"absolute free speech"

[tabibito]

Hiroshima was selected because of its shipyards. The Kure Naval Arsenal there was one, if not the most important shipyard for the Imperial Japanese Navy. It was where the Yamamoto was constructed and FWICT most of their Aircraft Carriers.

Nagasaki was selected because of all the military factories located there and the Sasebo Naval District was one of the most important ports for the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Both were also selected because unlike nearly ever other major industrial center in Japan, they were largely unscathed.

So much for "deliberately targetted civilian populations" as if the massive dumps of pamphlets encouraging the people to evacuate before they were bombed hadn't already done so.

The choice of targets was not primarily their military significance. Kyoto was not bombed despite being the favoured target - because one man happened to like the place. "Deliberately Targetted" might be a bit of an overstatement (but only a bit) ... Hiroshima was not a significant naval base, though a major port. The naval base was 15 miles south, at Kure, but that had been subjected to previous air-raids. One of the criteria for a preferred target was that it hadn't been subjected to previous bombing - which would have precluded almost any legitimate military target.

see also:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182
https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=49

[rogue06]

Question:

Did the Japanese have ambitions of world domination like the Nazis did? If left to their own devices, would the world have had to deal with yet another power like Germany?

FWICT, they were content to just turn the Pacific region into theirs.

[rogue06]

The choice of targets was not primarily their military significance. Kyoto was not bombed despite being the favoured target - because one man happened to like the place. "Deliberately Targetted" might be a bit of an overstatement (but only a bit) ... Hiroshima was not a significant naval base, though a major port. The naval base was 15 miles south, at Kure, but that had been subjected to previous air-raids. One of the criteria for a preferred target was that it hadn't been subjected to previous bombing - which would have precluded almost any legitimate military target.

see also:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182
https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=49

Many cities were bombed because they were population centers. Just like the Germans bombed London and the allies later returned the favor in spades. But the reasons those two cities were selected was due to their strategic and military importance. If an invasion was eventually required, something that the U.S. dreaded doing in the extreme (look at the estimated casualty statistics on both sides for such an operation), those two cities had to be eliminated.

And you skipped over all the factories in Hiroshima pumping out arms and equipment for the military.

Finally, IIRC, Kyoto was considered but the fact it is on the western side of Japan and not on the coast (much easier targets to hit) but inland also played into it. And nobody wanted to chance the plane carrying the A-bomb getting shot down by anti-aircraft fire.

[tabibito]

Finally, IIRC, Kyoto was considered but the fact it is on the western side of Japan and not on the coast (much easier targets to hit) but inland also played into it. And nobody wanted to chance the plane carrying the A-bomb getting shot down by anti-aircraft fire.

No. Kyoto is a lot further east than Hiroshima. One significant member of the Government had spent his honeymoon in Kyoto. He had enough clout to prevent the bomb being used there. It was Number 1 on the hit list until he argued that it was a cultural site of world significance. The information below (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182) matches what was available from the NASA archives.


Just weeks before the US dropped the most powerful weapon mankind has ever known, Nagasaki was not even on a list of target cities for the atomic bomb.

In its place was Japan's ancient capital, Kyoto.

The list was created by a committee of American military generals, army officers and scientists. Kyoto, which is home to more than 2,000 Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines, including 17 World Heritage Sites, was at the top of it.

"This target is an urban industrial area with a population of 1,000,000," the minutes from the meeting note.

They also described the people of Kyoto as "more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget".

"Kyoto was seen as an ideal target by the military because it had not been bombed at all, so many of the industries were relocated and some major factories were there," says Alex Wellerstein, who is a historian of science at the Stevens Institute of Technology.

"The scientists on the Target Committee also preferred Kyoto because it was home to many universities and they thought the people there would be able to understand that an atomic bomb was not just another weapon {{assuming that any of them survived}} - that it was almost a turning point in human history," he adds.

[rogue06]

No. Kyoto is a lot further east than Hiroshima. One significant member of the Government had spent his honeymoon in Kyoto. He had enough clout to prevent the bomb being used there. It was Number 1 on the hit list until he argued that it was a cultural site of world significance. The information below (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182) matches what was available from the NASA archives.


Just weeks before the US dropped the most powerful weapon mankind has ever known, Nagasaki was not even on a list of target cities for the atomic bomb.

In its place was Japan's ancient capital, Kyoto.

The list was created by a committee of American military generals, army officers and scientists. Kyoto, which is home to more than 2,000 Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines, including 17 World Heritage Sites, was at the top of it.

"This target is an urban industrial area with a population of 1,000,000," the minutes from the meeting note.

They also described the people of Kyoto as "more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget".

"Kyoto was seen as an ideal target by the military because it had not been bombed at all, so many of the industries were relocated and some major factories were there," says Alex Wellerstein, who is a historian of science at the Stevens Institute of Technology.

"The scientists on the Target Committee also preferred Kyoto because it was home to many universities and they thought the people there would be able to understand that an atomic bomb was not just another weapon {{assuming that any of them survived}} - that it was almost a turning point in human history," he adds.

Hiroshima is also on the coast. No need to fly through Flak to get there. As I said, NOBODY wanted to chance a plane getting shot down over Japan and the Japanese recovering an A-bomb (even if the chances were exceedingly slim). It was a risk they weren't willing to risk.

Bluntly, they should have targeted Kyoto and not Tokyo for Operation Meetinghouse.

The Kyoto honeymoon story belongs besides the account of the Japanese ambassador ignored for hours tale. Widely repeated (even by numerous respectable sources), but not exactly factual.

[Sparko]

Many cities were bombed because they were population centers. Just like the Germans bombed London and the allies later returned the favor in spades. But the reasons those two cities were selected was due to their strategic and military importance. If an invasion was eventually required, something that the U.S. dreaded doing in the extreme (look at the estimated casualty statistics on both sides for such an operation), those two cities had to be eliminated.

And you skipped over all the factories in Hiroshima pumping out arms and equipment for the military.

Finally, IIRC, Kyoto was considered but the fact it is on the western side of Japan and not on the coast (much easier targets to hit) but inland also played into it. And nobody wanted to chance the plane carrying the A-bomb getting shot down by anti-aircraft fire.

I believe Nagasaki was a secondary target. They dropped the bomb there because it was overcast over their primary target, Kokura.

[rogue06]

I believe Nagasaki was a secondary target. They dropped the bomb there because it was overcast over their primary target, Kokura.

Weather was another factor. IIRC, the monsoon season was either starting or already in effect and there was a lot of concern over cloud cover and rapidly changing weather.

[KingsGambit]

I believe Nagasaki was a secondary target. They dropped the bomb there because it was overcast over their primary target, Kokura.

My understanding is that part of that was that Kokura had been firebombed the day before, which contributed to some of the visibility problems.

Ted Fujita, the meteorologist who would later move to the US and develop the Fujita scale for measuring tornadoes, was in Kokura that day and possibly had his life saved by the change in plans.

[tabibito]

Hiroshima is also on the coast. No need to fly through Flak to get there. As I said, NOBODY wanted to chance a plane getting shot down over Japan and the Japanese recovering an A-bomb (even if the chances were exceedingly slim). It was a risk they weren't willing to risk.

Bluntly, they should have targeted Kyoto and not Tokyo for Operation Meetinghouse.

The Kyoto honeymoon story belongs besides the account of the Japanese ambassador ignored for hours tale. Widely repeated (even by numerous respectable sources), but not exactly factual.

Widely repeated in even the NASA archives

[tabibito]

My understanding is that part of that was that Kokura had been firebombed the day before, which contributed to some of the visibility problems.

Ted Fujita, the meteorologist who would later move to the US and develop the Fujita scale for measuring tornadoes, was in Kokura that day and possibly had his life saved by the change in plans.

Not Kokura, but a city close by. There is no consensus about the cause for the poor visibility - some favour a sudden worsening of weather, others the fire-bombing of the nearby city, yet others that the city itself had a smoke screen (not particularly tenable but plausible). The idea that it may have been a combination of two or all has been floated.

[tabibito]

Hiroshima is also on the coast. No need to fly through Flak to get there. As I said, NOBODY wanted to chance a plane getting shot down over Japan and the Japanese recovering an A-bomb (even if the chances were exceedingly slim). It was a risk they weren't willing to risk.

And yet - Kyoto had been number 1 on the hit list. Using the selected approach route posed no risk from artillery.

Bluntly, they should have targeted Kyoto and not Tokyo for Operation Meetinghouse.

Bluntly: Nothing hides the fact that fire-bombings deliberately targetted civilian populations. Operation meeting-house should never have been conducted. The death toll from that one raid was more than 70% of that for Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Not to mention - with the devastation already caused by fire-bombing, threat of a particularly nasty bomb was pretty much categorised as "just more of the same."

