Firebombing of japanese cities WW2

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#21

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.”

#22

Threads merged and moved.

#23

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).

#24

Have a nice day Nick :wink:
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).

#25

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…

#26

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

Cheers.

#27

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.

#28

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.

#29

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.

#30

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.

#31

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.
#32

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.

#33

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…

#34

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.

#35

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” 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

#36

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…

…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…

#37

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.

#38

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”? :wink:

Cheers.

#39

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. :slight_smile: :wink:

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).

#40

Yea Nick i’m here and glad to hear you too. :wink:
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 ;):wink:

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

So, read this “source” yourself.
:slight_smile: