Talk:Air raids on Japan/Archives/2011/December

Article keep or merge?
Support merge and the information from both articles should be kept. I think "Japan campaign" should be kept as the name of the article. The Allied strategic air attacks against Japan I think should eventually have their own, separate article that will be a sub-article of the Japan campaign. Cla68 00:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Support I've never seen any reference to a 'battle of Japan' --Nick Dowling 07:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak support Why not clean this article up and move it to a better title, like Air raids on Japan, and put it in the template? Grant | Talk 01:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Cla68 03:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The aerial campaign against Japan needs its own campaignbox. This article can server as the "parent" campaign article. Cla68 06:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Article name or content
This article should be called "List of air raids on Japan". Without covering such topics as background, effects on the war effort, effects on morale of Japanese people, and collateral damage resulting from the raids, that's all it is. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

New article under development
Somewhat belatedly, I should note that I'm developing a much more detailed article on the air attacks against Japan at User:Nick-D/Drafts7. Any and all input into this would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We have long needed a more detailed appreciation of the topic. I'll put your sandbox on my watchlist. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Article expanded
I've just added in the material I developed (with copyediting assistance from ) to this article. I'm planning to add further material on the following topics: I intend to nominate the article for a peer review when these topics are covered, but of course any and all comments on or changes to what I've just added would be great.A comprehensive copyedit is definitely also needed. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * An assessment of the results and effectiveness of the Allied air campaign (including Japanese casualties from the attacks)
 * More details on the Japanese experience of the raids and Japanese military defences
 * Treatment of Allied aircrew shot down over Japan and the rescue service set up to save B-29 aircrews
 * Details on the propaganda campaign conducted by the Twentieth Air Force during July and August 1945
 * Various other odds and ends (for instance, material about the jet stream over Japan frustrating many of the early Allied precision bombing raids)


 * Great work on expanding the article. I think there probably should be a short section, two paragraphs or so, on the debate over the morality of the air campaign against Japan, especially regarding the fire raids and atomic bombings.  If I can find the time, I'll try to get something started. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. I think I've got a few sources on this topic as well. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A few more items which need to be done:
 * The lead should be expanded to three or four paragraphs
 * Brief coverage of the post-war reconstruction of Japanese cities and longer-term social and political effects of the bombing Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat narrow view of surrender
I notice that Kerr as a source limits the discussion of Japanese surrender to the air war and to the Soviet Army's invasion of Manchuria. Kerr is not quoted regarding the strangling of Japan by naval forces, and the imminent invasion of Japan by English-speaking Allied armies, but certainly these were large factors in the decision to surrender. We have an obligation to acknowledge all the major factors if we discuss Japan's surrender at all. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good point; lots of factors motivated the Japanese Government's decision to surrender. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Bombing deaths
The article says that "over 300,000" and "at least 300,000" Japanese civilians died in air raids. The Tillman book is cited to page 256 where he says "at least 330,000". I would like the article to be more accurate about who says what per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and to be broader in scope to get a range of deaths rather than one figure from one source.

Also, the article does not make clear whether the 300k figure includes atomic bomb deaths or just conventional precision and incendiary deaths.

On page xvi of his book, Tillman writes that "Perhaps 330,000 Japanese were killed by air-attack..." On page 256 he writes "At least 330,000 Japanese died by bombing". Is he mixing up atomic, incendiary and precision or does he separate these figures?

Edmund Russell writes in his Cambridge University-published book that there were "about 330,000 fatalities, most from fire" during nine months of American air attacks on Japan. He cites the Strategic Bombing Survey. Michael S. Sherry writes in The rise of American air power: the creation of Armageddon that the figure of 330,000 Japanese "killed in air raids" is "more often cited, as in The Effects of Bombing on Health and Medical Services in Japan." John W. Dower quotes the Survey as saying that, of some 806,000 Japanese casualties from American strategic bombing, "approximately 330,000 were fatalities" including from the two atomic bombs. However, Dower notes that there is a little-cited Survey report on "Japanese Morale" issued July 1947, one year after the widely cited Summary of July 1946. The latter "Morale" report says that "approximately 1,300,000 people were injured and approximately 900,000 killed as a result of the bombings." Walter L. Hixson uses these later figures, writing "2,200,000 civilian casualties were inflicted, including 900,000 fatalities." Here is the 1947 Japanese Morale report, saying 900,000 killed. I looked up a different Survey report from July 1947, one focusing on medical issues, and saw that it did not cite 900,000 at all. Instead, it says in two places that there were 333,000 fatalities in Japan in less than 1 year of bombing, and 473,000 injured. So the Survey contradicts itself.

In 1986, Edwin Palmer Hoyt wrote in Japan's War: "The firebombing of Japanese cities killed more than 500,000 Japanese civilians and was regarded by the Japanese as the principal American atrocity of the war." In 2000, Hoyt gave a lower figure; he wrote in Inferno: the firebombing of Japan, March 9 – August 15, 1945 that the incendiary campaign gave these results: "300,000 civilians were killed and 500,000 civilians were wounded." Hagan and Skinner in the Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy, Volume 2, write that "the firebombing of Japanese cities... cost... more than 300,000 lives."

On July 13, 1995, U.S. News & World Report, Volume 119, Issues 1-12, page 143, wrote that "...all told, in the months before Hiroshima, bombs killed up to 500,000 in Japanese cities and left 13 million homeless." In 1991, the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars wrote in volume 23 of its Bulletin regarding the firebombing campaign that "Almost every major city in Japan was badly damaged, and more than 500,000 civilians were killed in these attacks." Kent E. Calder writes in Embattled garrisons: comparative base politics and American globalism that "Around 500,000 Japanese, for example, died in the American wartime raids on Japan..."

USAF Major General Alfred F. Klaberer was reported in 1968 as saying, "I believe we have killed 500000 Japanese in Tokyo alone." Pilot Charles R. Reyher makes a lesser statement, writing in his memoirs: "On August 23, 1945, after the surrender, Tokyo radio broadcast the following statistics: nearly 500,000 killed and injured... These deaths and damages did not include those of the atomic bombing..."

Barash and Webel write in Peace and Conflict Studies that "Allied bombs killed more than 500,000 Germans and 500,000 Japanese." The editors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists agree, writing in 1995 that perhaps as many as 500,000 Japanese civilians "or more" were killed by firebombing prior to August 1945.

George Feifer estimates that Japanese firebombing casualties were "three to four times larger than those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined."

The Survey's highest figure is offered by Adrian R. Lewis in The American culture of war: "By war's end, LeMay's B-29s had produced 2.2 million casualties, 900,000 of whom were killed..."

What I would like to see is a range of numbers representing deaths and injuries, and a separation of conventional from atomic to facilitate comparison. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good research. I would suggest that some form of your statement above be placed in the article, with all the attributions. Cla68 (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In sum, there are roughly four major centers of agreement among the conflicting numbers:
 * 300,000–333,000 including atomic bombs
 * 300,000 non-atomic (roughly 450,000–546,000 in total if we go by Radiation Effects Research Foundation)
 * 500,000 including atomic bombs (this position nests neatly inside the one above)
 * 500,000 non-atomic (roughly 650,000–746,000 in total if we go by Radiation Effects Research Foundation)
 * 900,000 including atomic bombs
 * As you can see, this is a mess, but I think we can convey the general sense of it to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's great research Binksternet. The 'more than 330,000' figure was basically a placeholder, so expanding it with the full range of estimates would be great. I've included estimates of casualties of individual raids where I could find them (including the range of estimated casualties from the atomic bomb attacks) but a lot more should be added. It might also be useful to add something on why the estimates vary so widely - I've read that the reason the estimated number of casualties from the atomic bombs varies widely as there are no firm figures on the number of people in the cities at the time (due to the evacuations of civilians from them as well as the general movement of people at the time) and I presume that the same is the case for the country as a whole. To add an extra source to the list, the postwar Japanese Government's assessment of casualties is online here and put the casualties from bombing as 297,746 killed and 343,323 wounded (though I think I've read that these are generally considered to be too low). I'd suggest not using Klaberer and Reyher as sources - these seem to be personal memoirs, and this topic has been the subject of scholarly studies. Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you know of a source discussing why the estimates are spread so wide? Why so little is absolutely known about Japanese deaths? Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Aside from the commentary on the number of deaths from the atomic bomb attacks, no, but it's a really good question. Even allowing for Japan's chaotic situation in 1945 (which included massive, and undocumented, population movements and widespread destruction of government offices) and the deliberate destruction of records after 15 August, the ranges are enormous, particularly when you consider that Japan was a modern industrialised state. I have read (though I can't recall where) that the post-war estimates were on the low side as the Japanese Government and occupation government wanted to play down the number of deaths for political reasons, so the more recent estimates are likely to be more accurate. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There surely must be some studies done in the last 20 years or so by Japanese historians or academics, but heck if I can find any. I've asked around with some of my Japanese-speaking friends and relatives, and so far they haven't been able to find anything. Cla68 (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Death toll redux
In light of the GAN, I should think that the death tolls would be discussed in more detail in the article. Right now, we mention the range of 300,000 to 900,000 in the lead section and in the infobox, which is correct, but we do not mention these numbers in the article body—a violation of WP:LEAD. Good Articles must conform to LEAD or they do not get listed. Binksternet (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added a table with the range of casualties to the article. Could you please add something more on this? Those Google book links above don't work for me here in Australia. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I worked it a bit but I am not seeing what I can do to help via Google books. Binksternet (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I wasn't able to include some of the estimates you tracked down above as I couldn't see the material in the books - can you still see these parts of the books? (Google seems to have reduced the amount of online material in the last few months). Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Claimed large B-29 offensive against Hokkaido
I've just reverted, again, these set of claims that 1,500 B-29s attacked cities in Hokkaido on 14 and 15 July 1945. While there were some B-29 attacks on Hokkaido (during which the bombers had to refuel at Iwo Jima), I can't find any sources that support these claims. The IP editor keeps adding them without providing a source. Can anyone help with this? Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I can simply add my voice that the various lists of missions do not mention this supposed giant one. You keep getting to the article before I do to revert the IP editor from the Philippines. Binksternet (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The information added by IP is correct. See Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II,, and . Oda Mari (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's nonsense. The IP editor is claiming that the attacks were made by a huge number of B-29 strategic bombers, not carrier-launched aircraft, and that this involved fire bombing cities when the aircraft involved actually mainly attacked ships (the naval aircraft weren't even capable of fire bombing on a large scale). The second source you provide plainly isn't a RS. These attacks are discussed in the third paragraph of Air raids on Japan. For what it's worth, I wrote most of the Allied naval bombardments article. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for rewriting the info on the Hokkaido article. Sorry for my misunderstanding about B-29. Although it's a blog, according to this, B-29 was only used for reconnaissance. This page might be helpful to know the damage. And these are gov. pages., , and . Oda Mari (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"the most important factor"
In the Results section, we say the following:
 * "The Allied urban area attacks reduced the morale of the Japanese population, and postwar surveys conducted by the USSBS found that air attacks were the most important factor in convincing the Japanese that the war had been lost."

However, the June 1947 USSBS report The Effects of Bombing on Health and Medical Services in Japan says on page 5 under the heading Air-Raid Casualties, "Unquestionably the greatest single factor which left its imprint on the Japanese people was the continued decrease of their food supply." It seems to me that our assessment of factors must widen to include starvation. Binksternet (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have a copy of the book this is cited from out from the library at the moment (Kerr 1991), so I can't check which USSBS report this is a reference to - it could have been the one on morale, as the concept of what convinced people that the war was lost is different to what had the biggest effect on peoples lives. I'm inclined to treat the USSBS reports as primary sources. Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Article that might be of interest
The All-Out B-29 Attack Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 12:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's actually one of the main sources I used to write the article :) (referenced as 'Craven and Cate' as each chapter is by a different combination of authors). I agree that the book is very good. Nick-D (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)