Talk:Bombing of Tokyo/Archive 1

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

why isnt there a picture on the Pearl Harbor attack wiki page, showing the charred remains of those americans murdered by the japanese ?

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. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.54.15.1 (talk &bull; 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)

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 &mdash;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)

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. &mdash;wwoods 17:13, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

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?

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)

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)

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 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)

Not even atomic bomb
This article claims that Tokyo had the biggest conventional bombing in all times, but not even atomic attacks some months later killed more people.This was the most terrible bombing in all times, including atomic attacks.The Bombing of Dresden killed about 50,000 people;the half of this bombing in Tokyo.Agre22 (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)agre22


 * Yes, it's true that Tokyo had the most damaging bomb attack in the world, worse than the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Pumpkin Bomb?
Ok, so the article claims that this 'pumpkin bomb' weapon has the same ballistics as a nuke. I have a difficult time accepting this. Nukes of this era are measured in kilotons, later in megatons, meaning (as I understand it) comparable to a detonation of that many thousands of tons of TNT. So we're talking about a device producing an explosion equivalent to, what, 13 thousand tons of TNT? I don't care what kind of high explosive this weapon was using; unless it was nuclear, there's no chance it could have produced a multi-kiloton yield. I call bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.172.61 (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Ballistics" refers to the way the bomb moves through the air, not to the explosive power. IT would habve the same ballistics if it did not explode at all. -Arch dude (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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? &mdash;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 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 &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.105.40.29 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 June 2005 (UTC)


 * -- we need the time in the DVD 1:00=at one minute, etcetera, and we should have it in a citable secondary source so we can prove that our citing is accurate and correct. Eg post an article by Biran Burke on any blog and we can cite the movie as cited by you.Wikidgood (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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 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)


 * Agree with PBS don't broaden start new separate stubs and build up. Wikidgood (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * Really?! Attacking civilian populated area, with incendiary bombs, destroying city, killing 90k plus people, then calling it strategic attack - which part of it you call "war effort"?! Why do you think Japanese became so fanatically crazy after that in Iwo Jima, Marshall Islands, even before that in Saipan?! If Japanese culturally are something, the craziest isn't one of those features. Never was in their whole history! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I13EjPEoqQ8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shehriyari (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 December 2013 (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.] (Previous unsigned comment Bot action failed) Agreed. It may not be a legal crime, but no one with any morals would deny that it was utter inhuman massacre on a horrendous scale. For one, the atomic bombings, which were necessary to end the war and save lives, are nothing compared to the cold, calculated murder of the Tokyo firebombing and that of other Japanese cities.

Above Post Unsigned, No Bot action


 * People need to sign their posts the bot doesn't seem to be doing it.

And citations of some kind would be extremely helpful even on the talk page otherwise it just degenerates into a childish mudsling contest: did not, did too, did not, did too... Wikidgood (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC) The problem may be caused by creating new sections with edits above and below the new section line which is not a good practice because it then becomes problematic to comment within a section.Wikidgood (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Why do so many people use the "Total War" trope as an excuse to justify every atrocity under the sun? 69.127.45.17 (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2013 (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)


 * "One would have to be a moral idiot, not to be shocked and horrified" - The USAAF firebombed 66 Japanese cities, but apparently the Japanese High Command were not moved one bit to stop the carnage; i.e., surrender. 2601:1C1:C100:A3DD:4552:8A12:D875:FE84 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear do you have a quote which states this -- and if so should it be put in the article? If the goal was to demoralize not destroy industry as a primary goal, that makes it a terror-bombing.  This is something that needs to be discussed as this was a big part of strategic bombing -- mass murder of civilians.  It's indefensible no matter who does it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.45.17 (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2013 (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)


