartite Pact. Those Japs were "honourary Aryans," you know.

At least the Jews aren't yellow.

Nope, but we wore little yellow stars!

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Of course it served.

Aha, you mean that germans just killed them for fun or because they are "evil" or something like that?

Of course Allies would never do that. Like for...revenge example or show the "yellows or nazis a lesson"?

Partly Germans killed them because they wanted to inspire fear and break the morale of allied troops.

Is that reason enough or do you want to continue blah-blah how killing huge patch civilians who have no way of saving/surrendering themselves isn't warcrime but killing few soldiers whose side firebombs their cities is?

Yeah, but of course allied soldiers in the Bulge aren't part of any warmachinery, right?

What do you suggest a man/woman/child in Tokyo would do when he lives there and his government is in the war against US? Stop working on the factory? He/she can die anyway in the firebombing?

Please, I want to hear how you "justify" such acts and crimes against humanity.

Like I wouldn't know that and I saw that coming miles away.

Would you enlighten me why you consider it necessary to the point that it can be erased as warcrime?

What allied doings in WWII to you constitute as warcrime and why?

Or do you think that if americans would have killed lots of japanese POWs it would have been warcrime but firebombing not?

The firebombing was wanton destruction alright. You can forget that "not justified" there since it's the winners that make those rulings after all. If we cannot make our own mind about that now, then we are as screwed as the nazis were.

Firebombing of Tokyo is a warcrime because it was an overkill when considering the purpose and jeopardised the lives of thousands of civilians who probably wanted have anything to do with the war. Many of them hadn't any choice and some of them even probably wanted to surrender just like those soldiers in Malmedy.

They are both outrageous warcrimes and crimes against humanity or otherwise we can clear up "warcrimes" entirely from our wordbooks and this all talk is rather absurd.

No, it was not a concrete reason for massacring US troops who surrendered. Also, doing that simply encourages reciprocal treatment by US troops towards Nazi's. It would have made more sense to send them behind the lines to a POW camp. Thus taking them out of the fight, along with encouraging good treatment of Germans captured. It was a blatant murder for no reason other then to be cruel.

And you know what, the only people in this thread calling the Japanese "yellows" is you. I guess everyone who disagrees with you is a sniveling racist beneath your contempt, huh?

Also, you have not answered my question, what was the alternative? There was no such thing as precision bombing back then.

Besides that, well, I need a Rambling-English dictionary.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Naval Blockade.
Liberating areas under Japanese Occupation.


Oh, and actually entering the peace negotiations the Japanese were offering.

 

[Dodge_272]

It was a war crime and so was Dresden.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Naval Blockade.
Liberating areas under Japanese Occupation.


Oh, and actually entering the peace negotiations the Japanese were offering.

And what would a naval blockade lead to? Starvation. Even then, no blockade is perfect.

Also, how many thousands of lives would be expended in any conquest of Japanese large colonies? How much time?

Only Complete unconditional surrender would be acceptable. A negotiated surrender would have been an affront to the whole region under Japan's jackboot.

 

[say1988]

Only Complete unconditional surrender would be acceptable. A negotiated surrender would have been an affront to the whole region under Japan's jackboot.

Politically, yes an unconditional surrender was required, it is just unfortunate that the main condition they wanted was something the Allies willingly gave them anyway.