Today in History (According to FOX)

[Feil]

Well, sitting in the waiting room at the hospital, I have discovered that the most important thing that happened today in history was... Monica Lewinski's testimony against Bill Clinton! Because an insignificant part of a decade-old scandal is obviously the most important thing that happened on August 5th in all the history of the world.

EDIT: August 6th. Even better.

[Bounty]

It's the sixth.

Today we remember the 70.000 who died in Hiroshima, 62 years ago. May they rest in peace.

[MKSheppard]

*raises glass to Paul Tibbets, Ted Van Kirk, and the other crews on the B-29s*

Thank you for making the invasion of Japan unnecessary.

As for the hiroshima victims; sucks to be you; but that's what you get for living near major military targets in wartime.

[Medic]

*raises glass to Paul Tibbets, Ted Van Kirk, and the other crews on the B-29s*

Thank you for making the invasion of Japan unnecessary.

As for the hiroshima victims; sucks to be you; but that's what you get for living near major military targets in wartime.

How touching.

I actually agree with the sentiment of ending the war sooner but knowing all the stuff about Navy and Army rivalry and the Bushido spirit blah blah the destruction of Japanese forces in Manchuria probably also played a part in their surrender.

[Lonestar]

How touching.

I actually agree with the sentiment of ending the war sooner but knowing all the stuff about Navy and Army rivalry and the Bushido spirit blah blah the destruction of Japanese forces in Manchuria probably also played a part in their surrender.

More because we toasted them. While the Russian Entry into the war probably nudged them along, it was the nukes that made them cry uncle.

[Big Phil]

I NEVER thought I'd find myself agreeing with shep, but huzzah!

[Surlethe]

*raises glass to Paul Tibbets, Ted Van Kirk, and the other crews on the B-29s*

Thank you for making the invasion of Japan unnecessary.

Amen.

As for the hiroshima victims; sucks to be you; but that's what you get for living in a Japanese city in wartime.

Fixed for accuracy.

[Duckie]

How touching.

I actually agree with the sentiment of ending the war sooner but knowing all the stuff about Navy and Army rivalry and the Bushido spirit blah blah the destruction of Japanese forces in Manchuria probably also played a part in their surrender.

More because we toasted them. While the Russian Entry into the war probably nudged them along, it was the nukes that made them cry uncle.

I've heard it the other ways around, sometimes. The Japanese didn't really believe America could make bombs fast enough to make a difference in the war effort. Even if they did Showa Emperor himself said that it didn't change anything as far as the war went.

See, Japan knew it was losing, but they wanted to defeat America on the islands themselves to bloody our nose and negotiate from an appearance of equality or victory, so that they could keep their empire.

However, when the Soviets steamrolled over the East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, stripping japan of what was left of its meagre resources and bringing back the terrifying memory of the invincible Soviet Army at Khalkin Gol, with the threat of Communist revolution at home regarded as way more significant than American victories at sea and in some jungle islands...

[Havok]

*raises glass to Paul Tibbets, Ted Van Kirk, and the other crews on the B-29s*

Thank you for making the invasion of Japan unnecessary.

As for the hiroshima victims; sucks to be you; but that's what you get for living near major military targets in wartime.

Hey, anything that saves even ONE American soldiers life so he can make it home to mom is ok by me.

At the same time,

Today we remember the 70.000 who died in Hiroshima, 62 years ago. May they rest in peace.

Rest in peace.

[fgalkin]

How touching.

I actually agree with the sentiment of ending the war sooner but knowing all the stuff about Navy and Army rivalry and the Bushido spirit blah blah the destruction of Japanese forces in Manchuria probably also played a part in their surrender.

More because we toasted them. While the Russian Entry into the war probably nudged them along, it was the nukes that made them cry uncle.

Not quite. The fact that the Soviets had utterly annihilated Japan's largest force- the million-man Kwantung Army in SEVEN DAYS was what made the Japanese shit themselves. After all, they've lost far more cities and people to conventional carpet-bombing, and still kept fighting. They did not surrender after Hiroshima, either.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Ritterin Sophia]

As for the hiroshima victims; sucks to be you; but that's what you get for living in a Japanese city in wartime.