 * Japan and China were participating in an all-out war, with war economy when Nanking fell and the supposed massacre of Chinese civilians occurred. By the same logic, this action is defensible. However, we find that most of the world criticizes the Nanking incident as crime against humanity. If Nanking is a war crime, then how is the firebombing of Tokyo not? This campaign was designed purely to kill civilians with bombs specifically targeting their residence. Japanese homes were made of wood and paper; factories were not. Some of the survivors blamed their government for failing to counter the attacks - which was difficult at the time anyway, due to lack of pilots, planes and other materiel. In either case, one lawsuit suing the government does not excuse the American military of planned attacks against civilians. 208.65.73.116 (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The effects testing, done very carefully by both universities (Harvard again, along with the University of Chicago), corporations (Standard Oil Development, Texas Company), and the military (Ordnance Department) are also pretty grim. These involved mock bedrooms, with beds and boudoirs and even vanity mirrors, to simulate how effect these weapons would be against “Central German structures,” “experimental Japanese rooms,” and other models of homes. Just in case there was any lingering doubt as to what these weapons were meant to accomplish, and to put to rest the lingering misconception that the destruction of civilian life was an inadvertent consequence imprecise weaponry.

By wiki definition of genocide(the fact that the residents were still unilaterally killed in masses during the aftermath, despite the successful and certain outcome in battle) this was genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.1.95 (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The intended purpose to demoralize the Japanese also failed, as the bombings made the Japanese even more willing to fight to the end. This is not mentioned in the results, which I think it should, and there are sources, I just do not know how to use them. ChicagoPiano115 (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not correct based on the sources I've seen - the air raids actually contributed to a decline in willingness to continue the war among the Japanese government and civilians. Please see Air raids on Japan. What sources are you referring to? Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * History class, it is probably in my history book somewhere, but a Google search led me to this book 'A Brief Political and Geographic History of Asia (Where Are Saigon, Kampuchea, and Burma?)', previewable page 91 says 'This didn't discourage the Japanese, it just made them very angry. Instead of thinking about surrender, they prepared to fight the Americans in anyway they could'. If that is not good enough I guess I can try find it in my history book. ChicagoPiano115 (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The emperor viewed the damage to Tokyo and was very moved; Bradley writes in No Strategic Targets Left that this was the turning point in the emperor's war attitude, that after March 10 he became convinced Japan could not win. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I read that, but that does not change how the average Japanese felt. ChicagoPiano115 (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In Tokyo, a great many of the survivors were rendered homeless, and many of those left Tokyo altogether, rather than buckling down and continuing their war work. Political scientist Alexander B. Downes says that more than a million were made homeless "and fled the city." Political theorist John Tirman says that nine million people left Japan's cities for rural areas to escape the terror bombing, and he says that the campaign reached its goal of demoralizing the civilians, with the people realizing the war was lost. Political scientist Rieko Kage says that the greatest reduction of Tokyo's population came after the March 1945 firebombing, when many people left the city for the countryside. Philosopher A.C. Grayling said about 8.5 million people evacuated the cities for rural areas, and the demoralization of the populace was achieved not just by the bombing attacks, but by everyone in Japan seeing so many enemy bombers flying unmolested over their heads. This was proof that they could not win the war. So I don't see big support for the "average" Tokyo citizen continuing his war work after the bombing. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will not deny what I see in front of me, yet I do not believe that is the whole truth. Of course, as the victors, there will be more sources stating that the bombings did work, I cannot change that might makes right. ChicagoPiano115 (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not true at all: there are lots of high quality studies of the views of ordinary Japanese people during the war. The consensus from what I've seen is that the bombing and the associated disruption frequently caused civilians to realise that the war was lost (remember that the Japanese experience of bombing was in no real way comparable to that in the UK, and was even more extreme than that in Germany). It's important to note though that under the Japanese system of government at the time this didn't matter at all given that the government paid no attention to public opinion. What was more important is that the bombing also was an important factor in convincing the key figures in the Japanese government that they needed to end the war (though even then it was one important factor among several). Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Expansion and rewrite
Its a travesty of cover-up where America killed 90,000+ civilians in a raid, attacking totally civilian-populated area with incendiary bombs - which was the first show of American cowardice and aggression towards alien nations. No wonder why the article is so small! Quite "objective" really! Next time try including Japanese sources, testimonies from those who lived through that night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shehriyari (talk • contribs) 22:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

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? &mdash;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. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.54.15.1 (talk &bull; 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.
 * &mdash;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:
 * Strategic_Bombing
 * Strategic bombing
 * Aerial bombing of cities
 * Strategic bombing during World War II
 * Twentieth Air Force
 * Operation Matterhorn
 * XXI Bomber Command
 * XX Bomber Command
 * XXI Bomber Command
 * U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific

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)

Disagree with the idea of subsuming the atomic bombing as a sub article of Strategic bombing campaign. That fails to do justice to the new nuclear age we are now in.Wikidgood (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * Maybe some compromise could be achieved, I think what open minded users find troubling is not the fact that the images are too graphic, but that they weren't expecting them. When you browse the wiki, you don't really find this kind of carnage and gore very often. It is only when it's dead japs, chinks, gooks, or towelheads that you are showing, that this kind of content gets the "Wikipedia is not censored" treatment. I've seen countless pictures of young americans splattered on the ground around the smokey Twin Towers on various media, but they are completely absent from Wikipedia. WikiUncensors will claim that those pictures are copyrighted, or are "overexposed", or whatever they come up with to prevent them from featuring prominently on the relevant wiki article, but they automatically default to the "we need to show the horror" excuse when they showcase (in prime location from highly visited articles) pictures of firebombed to death jap babies and naked towelheads being tortured by smiling US citizens. The iconic Falling Man photo doesn't even show up in the 911 article! How about the most iconic picture of the War in Irak, where a bunch of US mercenaries got cut into pieces, lit up, and then hanged from a bridge with their dicks in their mouths while a bunch of joyful locals celebrated their freedom? There's no way there's not a picture illustrating that event that is not copyrighted, they still sell T-shirts with those, and I bet there's even cardboard cutout photo ops where you can pop your head and be one of the locals or one of the body parts. Maybe take a picture of the picture that's in one of the T-shirts... that should be copyright free, right?
 * Anyways, the message to take home is: Most people don't wander into articles pertaining to foreign events like the Soviet famine of the early 30s, they stay arround local "western" articles. So after visiting articles like the first Florida airport shooting of 2017 and the last Dallas police mass murder of 2016 and the attack on Pearl Harbour and not seeing even a drop of blood when there's even video of the blood coming out of the people killed and wounded on those events, they are shocked to be treated to this motionless snackbar minion when they wander off of the "safety" provided by the events where US citizens are the victim. The bridge "armed contractors" even have their own article! But no picture!
 * If it is not possible to remove the pictures of the charred corpses of the imperial agressor babies and piles of dead japs, I think proper course of action would be to include more photos of US citizens' mutilated, charred, and dismembered corpses on the pertaining highly visited articles. A few WTC smooshies; an audio clip of the sound they make when they gently perch on the ground; a few close-ups of the civilian food catering employees of Fallujah's body parts; that picture of the guy without half of his leg missing, sitting on a wheelchair in the Boston Marathon; some dead kids and hot nurses from Pearl Harbour with 20mm bullet holes from side to side; a collage of decapitated kids from Six Flags; a screen grab of that white trash ratchet with her head bashed in, convulsing on the floor of the entrance of BestBuy on Black Friday while hordes of rednecks jump over her; the video of that black kid being shot to death by Police because he was playing with a toy gun in a park; some children from Love Canal, glamorously showcased in the same fashion as the Thalidomide kraut nazis are... you know, First Amendment issues, and fighting the censors and stuff.
 * 186.129.3.37 (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

What about if kids or survivors are using wikipedia? Maybe the grisly photos should be sequestered at the bottom, with warnings, and a simple map up top. Wikidgood (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If the images are horrific, it is because (as Binksternet points out) "the results of the bombing were horrific". And yet, if anything, does not the limited number of photos underplay the full horror of this fire-bombing raid? For, on this fateful night, 70 years ago, 100,000 people were killed on-a-single-bombing-raid. Far from down-playing the true horror of total war, perhaps there should be a warning saying: "The images on this page only just begin to reflect the real terror of this bombing raid"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.231.199 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Against Geneva Convention?
Isn't the mass bombing of civilian targets intending to inflict heavy civilian casulties against the Geneva Conventions? Everything I have read states that the aim of the bombings was to inflict a heavy civilian death toll so that Japan would surrender quicker. Greentake124 (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation on "everything" you've read please.Cite one, even. There are others that indicate a goal of hitting mil targets. But cite cite cite. Wikidgood (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The aim of the bombing was to terrorise Japan into surrender. Just as the aim of the 9/11 attack was to terrorise the USA into ending its support for Israel. Both are war crimes. There should be a section on the legality, or lack thereof, of the firebombing of Japanese cities122.59.140.215 (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You're wrong here, just like you were wrong on the Kobe bombing talk page. The aim of the bombing was to reduce Japan's ability to make war, which it did. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The Japanese version of this article includes a section discussing whether the bombing of Tokyo was a violation of the Hague Convention. Would anyone object if I added one or two appropriately sourced sentences raising the issue, together with a link to this article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_bombardment_and_international_law — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snsrus (talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"Firebombing of Tokyo" should be the page name
A)

I. Many of the citations call it Firebombing, eg

1.Hoyt, Edwin P. (2000). Inferno: The Fire Bombing of Japan, March 9 – August 15, 1945. Madison Books. ISBN 1568331495.

2.Note that the image used on the page itself uses the term "Firebombing"

II. This is so very basic, it is not reported and observed by writers. It is "meta".

III. The real issue is

(a) what do we call a historical event

and

(b) what do we name a wikipedia page.

Shouldn't a=b???

IV) In any case, I am just asserting on the edit that it is "frequently" called that.

B)SECTION B I. One could do a statistical analysis of old headlines and later writings to determine the frequency BUT that would be original research.

One could philosophically explore the meaning of the use of the term. That would be also original unless it was strictly a review of what others had to say.

BII. Do we call the bombing of Dresden just that, or do we call it the "Firebombing of Dresden" as much or less?

Is it to distinguish from Hiroshima/Nagasaki?

Why not "aerial bombardment" or

"conventional bombing"?

Obviously, the latter makes it sound almost like a routine event. Which it was not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidgood (talk • contribs) 00:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is intended to list all bombing missions against Tokyo during WWII. Of course the March 1945 firebombing and resultant firestorm is of prime importance but it is not the sole element. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but the other bombing missions were also firebombings to the extent they were intended or in practice ignited buildings and caused major fires. Your post, and I appreciate that someone responded, raises an interesting question: which of the March 1945 bombings and other bombings were actually firebombings and which, if any, were not?

Eg, a bombing targeting a munitions factory made out of brick is NOT a FB, whereas a poorly aimed, high altitude bomb dropped over a residential neighborhood of wood and paper houses most certainly is one.

Another question your post suggests: at some point would the individual March 09-10 bombing warrant a split to a separate article. Generally, I would doubt the article would reach that level of specialized sophistication except for the fact that that two day bombing event was probably the worst bombing in all of human history, was it not? Wikidgood (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is the possibility that the March firebombing/firestorm raid could be its own article—there is certainly enough material. Today, this generalist Tokyo bombing article starts with the miniscule Doolittle raid which destroyed very little but which had ramifications with regard to American morale and in Japanese defense allocations. A well-written split discussing only the March firebombing would necessarily cover some of the relevant background, including previous bombing raids, and some of the results, including subsequent bombing raids. In effect, the split article would look a lot like this one. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the munition dropped are the major factor in whether the bombing is considered a firebombing. Targeting paper houses with general purpose bombs is not firebombing, but dropping fire starter materials is. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Fritjeis for brushing up the reference, the lawsuit is a rich lode of information.
Thanks for picking up on some of the rather tedious work on this page. THere is lots more on Japan Focus and from the litigation papers which will assist historians.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidgood (talk • contribs) 21:56, 12 February 2011‎ (UTC)

URLs
Recently, a dead URL was taken from External links. Here is an archived version of it, should it prove useful:
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20080605184138/http://history.independence.co.jp/ww2/eng/phtop.html

It has some interesting photos and text. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Murdered line in Doolittle Raid
The last line of the "Doolittle Raid" section was as follows: Two crews were captured by the Japanese in occupied China and murdered. I changed "murdered" to "killed" as it seemed more neutral. If this was incorrect, feel free to revert it. I'm new to wiki-editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.184.148 (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks like a reasonable change to me - thanks for making it, and welcome to Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no - many Reliable Sources refer to the killings as murder, because it is against the Geneva Convention to kill POW's except in very rare circumstances. These men were drug out of their cells and beheaded purely out of some misguided "revenge." I will revert/modify to what the sources state. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely that's "executed" then. Given they were caught mass-murdering civilians (here murder is the only valid word) it's debatable how "misguided" it was of the Japanese to deny them a trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.72.190.10 (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Executions that violated the Geneva Convention were murder. 98.67.0.24 (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

To the one who wrote above me: Are you mental? If you have any doubt about that being acts of murder, then you certainly disregard any sort of law imposed by civilized nations in even the 19th century. Disgusting is what it is. 83.248.146.209 (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which "civilized" nation(s) are you talking about?! Those which managed to kill hundreds of thousands innocent people in EMEA region just in past 2-3 decades?! Oh please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shehriyari (talk • contribs) 22:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Murder" is a term often used regarding crimes commit by private individuals or corporative organized crime. Organizaitons like AMnesty and HRW use the term "extrajudicial execution" for some reason, perhaps to introduce a clinical detachment. Our goal is WP:NPOV so I would lean to thinking that "executed without trial" might be close to the WP policies and procedures.THis is a very important matter, how we characterize these events, homocide. It seems that we need a global perspective from an English speaking stance such that Anglo Saxon legal writing is important but also internaional conventions. If anyone knows Japanese words that introduce nuances let's hear it. {The Inuit have twenty words for snow perhaps the Japanese Imperial Army has twenty differnet words for kiling. Just saying. Wikidgood (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

One night in March (1945)

Getting back to the subject, this article is about the Bombing of Tokyo. Might not mentioning the Doolittle Raid - in relation to this article - be seen as an attempt to divert attention from a terror-raid that killed 100,000 people on one night in March? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.62.229 (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The mentioning of the POWs being killed as being a war-crime definitely sounds like an attempt to lessen feelings of sympathy towards the Japanese who died in the bombings. It is as if though it is there to remind the reader that the Japanese committed war-crimes, and thus no sympathy should be held for them. If Nanjin is considered 'mass murder' then this bombing should be too, and if murder is inherently illegal, Nanjin would be a war-crime and so would this.ChicagoPiano115 (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While deliberately bombing civilians is now a war crime, this was not the case in 1945. Please see the Aerial bombardment and international law article. As to why the material on the Doolittle POWs is in the article: it actually covers all the raids on Tokyo, and not just the 9/10 March 1945 attack. Believe it or not, we currently don't have a dedicated article on that subject, and this article is in rather poor shape. The Air raids on Japan article provides more detail on the various attacks on Toyko. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

August 14th
No mention of the 1000 plane mission five days after Nagasaki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.102.178 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Who Made That Firebomb?
"...The firebomb, by contrast, is a weapon developed for a doing terrible things as a regular mode of operation. That is, the moral arguments in favor of the atomic bombs are usually structured in the form of “we had to do this twice in order to achieve a greater good.” It’s harder to do that with firebombs because we used them so many times. It’s one thing to say, “ah, once or twice we had to target large numbers of civilians to make a point.” It’s another to make the targeting of civilians your everyday job, when you start measuring success less by knocking out specific military targets and instead by total area destroyed..." ''Who Made That Firebomb? By Alex Wellerstein, published August 30th, 2013'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.62.229 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Civilians weren't the true object. Japanese industry had - especially the war-making industries - moved into homes and neighborhoods to escape industrial bombing.  When it is all said and done, the Axis started the war - the Allies finished it.  Taking any sort of moral high-ground in the article is an absurd violation of NPOV. 98.67.0.24 (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Japans surrender 1945
I dont know how " to Wiki ", and my english is not very good.

I have a factual comment: Japan did NOT surrender on 15th of August 1945. The cause of surrender was NOT bombing raids by the USA Air Force, neither firebombs nor atomic bombs.

Japan did surrender on the 2nd of September 1945. The cause of surrender was the loss of perhaps 700.000 troops to Russia in a war, that Russia started on the by Japan occupied mainland on the 9th of August. The treat of a russian invasion on Japans own soil caused the surrender.

