Japanese denial of WWII crimes

jonniebgood1

I became interested in this while reading about the rape of Nanking by the Japanese army. I had not realised the extent of denial by modern day Japanese leading figures towards some of their warcrimes, particularly those of a sexual nature involving 'comfort' women in China and Korea.

Part of the issue is in this open letter:

Hundreds of thousands of Asians and Allied POWs were enslaved for labor in Japanese mines and factories throughout Asia and in the Japanese homeland.

And then the Rape of Nanjing, the six-week episode beginning 13 December 1937 that set the pattern for Japanese aggression.

In that period in Nanjing alone, 300,000 unarmed civilians were murdered by the invading Japanese Imperial Army, many summarily executed by beheading for the entertainment of the army.

Eighty thousand girls and women were raped.

Families were slaughtered, homes and businesses were looted and destroyed.

These terrible injustices inflicted by the Japanese lust for empire so many years ago are once more repeated as the Japanese government and supporters deny any atrocities ever happened.

Asian victims, families, and survivors still wait for justice so long denied by Japan.

http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/10/16/letter-to-japanese-ambassador-to-washington-on-continued-denial-of-their-war-crimes-crimes-against-humantiy-and-glorification-of-war-criminals/

The denial of clear crimes in this case seems illogical. Some of the denials come from the highest of levels with Prime minister Shinzo abe denying that women had been forced to work as sex slaves for the army. He subsequently backtracked.

Any more views on this?

Neutronale

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I became interested in this while reading about the rape of Nanking by the Japanese army. I had not realised the extent of denial by modern day Japanese leading figures towards some of their warcrimes, particularly those of a sexual nature involving 'comfort' women in China and Korea.

Part of the issue is in this open letter:
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/10/16/letter-to-japanese-ambassador-to-washington-on-continued-denial-of-their-war-crimes-crimes-against-humantiy-and-glorification-of-war-criminals/

The denial of clear crimes in this case seems illogical. Some of the denials come from the highest of levels with Prime minister Shinzo abe denying that women had been forced to work as sex slaves for the army. He subsequently backtracked.

Any more views on this?

Empires tend to bring crimes along with them. The people creating an empire tend to see themselves as superior and those they are dominating as inferior, less then human and so they justify their inhuman treatment of them.

I think this is similar to holocaust denial, which seems to be a growing phenomenon...

gobnaitolunacy

The Emperor got off scot free at the end of the war. The US thought the population would be more docile if they didn't publicly humiliate him by putting him on trial. They did get him to reduce his status from a sort of demi-god though, that was about it.

Also, the Burma 'Death Railway'; seen as a POW forced-labour litany of atrocities through western eyes, is viewed as an engineering triumph in Japan.
EDIT: there were also many, many more Asians than POW's 'employed' on the Death Railway who perished, but they seem to have been forgotten.

Zebra3

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Any more views on this?

Not really surprising.

Most countries refuse to acknowledge the crimes they commit.

The sham that was the Nuremburg Trials was based on trying "them" only for crimes "we" did not commit.

Also only the "political" war criminals were tried by the Allies. The scientists went off to work for NASA and put man on the moon.

feargale

One of the worst instances of denial is that of the Turks in relation to atrocities against the Armeians, particularly in 1915.

Einhard

In some ways, I think the Japanese were worse than the Nazis in their activities. Indeed, I seem to recall being told about a Nazi envoy in Nanking reporting in horror to Berlin about the depravities he was witnessing. While the Nazis were brutal and their crimes horrific, they appear to have been more restrained, at least towards those who were lucky enough to be Christian, able-bodied etc. The Japanese, on the other hand, seemed to be almost indiscriminate in their violence. The horrors perpetrated in places such as Nanking really haven't permeated Western consciousness. Many people haven't even heard of that event or the many like it. As for contrition, the Japanese have managed little enough of it. Whereas German has been fulsome in its contrition- to the point where some have accused it of going too far- Japan has been far less forthcoming, and this has caused justified resentment in Asia. Many people in the West see Japan as a docile land, and it is for the most part, but there is a stong nationalistic streak in its people.

jonniebgood1

Einhard wrote: »

a Nazi envoy in Nanking reporting in horror to Berlin about the depravities he was witnessing.

John Rabe perhaps. He was a prominent German businessman but I don't think a member of the Nazi party although I am not certain of that. The behaviour of the Japanese in China was more a reflection on the methods in their army at the time rather than any societal reflection.