Fixed for accuracy.

From the 1946 Strategic Bombing Survey report on bombings:
Hiroshima before the war was the seventh largest city in Japan, with a population of over 340,000, and was the principal administrative and commercial center of the southwestern part of the country. As the headquarters of the Second Army and of the Chugoku Regional Army, it was one of the most important military command stations in Japan, the site of one of the largest military supply depots, and the foremost military shipping point for both troops and supplies.

[Surlethe]

From the 1946 Strategic Bombing Survey report on bombings:
Hiroshima before the war was the seventh largest city in Japan, with a population of over 340,000, and was the principal administrative and commercial center of the southwestern part of the country. As the headquarters of the Second Army and of the Chugoku Regional Army, it was one of the most important military command stations in Japan, the site of one of the largest military supply depots, and the foremost military shipping point for both troops and supplies.

Mm-hmm? Are you saying that the US only bombed cities to get at the military targets nearby?

[Havok]

From the 1946 Strategic Bombing Survey report on bombings:
Hiroshima before the war was the seventh largest city in Japan, with a population of over 340,000, and was the principal administrative and commercial center of the southwestern part of the country. As the headquarters of the Second Army and of the Chugoku Regional Army, it was one of the most important military command stations in Japan, the site of one of the largest military supply depots, and the foremost military shipping point for both troops and supplies.

Mm-hmm? Are you saying that the US only bombed cities to get at the military targets nearby?

No, he is saying that Japan put important miliitary instalations around and in large civilian populations.

[Surlethe]

No, he is saying that Japan put important miliitary instalations around and in large civilian populations.

Yes, I know. Implicit in that is the claim that the US did not bomb cities simply because they were there. I happen to think that incidents like the firebombing of Tokyo adequately demonstrate that US policy in practice was simply to target Japanese cities without regard for whether they damaged nearby military installations. And this begs the question: would the citizens of Hiroshima have been safe from nuclear attack if there had not been military targets nearby?

[MKSheppard]

They did not surrender after Hiroshima, either.

That's why it took Nagasaki to kick them in.

"Oh Shit, the americans have more than one of these bombs!"

*realizes americans can now destroy cities with one plane, one bomb*

*realizes entire defensive plan now useless*

[Ritterin Sophia]

No, he is saying that Japan put important miliitary instalations around and in large civilian populations.

Yes, I know. Implicit in that is the claim that the US did not bomb cities simply because they were there. I happen to think that incidents like the firebombing of Tokyo adequately demonstrate that US policy in practice was simply to target Japanese cities without regard for whether they damaged nearby military installations. And this begs the question: would the citizens of Hiroshima have been safe from nuclear attack if there had not been military targets nearby?

What you happen to think is irrelevant, Hiroshima was major military target for the reasons above and Nagasaki was one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. Tokyo was the capital of the enemy, the reason it was targetted is as plain as day, Kobe was also a major shipyard, it's not our fault they built their houses out of wood and paper.

But don't let me interrupt your blind contempt for America.

[Surlethe]

No, he is saying that Japan put important miliitary instalations around and in large civilian populations.

Yes, I know. Implicit in that is the claim that the US did not bomb cities simply because they were there. I happen to think that incidents like the firebombing of Tokyo adequately demonstrate that US policy in practice was simply to target Japanese cities without regard for whether they damaged nearby military installations. And this begs the question: would the citizens of Hiroshima have been safe from nuclear attack if there had not been military targets nearby?

What you happen to think is irrelevant, Hiroshima was major military target for the reasons above and Nagasaki was one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. Tokyo was the capital of the enemy, the reason it was targetted is as plain as day, Kobe was also a major shipyard, it's not our fault they built their houses out of wood and paper.

So an enemy capital city is now a military target? I suppose it's not our fault we took advantage of the wood and paper housing by dropping ordnance explicitly designed to destroy the city. And how do you explain the campaign to reduce the enemy's will to fight in terms of targeting military and strategic installations?

But don't let me interrupt your blind contempt for America.

Way to read into what I'm saying, bud.

