Japan Should Say, "Thank YOU" for The Bomb!

How much fuel do think would be necessary for a brief one-way flight? The Japanese felt they had sufficient fuel so I'll go along with their assessment, not yours.

Japan had been losing the war for two years where the outcome was never in doubt and they certainly were horribly short of supplies, and yet they continued their war effort.The Japanese people, as noted, were starving in order that their war effort continue. They were throwing themselves over cliffs and committing hari kari. This was a culture unrecognizable to the culture of today, and you should allow that huge difference into your perspective.

Had you read the links you could have seen that many Japanese say there lives were saved because the bomb was dropped and the war quickly ended. Certainly no one wanted to kill all these people but hard decisions have to be made in time of war and this was one of them. And it was the correct one.

 

And by the military targets in those cities. Now if you have a USG document stating that civilians were the target you might have a leg to stand on.

It seems rather clear at this point that you do not have anything like that to offer up.

 

The document you want is detailed in my link, below, and both the US and UK forces were involved in area bombing as policy, not only in Europe but elsewhere. Area bombing, as the name suggests, is indiscriminate as were the B29 fire bomb raids on Tokyo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive

 

I sourced that they tested their weapons on civilian houses.
There you go.

 

The USSR already beat the nazi's when they were at Moscow. They lost around million men there. No truck played a roll in that defeat of which the nazi's never recovered. And of course any help helps,... but the Russian brought the mussels and the guns. The crap that really matter. Hence it's just idiotic to hype up a truck.

 

Just paste up a quote from the USG confirming that the targets for the bombing were not military targets.

 

That's not what the Soviets said. When was the Battle of Kursk? Before or after Nazi loss at Moscow?

The decisive victory was at Kursk - not Moscow. It was achieved with massive US aid.

 

So, you do not have any USG document indicating that the targets of the bombings were not military targets. Odd, they were not shy about identifying their targets in those days.

 

Don't need it, since the US tested their weapons on Japanese civilian houses to than deploy it on a massive scale all over Japan cities.

 

The nazi's lost around a million people at Moscow.
Less than a million nazi's took part in Kursk.
And mussels and weapons are still more important.

 

IOW, you have nothing concerning the actual stated purpose of the test. How many times do I have to ask for a USG document confirming that the attacks were not directed at military targets?

For all you apparently know the tests may have been conducted to estimate the amount of collateral damage to be expected.

 

In fact you didn't. You made the claim that "The US tested their firebombs on fake Japanese houses" but never explained how these Japanese houses differed from other homes or why they should test on real Japanese houses.. Which type of buildings do you think would have been more appropriate? Also, please submit credible links to your claims.

 

Kursk was the decisive battle - surely you know that. You clearly do not know why the Studebaker US6 was the critical factor in the Soviet victories over the Nazi armies. You should look into it.

 

The fact that we refused to let our resources be used in Japan's genocide (which you still haven't acknowledged), does not mean that we were going to attack them. Nor does it mean that Japan was under the illusion that we were about to attack them.

Japan did not offer to end their genocidal campaign against their neighbors.

- - - Updated - - -

No errors on my part. We did our best to get our bombs on specific individual targets over Germany.

If we failed to hit our target due to the limitations of technology of the time, that did not mean we were joining the UK in their deliberate targeting of entire cities.

- - - Updated - - -

All the Kamikaze pilots had enough fuel for a single one-way flight.

There were also a couple Japanese million troops on the ground waiting to fight to the death.

- - - Updated - - -

You've demonstrated no such thing.

- - - Updated - - -

We know for a fact that they said something entirely different after the war than they said during the war.

It's OK for people to change their views when they receive new information. It's called learning.

- - - Updated - - -

I doubt there is much that I haven't read about this subject.

During the war there were no conversations of the nature of "if we use the bombs, we won't have to invade" or "if we use the bombs it will shorten the war".

It was simply assumed by all* that the bombs would be used as soon as they were ready for use, without any specific predictions as to what the result of the bombs would be.


*Well, Ike may not have assumed it, but no one asked him for his views, so that didn't really factor into anything.

- - - Updated - - -

The document refers to British bombers. It has nothing to do with American bombers.

 

It does...
The purpose of the replicas of Japanese homes, which were repeatedly rebuilt after being intentionally burned down, was to perfect the use of incendiary bombing tactics, the fire bombing of Japanese cities during World War II.

They specifically tested to burn down Japanese homes to perfect their genocide against Japanese civilians.

 

It still takes weapons and mussels to kill, and thats what the USSR did.
The US was just playing on a lower level, just like they did during the entire WWII.
They entered late, they finished 2nd.

 

You have no idea what they said about the bomb during the war. Let me see the quotes calling for its use. You just can't admit that you are calling some of the greatest military minds of the second world war liars. NOT A SINGLE ONE EVER SAID HE HAD A REVISED OPINION. YOU THINK THEY ARE ALL LYING. ITS HILARIOUS.

 

I also said the US was helping out the other with money and weapons, while also busy building up their military presence.

They offered to pull out of South East Asia, as I wrote.

Well that's what gets claimed all the time. Fact is, like a half a million troops gave up vs the USSR. So that basically totally debunks it.

 

IOW, you have not got a USG document to back you up. Incendiary bombing was used to attack Japanese *military targets* as early as the Doolittle raid.

Testing incendiary bombing does not reveal the targets of the bombing.

 

You will not have to look too hard to find the correspondence between FDR and Stalin. They reveal a desperate Stalin begging for more war materiel - especially the US6 Studebaker truck, without which, they would have lost the war.

I am not aware of any historian who does not think that the US came out far ahead of every other combatant nation in the war for reasons you actually allude to. The rest of the world, especially the USSR was devastated by the war.

Only Germany and Japan were damaged more, and they had the advantage US aid and reconstruction after the war.

 

You know what, when everyone (including me), is pointing out and correcting your errors it might be an idea to quit convincing yourself that nobody except you is correct.

 

Both Americans and British bombers flew from British airfields and bombed the same targets. What's your problem here; are you trying to paint the USAAF as being saintly and caring? 80% of US bombs missed their targets in spite of your 'precision bombing' claims. Area bombing was resorted to precisely because of that reason.

 

Was 70% of Tokyo a military target, because that's how much was destroyed by incendiaries. You might also like to tell us how the crew of a B29 dropping free-fall bombs from 30,000 feet (over 5.5 miles), using relatively primitive bomb sights, could pinpoint a military target from that altitude.

 

Yes I do.

Well, I have this aversion to admitting falsehoods.....

- - - Updated - - -

No, there really were a couple million troops waiting to fight to the death in Japan.

- - - Updated - - -

Hint: When you say I am wrong, and I am actually completely correct, you haven't actually found any errors.

- - - Updated - - -

The US tried to hit individual targets. The UK intentionally burned entire cities.

No problem. Just pointing out the truth.

Oh well. At least we didn't cause any firestorms in German cities.

- - - Updated - - -

Collateral damage is always unfortunate.