USA has often justified the use of atomic bombs by claiming, that they lead to Japans surrender and therefore saved the loss of many lives by making an invasion unecessesary sign. Claus Bork, Denmark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.93.212.89 (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Utter rot. Hirohito himself pushed for the surrender after his closest advisors showed him Hiroshima and Nagasaki documentation.  He worked to get the militarists to accept his decision immediately after that meeting.  It's very well documented. 98.67.0.24 (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Moral Issues
The articles on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden all delve into the moral issues surrounding the decision to make those attacks. As this bombing was more deadly than any of those, I think there should be a section dealing with the morality of firebombing the densely populated sections of Tokyo and killing over 100,000 people in one night. Was this a violation of the rules of war and international law? Was it a massacre? Was it genocide? As the most deadliest single bombing raid in history, I think these issues deserve their own section. --126.113.226.58 (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to work on that, providing we can aggregate some quality sources. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Be sure to to a "see also" - Rape of Nanking, Imperial Japan's behavior in the Philippines, Dutch East Indies, Manchuria, Korea, etc., etc. for balance. 98.67.0.24 (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that there's a discussion of these issues in the Air raids on Japan article Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bombing of Tokyo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205060418/http://japanfocus.org:80/products/details/1581 to http://japanfocus.org/products/details/1581

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bombing of Tokyo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929013643/http://www.ellsworth.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123192125 to http://www.ellsworth.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123192125
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202221330/http://www.47news.jp/CN/201305/CN2013050701001318.html to http://www.47news.jp/CN/201305/CN2013050701001318.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202231625/http://www.47news.jp/CN/200703/CN2007030901000392.html to http://www.47news.jp/CN/200703/CN2007030901000392.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202230718/http://www.47news.jp/CN/200912/CN2009121401000348.html to http://www.47news.jp/CN/200912/CN2009121401000348.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130611164421/http://www.47news.jp/CN/201305/CN2013050901001267.html to http://www.47news.jp/CN/201305/CN2013050901001267.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602071111/http://www.usaaf.net/chron/45/mar45.htm to http://www.usaaf.net/chron/45/mar45.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050311211933/http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/hittinghome/hittinghomepg5.htm to http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/hittinghome/hittinghomepg5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Verify Truman's order to bomb the Emperor's Palace
Let's all please take another look at the veracity of the claim that Truman ordered the bombing of the Emperor's Palace. The only citation here is based on Richard Lineberger's account which I believe strains credulity. Why would a bomb run consist of a single plane, when other runs over Tokyo and Dresden, among many others, consisted of dozens if not hundreds of bombers? (Even the Hiroshima mission consisted of seven planes.) Why was Tokyo not blacked out when it had already been bombed in March and May of 1945? Was Harp, a Canadian pilot, really in charge of a mission personally and secretly authorized by the U.S. president? Why did he go to his grave maintaining that the bombing was due to error? Finally, in McCullough's Truman bio, in an excerpt from Truman's July 25 diary entry mediating on the terrible power of the atomic bomb, McCullough notes in brackets that "the Imperial Palace had been spared thus far."

Surely Truman's order to bomb the palace would have been discussed by McCullough in this standard biography. More discussion of the bombing of Tokyo is on pp. 444-460 of McCullough's biography, and should be reviewed before attributing the order to Truman.

Grbb (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is totally wrong. Multiple sources say that the Emperor's Palace was explicitly off limits in all raids on Tokyo. A small number of crews seem to have defied orders and targeted it, and it was accidentally hit in other raids, but this definitely wasn't authorised. The idea of the president personally ordering an attack on the palace is laughable. I've just removed this claim. Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, I thought that Lineberger's account was full of holes and unverified. Probably a good story, but not the truth. Grbb (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting and raising this issue. Nick-D (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Atomic Option for Tokyo
In addition to the firebombing of Tokyo, the Navy made plans for an atomic option. In 1945 then naval office Chester Siver, a 1934 USNA graduate with a degree in Marine Architecture and an MS in engineering from MIT, received orders moving him from his position as assistant superintendent of design at Brooklyn Naval Shipyard to Pearl Harbor. Once there he was briefed on the atomic weapons program and tasked with designing the modifications of a PT boat with the mission of carrying an atomic weapon into Tokyo harbor. Others have commented that there was only enough fissionable material for two bombs at that time. This was one delivery option put forth by the Navy. FOIA Request pending DON-NAVY-2020-002586.

Ddfx (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * A proper reference to a secondary source (not a pending freedom of information request or the primary sources this produces) is needed for any mention of this to be included in the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)