[Ritterin Sophia]

So an enemy capital city is now a military target?

That's where the guy who gives the order is.

I suppose it's not our fault we took advantage of the wood and paper housing by dropping ordnance explicitly designed to destroy the city.

Your point? Most of the buildings in Japan were made of wood, fire is a good weapon against that.

And how do you explain the campaign to reduce the enemy's will to fight in terms of targeting military and strategic installations?

That's the point of war, dumbass.

Way to read into what I'm saying, bud.

It's not my fault you failed to note that all these Cities were major military targets to begin with.

[Surlethe]

So an enemy capital city is now a military target?

That's where the guy who gives the order is.

Mm-hmm. So now I suppose destroying the entire goddamn city is the only way to get at the few people in charge of the war (assuming they didn't leave at the first sign of an air raid)? And what about Kobe? I suppose that was also the capital city, or are incendiary weapons now the best kind to take out shipyards?

I suppose it's not our fault we took advantage of the wood and paper housing by dropping ordnance explicitly designed to destroy the city.

Your point? Most of the buildings in Japan were made of wood, fire is a good weapon against that.

And how does this do anything to rebut the notion that the US was targeting cities and not their military installations?

And how do you explain the campaign to reduce the enemy's will to fight in terms of targeting military and strategic installations?

That's the point of war, dumbass.

Now I must be having reading comprehension problems, because that certainly doesn't seem to answer my question. Perhaps you should explain in some detail just how your response rebuts my point.

Way to read into what I'm saying, bud.

It's not my fault you failed to note that all these Cities were major military targets to begin with.

Put another way: was there any large city in Japan that wasn't a major military target?

[Havok]

I think, Surleth, that what people are feeling, myself included, is that it seems like you are implying that it was an invention and sole practice of the U.S. in WWII to level entire cities as a tactic in the war. When we all know that isn't the case. We were just the first to become THAT efficient at it.

[Surlethe]

I think, Surleth, that what people are feeling, myself included, is that it seems like you are implying that it was an invention and sole practice of the U.S. in WWII to level entire cities as a tactic in the war. When we all know that isn't the case. We were just the first to become THAT efficient at it.

That is certainly not what I am implying. It has been a tactic in war to level entire cities since the days of the Romans and before. And you are correct: we did become efficient at it. We became really damned good at it, especially on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What I am suggesting is that in fact cities themselves were considered valid targets by US military, not simply the military installations the cities happened to harbor.

[That NOS Guy]

Surlethe, the firebombing strategy actually wasn't the first go at it. It was selected for a few reasons actually. First and foremost you could not bomb with any accuracy from high altitude with HE. The natural wind patterns really, really, really fucked with accuracy. They tried the European approach first. It failed.

Second, and most important IMHO, was because the Japanese cities themselves were pretty much one big factory. The breakdown of Japanese industry relied heavilly on a lot of small sub-contractors. Sub-contrators spread throughout the cities in small businesses. More to the point, what's the best way to destroy a lot small targets in wooden cities? I think you know the answer there.

It wasn't to explictly kill civilians. They just happened to be in a very unfortunate spot, and American high command was not going to allow the enemy to use it's civilian populace as it's human shield. Especially if it would cost many more American lives if they didn't take the action they did.

Or so that's my understanding.

[Simplicius]

What I am suggesting is that in fact cities themselves were considered valid targets by US military, not simply the military installations the cities happened to harbor

I will support this suggestion. The incendiary raids were ordered by Gen. LeMay as an attempt to make the B-29 more effective - low altitude night raids would save fuel, increase bombloads, and decrease vulnerability to the Japanese air defense network. From USAAF.net:

Operations in Europe had demonstrated the effectiveness of incendiary raids. In February, British and U.S. bombers devastated the German city of Dresden, causing firestorms like those in Hamburg. LeMay and other AAF leaders speculated that the fire raids would destroy the enemy’s will to resist as well as his ability to do so. LeMay also reasoned that Japan’s predominantly wood-and-paper structures were more vulnerable to fire than was the masonry construction of German cities.
[...]
However, LeMay believed that greater accuracy would not necessarily cripple Japanese production. Much of the enemy’s war industry was in small factories scattered across the cities rather than in large plants. Unlike Europe, Japan had few strategic bottlenecks vulnerable to precision bombing.
[...]
The low-level night fire raids fulfilled the airmen’s expectations. Bomb loads on each airplane doubled. LeMay increased the number of missions per month, saved large amounts of fuel per mission, and lost fewer bombers. More aircraft bombed the new primary targets because those targets were so much larger: area bombing did not require much accuracy. Although analysts could not accurately gauge the destruction of Japanese industrial and military targets hidden in the cities, they could see in reconnaissance photographs how much area was destroyed. LeMay was succeeding where Hansell had failed. The March fire raids convinced the bomber commander that air power alone could force a Japanese surrender.
[...]
Incendiary bombing continued to produce the most destructive results. In May and June 1945, the XXI Bomber Command firebombed Japan’s six largest industrial cities, eliminating them as profitable targets. Seven of these raids involved formations exceeding 500 B–29s. On the night of May 23/24, no less than 520 B–29s—the largest number of Superfortresses sent against any Japanese city—struck Tokyo again. Two nights later, 464 B–29s returned to the Japanese capital with over 3,000 tons of firebombs. Almost seventeen square miles burned, and the Imperial Palace caught fire. Casualties, however, were lower than in the March raid because of evacuations to the countryside. Fifty-eight medium-sized cities and towns suffered next. A firestorm generated by B–29s at Toyama destroyed 99 percent of the city.
[...]
The XXI Bomber Command devoted 75 percent of its sorties and tonnage to urban area incendiary attacks. Just as advocates had predicted, the fire raids destroyed many strategic targets that precision bombing had failed to hit: an estimated twenty-three major aircraft factories; six major arsenals; and a host of steel, petroleum, and gas plants. The Twentieth Air Force launched almost 7,000 B–29 sorties or flights on seventeen incendiary raids, dropping a total of 41,500 tons of firebombs. Only about 136 B–29s were lost to all causes during the incendiary campaign—a mission loss rate of less than 2 percent.

So, the firebombing campaign was intended from the outset to destroy widely dispersed industrial targets by destroying the area where they were located en masse, and also to attack Japanese morale by laying waste to the cities, in line with the contemporary expectation that strategic airpower would do just that. The US Strategic Bombing Survey seemed to think the the anti-morale campaign was successful:

A striking aspect of the air attack was the pervasiveness with which its impact on morale blanketed Japan. Roughly one-quarter of all people in cities fled or were evacuated, and these evacuees, who themselves were of singularly low morale, helped spread discouragement and disaffection for the war throughout the islands. This mass migration from the cities included an estimated 8,500,000 persons. Throughout the Japanese islands, whose people had always thought themselves remote from attack, United States planes crisscrossed the skies with no effective Japanese air or antiaircraft opposition. That this was an indication of impending defeat became as obvious to the rural as to the urban population.
[...]
The interrelation of military, economic and morale factors was complex. To a certain extent each reacted on the other. In the final analysis the Japanese military machine had lost its purpose when it could no longer protect the Japanese people from destruction by air attack. General Takashima, when asked by the Survey as to his reaction to the Imperial Rescript, stated that surrender had become unavoidable; the Army, even should it repel invasion, could no longer protect the Japanese people from extermination.

I find it difficult to believe that people can honestly claim that the incendiary raids were not targeting cities. The munitions used were picked explicitly because fire and wood-and-paper construction do not mix well; the raids were area-effect from the get go, with the target areas being many square miles in size; and the raids' planners knew that even legitimate industrial targets - never mind the nebulous 'civilian morale' - were widely dispersed. The entire purpose of the firebombing was to destroy the largest swaths of area possible. How is that not targeting cities?

[Havok]

Wow. This got way to serious for testing. Maybe a mod should move it?

[Ace Pace]

So an enemy capital city is now a military target?

That's where the guy who gives the order is.

Offensive operations explicetly did not target Japanese high command, and avoided hitting the ceremonial palaces where most business was conducted.