Talk:Bombing of Tokyo in World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bombing of Tokyo in World War II article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:

Contents

[edit] Criticism

This section does not cite any direct sources. This should be fixed.


[edit] possible war crimes

In Japanese version it mentions about the possible war crimes committed. Why not here? Hostory revisionist? SYSS Mouse 18:25, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there's any revisionism unless you dispute the intentional targeting of civilian (lives) and the actual lives lost. However, flaunting that now as a war crime has nationalistic overtones that stinks of Ishiharaism. Cf. Shintaro Ishihara, current governor of Tokyo. Personally, I don't like him or any of the nationalism he advocates. For the record, I am Japanese, and I think this is the disucussions page and not the main article, so this kind of soap boxing is allowed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.54.15.1 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 10 March 2005 (UTC)
I do not think this as nationalism. If Killing 100,000 civilian is NOT a war crime, what could be? --Finch The Rape of Nanking, for one, is a war crime.
There's no need to be Japanese nor Ishiharaist to consider these civilian target bombings as war crimes. All you have to do is to consider the facts without passion, which is hard for both the US and the Japanese. The same goes for the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki of course. The reason for these bombings not being called by their true name, "war crimes", is those who judged what were war crimes and what were not, when ended WWII, were the winners. The winners judging the defeated, how could they be neutral? (!BTW did you noticed there is a "Japanese war crimes" article in the English wiki but no US/UK war crime articles -the very same there is a "pornography in japan" article and nothing about the US, while the world's 1st porno industry is, as everybody knows, US-!). This article being in English explains why US/UK war crimes are not mentionned here in this version. Don't expect the US government and people to admit they fought evil criminals with evil crimes (same goes for every country). The "war crime" concept is a nonsense, isn't war itself a crime? "War crime" is just an hypocrite perspective upon how war is supposed to be according to the old and obsolete standards. Don't expect governments to make war like gentlemen, like in the old days (like the French and English did at the 1745 Battle of Fontenoy). But came the industrial revolution who changed both the way to think war and the medium to do war, WWII was an industrial war. Hence the 20th & 21st centuries conflicts became a fully rationalized struggle between rival ideologies, and it lasts... religion just being part of the ideology. At a certain point in the conflict, governments rationalize the losses on both sides and are ready to accept every mean to be victorious, it includes terrorism, torture, civilian targets, attacking Red Cross convoy. This is how politicians and chiefs of staff stop to be pure strategists and become "war criminals", but even without those so called war crimes they were already plain criminals. During war each side has its own vision and ideology, and once its finished each country has its own memory, which is an euphemism for revisionism. Calling the others reviosionists or war criminals is an evidence of the remaining ideology and the biggest hypocrisy. Shame On You 01:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
If you want to discuss in the article the war crimes aspect of the U.S. area bombings of Japanese cities, including Tokyo, there's no problem with doing so as long as you're repeating, citing, and referencing credible sources. There are several works that discuss the possible war crimes aspect of these bombings. One of the most recent, significant books on the subject is, Among the Dead Cities by A.C. Grayling, which is already included in the references section for this article. If you present the case about the debate over whether the bombings were war crimes or not in a neutral manner, with inline citations to back up all of your assertions, there shouldn't be a problem. The "criticism" section as it stands right now in the article is uncited, and therefore subject to immediate deletion or radical editing at the whim of any other editor. Remember, this is an encyclopedia so it should contain other people's published opinions, not our own. Cla68 01:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you're absolutely right. Unfortunately I know how things work on (all versions of) wikipedia i know by experience that such criticism would be considered as anti-US or anti-UK by the majority of the editors and will be reverted, censored, and i'll end banned. this is the sad truth about wiki. i was just answering this editor about the different perpsective on the different wiki (perspectives, sides). My opinion is wiki is great for neutral database, or sciences or some arts, but as long as it is about history, the encyclopedia turns into propaganda and is, i believe, a powerful tool of revisionism. you can testify by yourself just by checking the same event article in different languages. this is kind of logical, human behaviour and not that hard to understand. Having wikipedia neutral about history events is just utopic. You can try this game if you please, but i won't. Shame On You 01:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The POV wars do happen on Wikipedia, but I've also seen the opposite happen, where someone was able to present a controversial issue in such a neutral, well-referenced way that it was pretty-much left alone after that. I can give you some examples on your talk page is you want to see them. I know of at least two instances that I was involved with. Cla68 02:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where did this picture come from?

Does anybody know the source of the illustration of the streets of Tokyo in the aftermath of the 1945 firebombing? rpm24@cornell.edu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.58.5.97 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 26 July 2004 (UTC)

It's a video still of a BBC documentary --Markornikov 08:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion and rewrite

I'd like to expand on this article with more information about the bombing campaign against Japan as a whole (not just the city of tokyo). This would render the article title somewhat obsolete, I'm considering creating a new article "Bombing of Japan in World War II" and redirecting this article to the new one. Comments? Anybody want to voice approval/dissaproval? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.11.21.252 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Do what's in the best interest of war history buffs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.54.15.1 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 10 March 2005 (UTC)
An article on the Strategic bombing campaign against Japan makes sense, and that would take most of the info now on this page. However, that's not a reason not to have an article on this specific subject. The March 9-10 raid, at least, deserves an article.
—wwoods 08:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is not about a specific date (March 9-10) it is about the "Bombing of Tokyo in World War II" so please do not throw out the baby with the bath water. If you decide to write a new article on the strategic bombing campaign, then please take into account:

Personally I think that an expansion of "XX Bomber Command", and short articles on the "XXI Bomber Command" and the "U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific" would be a good place to start as the latter pulls in the 8th air force as well as the 20th. A section in the "Bomber Command" article on the "XX bomber Command" would be useful. IMHO there also needs to be a substantial Japanese section in the "strategic bombing during World War II" Philip Baird Shearer 11:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion is to have a Strategic bombing campaign against Japan article with this article, Matterhorn, and the atomic bombing articles as sub-articles. Articles on the other large bombing raids on Japan (Osaka, Yokohama, etc) could then also be started as sub-articles for this campaign. Cla68 23:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deathtoll?

I have heard that from 300,000 to more than half a million died. does anyone know?Dwarf Kirlston 16:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That'd be the total for the strategic bombing campaign--Hiroshima, Tokyo, Nagasaki, and everything else. —wwoods 17:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] source for LeMay quote

This article was #1 Google in response to request: "Tokyo fire bombing." In the film "Fog of War" Robert McNamara recounts a conversation with Curis LeMay. McNamara attributes to LeMay something to the effect: 'If we were to lose the war we'd be war criminals.' (Not a quote.) I started the Google search because I wasn't sure if LeMay was the general in charge of the fire bombing and therefore the person to whom McNamara attributed the remark.

I'm new to Wikipedia and may be violating and showing ignorance of its protocols, but wouldn't it be valuable to provide source information for this particular quote. By citing the film, a reader could see and hear for himself someone who purports to be an precipient witness to the remark. The fact that McNamara is one of the most accomplished liars of his age is vitiated in part or in whole by the fact that the statement if made by LeMay is also against McNamara's personal interests. That victors decide who is and isn't a war criminal is an old subject. But McNamara is describing a remark made when there was no possibility that Japan would win the war. Hence, it's a different moral/ethical situation than one in which the acts are preformed when there is still a chance that one would be punished for them.

Because of the way it can be sourced, because it is so short (making it easier for McNamara to recall accurately), because of its content, and because of McNamara's character and subsequent personal history, this is about as "good" as history gets. Isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.44.158 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 19 June 2005 (UTC)

You may be new but you are quite right, all quote and figures ought to be referenced, See Bombing of Dresden in World War II for an example of this. As to the quote you are asking for see wikiquote:Curtis LeMay Which refrences to this source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/peopleevents/pandeAMEX61.html
-- Philip Baird Shearer 19:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PBS: I check quote. It's more general, beginning with "Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time" and then to the war criminal remark with no specific reference to Tokyo. If no one else comes up with it I'll get the DVD and get the exact words. In my previous note I remark on the quality of this kind of statement - direct from the precipient witness, pithy, etc. Given the difference between the words attributed to LeMay in wiki & McNamara, it seems possible, if not likely, that McNamara conflated a conversation he had with LeMay with what he read about LeMay. Is history bunk? Brian Burke —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.105.40.29 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 June 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Massacre Denial

I wonder if dropping highly flammable ordinances in mass on residential areas is an act that could not forseeable kill many people in the vicinity. Certainly wwoods and JdforresterBot seems to think this is not a likely or remotely intentional consequence. I guess suicide bombers only intend to destroy buildings then right? and let's say the people in them have been caught unintentionally as collateral damage whoops wrong place, wrong time [laugh track]

Huh? I removed the link to a category that was deleted months ago. See Categories_for_deletion/...#Category:Massacres
—wwoods 09:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article is full of POV statements, one-liners and conclusions. This really is a quite appallingly drafted page and I’m surprised it made it onto the front page!

Someone should take a look at the article on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and incorporate some of the changes they have made there. That article has been the site of a long-running battle between people with vastly different POV’s and as a result the page itself has actually come out of it rather well done, with both sides represented and portrayed in a neutral manner (mostly, as there’s always still work to be done).

