LeMay was a brilliant Tactician in the Pacific Theater, but basically unhinged.

The European Theater's Aerial Bombing was at the time, in large part, considered Terror Bombing against the German population. There were many Highly placed Civilian and Military arguments (both moral and strategic) against this.

It appears the same opposition did not appear during the Fire/Terror Bombing against the Japanese civilian's. In my opinion, this was because of Racism against the enemy.

Wasn't it also pretty much necessary. Japanese industry was spread around the city, so bombing industry often meant bombing residential areas that were build around it.

As for the bombing of the European theater, it was to some degree effective. Bombing cities and industrial centers did put a cap on the industrial output potential of the Germans. It wasnt a tactic that would end up winning the war by itself, but it did make it harder for the Germans to properly equip their troops.

It seemed clear to me in this documentary that at least one of the architects of the US fire bombing campaign against Japan has had second thoughts about his contribution to the war effort.

What is clear to you bobby is usually not in accordance with the facts.

I think you have it backwards. Bobby is usually closer to the facts, which are often a little bit more complicated that you think.

---

Reality Internet Personality

The true terror weapons were the V-2 dumb rockets. Where they came down Germany didn't know or care.

---

There appears to have been no moral problem in burning Japanese civilians, as there were killing German civilians. Why would that be?

Perhaps because they were up against an enemy that had no moral problems targeting civilians themselves.

Asides from that, people like Bomber Harris were convinced that airpower was a way to bomb their enemies into submission at a relatively low cost in human lives. A way to win the war without having to invade Europe or Japan, without having to send in ground forces to clear out the Nazi and Imperial army.

Though in the case of Europe, there were some moral qualms. They changed their bombing policy after Dresden. Even for the allies, Dresden was a step to far. Which does leave the question why they had no moral issues with dropping two nuclear weapons over Japan.

Which does leave the question why they had no moral issues with dropping two nuclear weapons over Japan.

The Battan death march?

---

Which does leave the question why they had no moral issues with dropping two nuclear weapons over Japan.

The Battan death march?

If you apply that logic then firebombing Dresden was also perfectly fine given the crimes the Nazis committed.

Which does leave the question why they had no moral issues with dropping two nuclear weapons over Japan.

Who said Truman had no moral issues? Besides those with an agenda. The truth, not that this forum is interested in truth; Truman told Japan if they didn't surrender a new weapon would be used. Japan had a Bushido Code of NEVER surrender so of course they said bring it on. Even after Hiroshima Japan did not surrender. Did you know that? It took two bombs and still the generals didn't want to surrender but the emperor had enough. Good thing too as that was all of the nukes we had.

If we had to invade Japan the death toll would have been much higher. Maybe the Allies would even help. Did you know Japan used suicide bombers and we weren't even close to their homeland. I may not be here if my father had to invade Japan; then who would withstand those with an agenda?

It smells like victory.

---

Batter a point of order,

Good thing too as that was all of the nukes we had.

They were not nuclear bombs they were atomic bombs, a quite differnt technology.

---

Batter a point of order,

Good thing too as that was all of the nukes we had.

They were not nuclear bombs they were atomic bombs, a quite differnt technology.

The uranium and plutonium based bombs dropped on Japan were based on nuclear fission. Later nuclear bombs used fission as a source of energy to power nuclear fusion of hydrogen. Both fission and fusion are nuclear reactions from a physics point of view, and bombs based on either can be termed nuclear bombs.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Bobby my point is that fission bombs were called atomic bombs and fussion bombs are called nuclear bombs. Yes they both use nuclear processes but in order to differentiate them they have been given different names. Both are atomic weapons.

---

The true terror weapons were the V-2 dumb rockets. Where they came down Germany didn't know or care.

Incorrect! There is only one terror weapon in any war, past, present or future and that is...

MAN

---

The true terror weapons were the V-2 dumb rockets. Where they came down Germany didn't know or care.

Incorrect! There is only one terror weapon in any war, past, present or future and that is...

MAN

Very true.

And the V2 wasn't the most terrifying weapon. My mother, who was a nurse and lived under the flight path, in the most bombarded town in the UK, said. As it came down virtually perpendicular, it only affected a small area and those killed wouldn't have heard it until after they were dead.
The V1 was more terrifying, it could be heard coming, and if the engine then cut-out, you knew it was coming down but were you had no idea, where. And it could take out a whole row of houses.