Dresden was an accident - the event was studied and from that incendiary bombs were developed. It was deemed unconscionable to use either the new compound (the precursor to napalm) or the A-bomb --- in Europe, that is.

The Kyoto honeymoon story belongs besides the account of the Japanese ambassador ignored for hours tale. Widely repeated (even by numerous respectable sources), but not exactly factual.

Widely repeated in even the NASA archives. There was only one voice raised in opposition at when the meeting began for a final decision on targets. The person's argument from the viewpoint of "cultural heritage of world interest" was the deciding factor. But even if the story was proven false (it may be that it was invented to explain why the person concerned had so vehemently argued against Kyoto), it remains that Kyoto had been number 1 on the targets' list until a fortnight before the bombing of Hiroshima. Kyoto was first on the earlier list of targets. The risk posed by overflying artillery posts did not change between the original list and the altered list. Kyoto was not chosen for its military significance - which demonstrates just how decisive military significance proved to be in choosing targets.

[rogue06]

Widely repeated in even the NASA archives

Is that where you also found the story about the snubbed Japanese ambassador? That used to be included in a number of official sources as well.

And I'm not sure that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration would be my go to source for information about WWII. Maybe I'm wrong and for some reason they have a massive archive on something like that.

[tabibito]

Is that where you also found the story about the snubbed Japanese ambassador? That used to be included in a number of official sources as well.

And I'm not sure that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration would be my go to source for information about WWII. Maybe I'm wrong and for some reason they have a massive archive on something like that.

As I recall, the information about the Japanese ambassador came from the pool of "everybody knows that ~." I should have double checked the story long since.

NASA servers seem to have been the repository for declassified WWII information back when the net was first starting to get attention from ordinary people. Probably as a matter of needing somewhere to shove miscellaneous files. Information on the net was very easy to find those days - there wasn't a whole lot of information to sift through. I can't remember what the search engine was, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't google.

Transcripts of some meetings, and a precis or three of discussions between Japanese, American, Empire, and surprisingly even Australian (independently of empire) officials, transcripts of radio speeches.
And one very interesting post war piece quoting comment by the US President that if the allies had lost the war, leaders of the allies would have been the ones in the dock at Nuremberg.

But you're right about limited information - Dresden, for example, wasn't included in those files. Not much of the European theatre was mentioned (or I didn't find it, anyway.)

[rogue06]

As I recall, the information about the Japanese ambassador came from the pool of "everybody knows that ~." I should have double checked the story long since.

NASA servers seem to have been the repository for declassified WWII information back when the net was first starting to get attention from ordinary people. Probably as a matter of needing somewhere to shove miscellaneous files. Information on the net was very easy to find those days - there wasn't a whole lot of information to sift through. I can't remember what the search engine was, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't google.

Transcripts of some meetings, and a precis or three of discussions between Japanese, American, Empire, and surprisingly even Australian (independently of empire) officials, transcripts of radio speeches.
And one very interesting post war piece quoting comment by the US President that if the allies had lost the war, leaders of the allies would have been the ones in the dock at Nuremberg.

But you're right about limited information - Dresden, for example, wasn't included in those files. Not much of the European theatre was mentioned (or I didn't find it, anyway.)

NASA is indeed an odd choice for an archive on this.

The story of the ambassador was pretty much accepted as the official version (except for a small number of scholars who questioned it) right up until the Japanese themselves said some 50 years later that it never happened. But as you can see for yourself, the story is still widely believed and accepted.

As for war crimes... I brought that up wrt to Dresden to H_A. IIRC one of the top generals (Mark Clark maybe) who made that observation.

[tabibito]

NASA is indeed an odd choice for an archive on this.

The story of the ambassador was pretty much accepted as the official version (except for a small number of scholars who questioned it) right up until the Japanese themselves said some 50 years later that it never happened. But as you can see for yourself, the story is still widely believed and accepted.

As for war crimes... I brought that up wrt to Dresden to H_A. IIRC one of the top generals (Mark Clark maybe) who made that observation.

If I recall the Dresden matter correctly, there were incendiaries used, but the result was thoroughly unanticipated i.e. it wasn't deliberate firebombing. After the event - oohh...lookee that. Maybe we can do this on purpose , but not in Europe - that would be unconscionable.