Cardinal Richelieu

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

John Rabe perhaps. He was a prominent German businessman but I don't think a member of the Nazi party although I am not certain of that. The behaviour of the Japanese in China was more a reflection on the methods in their army at the time rather than any societal reflection.

He joined the Nazi Party in 1934 and was for a time the regional Party leader in Nanking.

Wibbs

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The behaviour of the Japanese in China was more a reflection on the methods in their army at the time rather than any societal reflection.

I dunno JB. Japanese culture has tended to see itself as homogenous and very much as apart and superior to the barbarians beyond their shores. The word for non Japanese is outsider(with roots of stranger/enemy) and definitely has pejorative overtones. The notion of non Japanese being subhuman was easy to promote. The army stuff just reflected and played up a wider feeling in that society. It certainly didn't spring from nowhere, nor was it a recent political movement/philosophy when compared to Nazi Germany.

jonniebgood1

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno JB. Japanese culture has tended to see itself as homogenous and very much as apart and superior to the barbarians beyond their shores. The word for non Japanese is outsider(with roots of stranger/enemy) and definitely has pejorative overtones. The notion of non Japanese being subhuman was easy to promote. The army stuff just reflected and played up a wider feeling in that society. It certainly didn't spring from nowhere, nor was it a recent political movement/philosophy when compared to Nazi Germany.

I would stand over the comment "The behaviour of the Japanese in China was more a reflection on the methods in their army at the time rather than any societal reflection."

There are a number of reasons why I say this, take the treatment by Japanese of their prisoners of war in WWI and compare it to the horrific treatment of similar POW's in WWII. The significance of this is that it shows that within a short period of time historically speaking the attitude changed significantly. In this time period there was a change in army training methods. The army was also responsible to the emperor rather than the government of the time thus had more autonomy to direct itself towards its own goals. They decided at an early point that they would need to expand Japans boundaries for living space (Similar to German plans for lebensbaum). Combined with the League of Nations proclamations which Japan saw as hypocritical due to the colonies of some of the Leagues leaders an anti- western view developed generally in the country during this time. This lead the army to drive towards expansion and the training of their troops legitimised vicious methods in the name of the emperor, i.e. if you committed an act in the name of the emperor it was for the greater good, the emperor being a god like figure. Gradually the army began a type of peer pressure towards rape and murder of 'sub-humans'- Chinese, Koreans. If a soldier did not participate in these acts they could bring shame on their families as they were not acting in the emperors interests. As this did not exist in WWI and disappeared to a certain extent after WWII it would seem to reflect a sudden army change.

gobnaitolunacy

Something 'clicked' in the mindset of the Japanese military between the Russo-Japanese War/WW1 (Russian POWs were even PAID and some German POWs settled in Japan post-WW1) and the Second Sino-Japanese War/WW2.

Cardinal Richelieu

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Something 'clicked' in the mindset of the Japanese military between the Russo-Japanese War/WW1 (Russian POWs were even PAID and some German POWs settled in Japan post-WW1) and the Second Sino-Japanese War/WW2.

Rather than contributing to a change in the Japanese military mindset the main influence on Japanese life by the German POWs was more likely Beethoven 9th and Baumkuchen. Only 63 German POWs of the 1000 held at Bando camp decided to stay on after the WW1 and that was by far, the camp that best treated German POWs.

No mention yet of Kenji Doihara and how he controlled the Opium Trade in China to finance Japanese Military Operations and weaken Chinese opposition.

http://www.paperlessarchives.com/FreeTitles/OpiumAJapaneseTechniqueofOccupation.pdf

gobnaitolunacy

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Rather than contributing to a change in the Japanese military mindset the main influence on Japanese life by the German POWs was more likely Beethoven 9th and Baumkuchen. Only 63 German POWs of the 1000 held at Bando camp decided to stay on after the WW1 and that was by far, the camp that best treated German POWs.

No mention yet of Kenji Doihara and how he controlled the Opium Trade in China to finance Japanese Military Operations and weaken Chinese opposition.

http://www.paperlessarchives.com/FreeTitles/OpiumAJapaneseTechniqueofOccupation.pdf

I'm not suggesting for a second that the Germans had anything to do with influencing the military, just illustrating how humanely they and the Russians were treated.

Snickers Man

Can anyone give any justification, other than racial prejudice, why the policy of the USA regarding bombing Japan was so markedly different to that regarding bombing Germany?

The USAAF which bombed Germany did so in daylight, in relatively small concentrated numbers and against carefully selected industrial and military targets with the intention of achieving at least some precision in the matter.

Against Japan, they bombed indiscriminately and at night, deliberately using firebombs to destroy the generally very infllammable Japanese architecture, much of which was constructed of wood and even paper.

"When we're done with them the Japanese language will only be spoken in Hell," to quote one senior US military figure.

The bombing offensive culminated in the terrible fire raids on Tokyo and of course the atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Meanwhile, in Germany against their caucasian and teutonic kith and kin, the Americans were far more circumspect.

Why?

super_furry

Pearl Harbour? I think in their mindset, that gave them all the justification they needed.

Reekwind

Einhard wrote: »

In some ways, I think the Japanese were worse than the Nazis in their activities. Indeed, I seem to recall being told about a Nazi envoy in Nanking reporting in horror to Berlin about the depravities he was witnessing. While the Nazis were brutal and their crimes horrific, they appear to have been more restrained, at least towards those who were lucky enough to be Christian, able-bodied etc

I doubt that there was an atrocity at Nanking that wasn't replicated a thousand times across Soviet towns and cities. Any "restraint" in Nazi violence (which is questionable at best) went out the window as soon as the first Wehrmacht units crossed the Soviet border

Wibbs wrote:

It certainly didn't spring from nowhere, nor was it a recent political movement/philosophy when compared to Nazi Germany

It's worth noting that the roots of the Herrenvolk and Volksliste ideology ran deep into 19th C German history. The Nazis tapped into and radicalised a longstanding disdain of the Slavs and Jews but they didn't invent it. WWI was, possibly like Japan, a key radicalising agent in this process

gobnaitolunacy

Snickers Man wrote: »

Can anyone give any justification, other than racial prejudice, why the policy of the USA regarding bombing Japan was so markedly different to that regarding bombing Germany?

The USAAF which bombed Germany did so in daylight, in relatively small concentrated numbers and against carefully selected industrial and military targets with the intention of achieving at least some precision in the matter.

Against Japan, they bombed indiscriminately and at night, deliberately using firebombs to destroy the generally very infllammable Japanese architecture, much of which was constructed of wood and even paper.

"When we're done with them the Japanese language will only be spoken in Hell," to quote one senior US military figure.

The bombing offensive culminated in the terrible fire raids on Tokyo and of course the atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Meanwhile, in Germany against their caucasian and teutonic kith and kin, the Americans were far more circumspect.

Why?

By the time US bombers were in range of the Japanese mainland to carry out raids, the Americans were well aware of the fight to the death 'Way of the Warrior' where no quarter could be expected. True, there was a certain amount of racism involved, esp. propaganda posters and movies of the time (the Japanese portrayed as simian, short-sighted, buck toothed Orientals) and the perhaps OTT internment of anyone of Japanese birth or background in the States.

Wibbs

Reekwind wrote: »

I doubt that there was an atrocity at Nanking that wasn't replicated a thousand times across Soviet towns and cities.

Not within an asses roar of the same degree RW. Estimates of the death toll run as high as 20 million Chinese. This was daily rape and slaughter of men women and children by regulars in the Japanese army. While the Germans could be and were ruthlessly vicious at times and especially with certain groups they considered subhuman, there wasn't the wholesale slaughter across the board like the Japanese in China. In Nanking alone there were over quarter of a million civilians and unarmed POW's killed(often by blowing them up with grenades en masse, bayoneting the survivors and burning the bodies. Many were just buried alive), never mind over the 20,000 women raped(pregnant women being a particular fave) and most of them were butchered afterwards, if the gang rapes didn't kill them first. They even went around mutilating the corpses. Just to make their point like. There were competitions among the officer caste where they'd place wagers on how many people they could kill with swords. That's before we even take the comfort women and rape houses into account. They even had special chairs they'd strap the terrified women into to make it easier to rape them to death. That's before we take the medical experimentation and testing of weapons on live subjects, or bayonet practice with live prisoners.

The German embassy itself were so shocked by the carnage in Nanking they attempted to smuggle out reports and photos and film of the various atrocities. There were many western and local witnesses to this and other Japanese war crimes in China. Indeed there are enough Japanese soldiers who came forward afterwards with their own reports. If one is of a weak stomach I'd not go looking for photos that did get out.

Like I said the Germans were no angels, not by any measure. Neither for that matter were the Russians and other allies before and after Germany fell, but few instances come close to the widespread slaughter in that theatre of war. Or I'd like to read about an example of one that compares.

Hidalgo

Wibbs wrote: »

Not within an asses roar of the same degree RW. Estimates of the death toll run as high as 20 million Chinese. This was daily rape and slaughter of men women and children by regulars in the Japanese army. While the Germans could be and were ruthlessly vicious at times and especially with certain groups they considered subhuman, there wasn't the wholesale slaughter across the board like the Japanese in China. In Nanking alone there were over quarter of a million civilians and unarmed POW's killed(often by blowing them up with grenades en masse, bayoneting the survivors and burning the bodies. Many were just buried alive), never mind over the 20,000 women raped(pregnant women being a particular fave) and most of them were butchered afterwards, if the gang rapes didn't kill them first. They even went around mutilating the corpses. Just to make their point like. There were competitions among the officer caste where they'd place wagers on how many people they could kill with swords. That's before we even take the comfort women and rape houses into account. They even had special chairs they'd strap the terrified women into to make it easier to rape them to death. That's before we take the medical experimentation and testing of weapons on live subjects, or bayonet practice with live prisoners.

The German embassy itself were so shocked by the carnage in Nanking they attempted to smuggle out reports and photos and film of the various atrocities. There were many western and local witnesses to this and other Japanese war crimes in China. Indeed there are enough Japanese soldiers who came forward afterwards with their own reports. If one is of a weak stomach I'd not go looking for photos that did get out.

Like I said the Germans were no angels, not by any measure. Neither for that matter were the Russians and other allies before and after Germany fell, but few instances come close to the widespread slaughter in that theatre of war. Or I'd like to read about an example of one that compares.

If the slaughter in Nanking was committed by regular forces, that would differentiate it to (at least early) acts committed in the Soviet Union with special groups like The Black Crows behind some of the worst atrocities as part of cleaning/sweeping up operations.

I suppose a common theme is Japanese/Germans looking on the enemy in each instance as being sub-human. This in a way justified their actions, they didn't have to act humanely as they weren't fighting equal humans

Reekwind

Wibbs wrote: »

While the Germans could be and were ruthlessly vicious at times and especially with certain groups they considered subhuman, there wasn't the wholesale slaughter across the board like the Japanese in China.

Then where did those 20-30m Soviet dead come from?*

I doubt that there is anything in your post above that wasn't seen in occupied Soviet territory. The German embassy staff may have been shocked but a few years later their compatriots were carrying out similar policies of indiscriminate violence in the USSR. Not just countless rapes and out-of-hand shootings but the razing of entire villages and towns; orgies of mass violence (50,000 dead in a week in Kiev); and truly depraved levels of violence – over 30,000 burnt alive or hanged in the streets in Odessa. While the violence often started with shooting Jews and Communists, it tended to rapidly escalate into frenzies of violence, as at Bialystok

(This is not even touching on the millions of Soviet citizens who died behind barbed wire in Nazi prison camps or the genocidal 'Hunger Plan' intended to kill millions more)

But, in contrast to Nanking and the most well known massacres of Soviet Jewry, the countless massacres that took place in the USSR were largely the destruction of rural settlements. The USSR saw a thousand Oradours during its years of occupation - villages burnt to the ground and their inhabitants shot in the hundreds – that have gone almost forgotten today

*Worth putting into perspective given China's population was approx twice that of the Soviet Union at the time

Hidalgo wrote:

If the slaughter in Nanking was committed by regular forces, that would differentiate it to (at least early) acts committed in the Soviet Union with special groups like The Black Crows behind some of the worst atrocities as part of cleaning/sweeping up operations.

That's something that has to be challenged: the Wehrmacht (and other regular units, including from Axis allies) were amongst the most common and brutal perpetrators of atrocities of Soviet civilians. The idea that this was largely the preserve of the SS or specialist/auxiliary units is a myth. The atrocities began as soon as the first Wehrmacht units crossed the border

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

the_syco

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

There are a number of reasons why I say this, take the treatment by Japanese of their prisoners of war in WWI and compare it to the horrific treatment of similar POW's in WWII.

Was reading through the pages that were linked to what you linked, and it seems that some think during WW1, the Japanese were trying to prove themselves "equal" to the west, so wanted to ensure the PoW were treated well, but they no longer cared by WW2.

Wibbs wrote: »

That's before we take the medical experimentation and testing of weapons on live subjects

In "Unit 731" they would operate on living victims, to see what would happen if X, Y, or Z was taken out, frozen, thawed, put back in, etc. Seem 731 was the worst (documented) place. And yes, video was found of said experiments.

Wibbs wrote: »

The German embassy itself were so shocked by the carnage in Nanking they attempted to smuggle out reports and photos and film of the various atrocities.

The Germans seemed to only see the jews, etc, as the infection in society that needed to be eliminated. The Japanese saw all Chinese as subhuman enemies. I suppose this difference is showed in the amount of people massacred.

BostonB

Snickers Man wrote: »

Can anyone give any justification, other than racial prejudice, why the policy of the USA regarding bombing Japan was so markedly different to that regarding bombing Germany?

The USAAF which bombed Germany did so in daylight, in relatively small concentrated numbers and against carefully selected industrial and military targets with the intention of achieving at least some precision in the matter.

Against Japan, they bombed indiscriminately and at night, deliberately using firebombs to destroy the generally very infllammable Japanese architecture, much of which was constructed of wood and even paper.

"When we're done with them the Japanese language will only be spoken in Hell," to quote one senior US military figure.

The bombing offensive culminated in the terrible fire raids on Tokyo and of course the atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Meanwhile, in Germany against their caucasian and teutonic kith and kin, the Americans were far more circumspect.

Why?

I don't think that's entirely accurate. They actually weren't that accurate in Europe. The idea of precision bombing from altitude is a bit of myth. One that the public were sold at the time, but wasn't really true. The allies had realised that as the war went on. They also realised if you destroy a city, its almost impossible to move through it afterwards in order for your ground troops to capture it. Which is only an issue you have ground troops in place. The other point is they didn't have the resources to do such large raids till later in the war.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/October%202008/1008daylight.aspx

Even today precision bombing is often not that accurate.

ejmaztec

Snickers Man wrote: »

Can anyone give any justification, other than racial prejudice, why the policy of the USA regarding bombing Japan was so markedly different to that regarding bombing Germany?

The USAAF which bombed Germany did so in daylight, in relatively small concentrated numbers and against carefully selected industrial and military targets with the intention of achieving at least some precision in the matter.

Against Japan, they bombed indiscriminately and at night, deliberately using firebombs to destroy the generally very infllammable Japanese architecture, much of which was constructed of wood and even paper.

"When we're done with them the Japanese language will only be spoken in Hell," to quote one senior US military figure.

The bombing offensive culminated in the terrible fire raids on Tokyo and of course the atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Meanwhile, in Germany against their caucasian and teutonic kith and kin, the Americans were far more circumspect.

Why?

I think the Americans were more aware of what the Japanese had been up to, in how they treated POWs and native populations during the war, and I don't think they had any sympathy for any Japanese people as a result, so it was no holds barred.

I also think that it was only late in the game that the verifiable truth of what the Nazis had been up to was out in the open, and that had the allies known earlier, the Germans would have probably been dealt with in the same way that the Japanese population was.

Wibbs

BostonB wrote: »

I don't think that's entirely accurate. They actually weren't that accurate in Europe. The idea of precision bombing from altitude is a bit of myth. One that the public were sold at the time, but wasn't really true. The allies had realised that as the war went on.

True enough. At the time the only bombing technique that was anyway "precise" was dive bombing IE Ju 88's and Ju 87's on the German side, Helldivers and Skuas on the US and UK side. Though largely a British invention the Germans really ran with divebombing as a tactic. Ju 87 Stuka pilots were expected to be able to hit within a 10 metre zone on a target and the better pilots could get closer than that. They were light bombers* with light bomb loads though and more tactical than strategic in design and like all bombers vulnerable to enemy fighters.




*The Ju 88 was originally designed as a heavier dive bomber carrying heavier payloads, but airframe stresses caused them to dial back on that and come in at shallower angles(compared to the up to 90 degree dive of the 87) so accuracy was compromised.

Wibbs

ejmaztec wrote: »

I also think that it was only late in the game that the verifiable truth of what the Nazis had been up to was out in the open, and that had the allies known earlier, the Germans would have probably been dealt with in the same way that the Japanese population was.

I'm not so sure E. For a start it was fairly well known and known early enough among the rank and file of the German atrocities, particularly in the east. It was well known that Jews and others were being viciously targetted. US newspapers were covering the concentration/extermination camps pretty early on. Maybe the sheer horror at the reality of it came later, but it wasn't a secret by any means.

Secondly, the largest diaspora in the US wasn't Irish or Italian it was German. German was quite the common language in the US before WW1. Add in the huge Irish diaspora who would have had little love for England and support wouldn't have been that great for getting involved. Before Pearl Harbor many Americans while being somewhat sympathetic about what was happening in Europe, were also pretty big into isolationism. I would say myself that race did come into it. The Germans although enemies were also seen more as "one of us", like has been mentioned the racial cartooning of the Japanese was damned strong and I can't recall ever seeing similar about Germans.

Thirdly the Germans did suffer quite the casualty loss during the war and one often forgotten about today after the war was over. A couple of million never came home after hostilities were officially over. Men and women and children, civilian and POW's. It was a war where no nation involved came out clean of blood.

Reekwind

ejmaztec wrote: »

I also think that it was only late in the game that the verifiable truth of what the Nazis had been up to was out in the open, and that had the allies known earlier, the Germans would have probably been dealt with in the same way that the Japanese population was.

They were. Yes, Tokyo may have been a largely wooden city but the quantity of bombs dropped on Hamburg (1943) still killed 40,000 people in an horrific firestorm that melted tarmac roads and copper roofs

ejmaztec

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm not so sure E. For a start it was fairly well known and known early enough among the rank and file of the German atrocities, particularly in the east. It was well known that Jews and others were being viciously targetted. US newspapers were covering the concentration/extermination camps pretty early on. Maybe the sheer horror at the reality of it came later, but it wasn't a secret by any means.

Secondly, the largest diaspora in the US wasn't Irish or Italian it was German. German was quite the common language in the US before WW1. Add in the huge Irish diaspora who would have had little love for England and support wouldn't have been that great for getting involved. Before Pearl Harbor many Americans while being somewhat sympathetic about what was happening in Europe, were also pretty big into isolationism. I would say myself that race did come into it. The Germans although enemies were also seen more as "one of us", like has been mentioned the racial cartooning of the Japanese was damned strong and I can't recall ever seeing similar about Germans.

Thirdly the Germans did suffer quite the casualty loss during the war and one often forgotten about today after the war was over. A couple of million never came home after hostilities were officially over. Men and women and children, civilian and POW's. It was a war where no nation involved came out clean of blood.

Reekwind wrote: »

They were. Yes, Tokyo may have been a largely wooden city but the quantity of bombs dropped on Hamburg (1943) still killed 40,000 people in an horrific firestorm that melted tarmac roads and copper roofs

Ah well, that's my theory firebombed.:(

GenPol

I just wanted to point out that the 442nd Infantry Regiment was composed entirely of Japanese American volounteers, and was one of if not the most decorated American regiment serving in Europe, earning 8 Presidential Unit citations, 21 Medals of Honor, and a record number of Purple Hearts. It was also a Japanese-American unit that liberated the concentration camp at Dachau.

The treatment of Japanese Americans during WWII was awful, no doubt, but it's important to remember the other stuff as well.

BostonB

Wibbs wrote: »

True enough. At the time the only bombing technique that was anyway "precise" was dive bombing IE Ju 88's and Ju 87's on the German side, Helldivers and Skuas on the US and UK side. Though largely a British invention the Germans really ran with divebombing as a tactic. Ju 87 Stuka pilots were expected to be able to hit within a 10 metre zone on a target and the better pilots could get closer than that. They were light bombers* with light bomb loads though and more tactical than strategic in design and like all bombers vulnerable to enemy fighters. ....

Even in the Vietnam war bombing still wasn't that accurate, bombs went everywhere, and F105's suffered terrible losses in ground attack again dive bombing to get accuracy. Even in the Falklands accuracy was quite poor unless delivered close in, which again resulted in losses.

For all the political theories, you can't escape the practical limitations of the technology involved.

BostonB

Reekwind wrote: »

They were. Yes, Tokyo may have been a largely wooden city but the quantity of bombs dropped on Hamburg (1943) still killed 40,000 people in an horrific firestorm that melted tarmac roads and copper roofs

They'd tried to do that before in other raids in Germany but hadn't succeeded. A number of things came together to make those Dresden and Hamburg raids particularly destructive.

http://www.onlinemilitaryeducation.org/posts/10-most-devastating-bombing-campaigns-of-wwii/