This page includes throw away comments regarding the “murderous” nature of the attacks and draws a stark conclusion about how the subsequent nuclear attacks were simply a demonstration to Russia (a conclusion which is discussed in a very clear and non-POV manner on the Hiroshima/Nagasaki page).

While the attacks may well be easily argued as being murderous, encyclopedic articles are not there to draw such conclusions but to detail the arguments on which the reader may then form their own conclusion.

Much of this page needs a complete re-write and I would suggest that the format of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki page serve as a foundation for that work.

[edit] Introduction

The introduction should be a bit longer, maybe giving the number of raids or an estimate of the number of victims, or the strategic importance... Piet 11:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why only Tokyo?

It doesn't make sense that the only mention on Wiki of the bombing campaign against the Empire should be Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Shouldn't this article be retitled "Japan" and broadened? I took out the "See also" since it referred to a museum article making no mention of bombing; however, there should be a See also for the related article on the atomic bombings. --Cubdriver 20:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As the template at the bottom of the page shows we have a number of other articles on Europe (and one on Australia), and the article Strategic bombing during World War II#Asia covers. We need more articles on the bombing of other Japanese, Chinese and South East Asiaian cities, not a broadening of this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft losses?

This article covers neither the Japanese defence measures nor the military losses on either side.

Veljko Stevanovich 13. 4. 2006. 12:10 UTC+1


Wasn't the fire a sweep conglagration, rather than a firestorm?

[edit] aircraft in russia

"except for one aircraft which landed in the Soviet Union, where the crew was interned", what happened to the crew? USSR were allies by that time. Shame On You 00:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Not in the Pacific Theater. The Soviets and the Japanese Empire had previously signed a "Non-Agression Pact," which remained in effect until after the US dropped the atomic bomb in 1945 and the Soviets terminated the pact as part of their agreement to the Potsdam Conference in Germany about July 1945 with the US and UK. At least one B-29 landed in the USSR due to either battle damage or in-flight problems and the Soviets also interred the plane and crew. They used the interred US B-29 to clone a Soviet version of the B-29. --TGC55 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese dead

74.109.0.98 23:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is the "Japanese Dead" link under "Firebombing" leading to the entry for "Collateral damage"? Surely the death and destruction in Tokyo was the primary objective of the massive firebombing campaign. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.109.0.98 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't think that the U.S. bomber commanders explicitly stated that the purpose of the firebombing was to "kill as many Japanese civilians as possible." Instead, I think they said that it was to destroy the Japanese industrial base, which they felt included many small workshops and factories spread throughout residential areas in Tokyo. Therefore, the civilian deaths could be considered as collateral damage. Of course, if you want to argue the point either way in the article, you need a cited source in support. Cla68 00:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
AgreedJackryan 16:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The nature of the construction of Japanese cities was well known to the attackers viz. paper and wood. The attacks were especially planned to maximize the incindiary effects of the bombs. The mix and distribution of the bombs was designed to set the entire (or, as much as possible of) city on fire i.e. to destroy it by fire. (I wrote my junior English term paper on this raid in high school. [the theme required was: Man's inhumanity to man.]) This would obviously kill and maim a large portion of the inhabitants (men, women, and children). It would also leave the survivors homeless and destitute and more vulneralble to further depredations. If this is not a crime, for the love of God and man, what is? That this was one of the greatest crimes in all human histroy is beyond dispute. The attempt was made with due knowledge, deliberation, and planning to destroy a whole city by by fire using a carefully planned massive mix and distribution of incindiary and explosive bombs. It was even planned so that the civil defense and fire prevention means of the city would be massively overcome. Americans are kept ignorant of their own history and that of the rest of the world. This makes them vulnerable to further manipulation by unscrupulous polititians and the leaders of the military/industrial complex. Their ignorance, complacency, and self-serving denials do not absolve them of complicty in their country's crimes, however.

What kind of crime do you specifically believe that it was? If you read the discussion on the Allied war crimes article, you will see that the bombing of Tokyo didn't break any specific conduct of war statutes. So, are you saying that the bombing of Tokyo was a moral crime? If so, you need to make that distinction in your argument. Because, moral crimes are in a different class than legal crimes, and need to be discussed in that context. Cla68 13:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer to the first question is easy: mass murder. I believe that it was an act that was so immoral, so wrong in other words, that it violates a universal standard of human decency and restraint, statutory or not. I did not say "war crime" specificly because I am not knowledgeable about the Geneva Conventions, nor of International Law, nor of other laws and treaties pertaining to warfare. I don't defend my ignorance. I believe such study is useful and pertinate. Yet, I fervently hold that the fire bombing of any large city, or the indescriminte destruction en-mass of any large population of human beings is repugnant not only to yours truly, as I feel that it is generally so among the great majority of the human race. It violates the conscience of mankind.

[edit] Tokyo only

I've deleted a paragraph about wrestling for positon within the leadership of the USAAF and I've deleted the Criticism section which was not aimed at Tokyo specifically but at the whole strategic bombing, firebombing and atomic bombing questions. This page says Tokyo and I want to keep the article focused.

It still needs a few descriptions of the effects of a firebombing attack as seen from the air and from the ground. Some numbers to flesh out bomb damage to industry would help in Aftermath. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be an overall "Allied strategic bombing campaign against Japan" article. Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. There's also room for an "Allied strategic bombing campaign against Germany" article. Binksternet (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Purpose of the attack

I cannot substantiate with attribution, but my memory is quite good. On the subject of the intention of the attack: I have read that it was known that Tokyo was constructed of very flamable materials, residential areas of paper and wood. The bombers carried a mix of incindiary and high explosive bombs ment to maximise the incindiary effect and create a huge conflagration that couldn't be controlled or stopped. A fire-storm was the result: a fire so great that it generates it's own draft and becomes a meteorological event. By 1945 the destruction of cities by this means had been perfected in Europe e.g. Hamburg, Dresden. The bombers (B-29) used against Japan were even larger than those used in Europe and carried huge bomb loads. The stated purpose of the raids was to destroy Japanese cities and demoralize the entire people. Of course this is a war crime, of huge magnitude proportional to the numbers of non-combatants killed. A previous comment mentions a comment made by Curtis LeMay. I too read a quote attributed to Curtis LeMay stating that: We had better win the war or, we'll be tried as war criminals. Such statement is plausable if not likely. They knew what they were doing viz. mass murder. Since we won, the war criminals tried were those due to a special vindictiveness i.e. of General McArthur, e.g. the executions of Generals Yamashita and General Homma. The perpetrators of many crimes during the war, on both sides, escaped punishment e.g. doctors and others who performed medical experiments on live human beings, the perpetrators of the Rape of Nanking, and many other monsterous crimes and iniquities. To instigate war esp. wars of aggresion on other peoples and states is the greatest war crime of all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.92.191 (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In defense of LeMay's decision, the war was a total war by this time and civilians of each of the countries involved were working night and day on war production. The result of the firebombings and killing of citizens was a large drop in the flow of war materiel; in Tokyo, for instance, war production was cut in half. Firebombing was a very effective way to wage war against Japan! LeMay wasn't the one who constructed dense Japanese urban housing out of light wood and paper... He just reaped the harvest of this coincidence. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The "harvest" that was "reaped" by that "coincidence", i.e. the readily burnable condition of Japanese cities, was the burning, suffocation, and cooking to death (death by shear high temperature of the air) of tens of thousands of men, women, and children. That this was done deliberately is not in dispute. One would have to be a moral idiot, not to be shocked and horrified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.92.191 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Mostly women and middle-aged/elderly men. A quarter of a million Tokyo children had been evacuated to rural areas before the attack. As you know, no feeling person can be anything but horrified at the deaths, but again, this was wartime and the dead and injured had been participating in a war economy. Some of the survivors of the attack blame their own government, not the USAAF; they sued their government for damages for both starting the war and failing to end it in 1944. Tokyo victims of US firebombing sue Japan for starting war Guardian.co.uk, March 12, 2007 Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Firebombing

Following WP:DUE and WP:NPOV I find that the article does not reflect criticism of the firebombing at all. I have found a few sources that criticise that attack, but before I start adding things in, I would like to get a consesus for that source to be used in the article. The police photographer who took pictures of the attack is Ishikawa Gwangyang. here are a few Japanese websites that document his story and critisize the attack his story his story. Here is a website that criticises the actions of Curtis LeMay, the general in charge of the air raid here. Japanese tv station TBS ran a docudrama here. Another critisism here. Another critisim here. Associated Press article about the museum in Tokyo dedicated to firebombing. here.

Please take a look at these links and let's see what we can use to reflect the information in the article in a NPOV matter. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've come here to comment on this. Published criticism of the firebombing would helpful, however, of the sources mentioned above, only these two[1][2] seem to meet WP:RS, the others are either blogs or would involve too much construction under WP:OR. The links to Ishikawa Gwangyang are borderline. If he wrote the narrative of his experiences in 1945 or not long after, perhaps he is reliable enough to cite in an objective narrative of the firebombing itself, but not in a section of criticism. This said, there are likely plenty of reliable sources available with which to build a criticism section. I'd say keep looking. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NOTE

I might be wrong, but the images are too graphic. Shouldn't the images be a less violent? At least there should be a warining in the beggining of the page written something like "Warning: The content on this page may be too strong for impressionable people." or something like that.

Pardon my english btw. 89.180.47.99 (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. The images are horrific because the results of the bombing were horrific. The images stay. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)