I am well aware of that. In scholar’s level, they tend to accept the atrocity was committed on both sides;they can discuss in a cool headed way. In general opinions among public, “Japan the evil who tried to conquer the world and the ally the savor who tried to save the world” is the common conception. Japan committed atrocity for sure, but that is the only one side of the story.
Initially I didn’t really care how non-Japanese evaluate the incident during World war Ⅱ. When some Japanese person brought up the topic concerning this issue , I rather stopped it, saying let’s leave history to historians.
China wants to paint Japan as evil as possible; she has a political agenda. Now it seems CCP is controlling it in the low level. Korea won’t change in the near future. That is okay
But when the US congress is planning to pass the resolution to make Japan make further apologize after several apologies, saying they were not sincere, that has made me want to say, “hey,hey, Amrerica-san, what are you talking about?” I think the resolution , if passed, will ignite the strong dissatisfaction and regret toward the U.S.among pro-American Japanese.

As for the testimonies on Tokyo air-raids, I mean the testimonies by Japanese on the ground. I think you can confirm it : You can still hear the story from Japanese survivors over 70 years old.

I think you are aware that basically, claims that the allies (US, UK) also commited atrocities in WWII are not well taken. Even the use of A-bombs is, amongst the mainstream American perception of history, considered to have been a must, or even “good”- not just for US soldiers, but for the Japanese people as well. Yes, there are some western historians and such that admit that all sides lost their sense of morality and respect for humanity during WWII, but it’s still a minority view.

In Japan, there seems to be an consensus that the indiscriminatory bombing of cities was an atrocity, especially the dropping of the A-bomb. But I want to make notice to you that, like many arguments going on in Japan, it is hardly accepted outside of Japan, and you’ll really have to struggle to make your point.

But at the same time, it’s almost certain that American leaders and the military regards the use of such tactics will not be justified in any present or future wars, so I don’t think it’s a far-fetch trying.

Ooops. I meant “Japan DID NOT make Americans into sex slaves.”

As regards the A-Bombs, this is not something I have looked into in any detail, but the quote above does show at least an official reluctance to avoid purely civilian areas – note too, the emphasis on “worker housing” (and, one assumes, by extension the workers living in them). This is pretty typical target selection rhetoric for strategic bombing: factories, workers, psychological impact.

For the Tokyo air raid, I have gone by the official Mission Logs and their statement of target directive, plus quotes by LeMay. I do not know what testimonies you refer to (Japanese on the ground? US airmen?), and so cannot comment meaningfully on that.

As for the target of atomic bombs.
” the Secretary expressed the conclusion, on which there was general agreement, that we could not give the Japanese any warning, that we could not concentrate on a civilian area, but that we should seek to make a profound psychological impression on as many Japanese as possible. At the suggestion of Dr. Conant the Secretary agreed that the most desirable target would be a vital plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers’ houses.”
plungepontificates.blogspot.com/2005/05/atomic-bomb-section-3-decision-to-drop.html

As for the Tokyo air raid, it seems clear from the testimonies that it was not just small factories that were targeted whatever the top dog’s intention.
And one might wonder if people knew what and how much the factories in the downtown produced.

Overthinker wrote

” Aside from some POWs, Japan made Americans into sex slaves.”

Sorry I didn’t understand this part.

“Why the hell was it that Japanese troop killed civilians with a bayonet without checking sufficiently if they are really soldiers disguised as civilians?”
This is pure speculation, but I would suggest that the soldiers dwelt in a climate of fear and high stress, and some of them were genuinely afraid that if they took the time for a proper check, the “farmer” would whip out a gun or knife and shoot them. I believe I have heard of similar incidents happening in Vietnam.

“When Japanese give an explanation, people tend to think that is the denial of the guilt. When the allies’s side give explanations why the killing of civilians took place, people tend to think that is justification.”
Complete agreement. This is one of the things that makes it hard to talk about. If, for example, I say something like “LeMay chose to bomb shitamachi areas as they were full of shitauke (下請け) factories, and thus a crucial link in the Japanese war machine,” then that can be read as trying to apologise for his bombing of civilians. It’s not, of course (well, sometimes I can be tempted to say radical things just to get a reaction. But this is not one of those times.). That MAY be LeMay trying to justify it to himself and his fellow soldiers, but I cannot judge his sincerity just on that. There are records of the US Army that I have seen that are actually pretty clear-cut on the idea that they wanted the Japanese civilians to be very very unhappy: the bombing of Okayama, for example, elicited the statement that if the future of the war was looking grey for Japan, this should help make it even darker.

“why was it that the US headquarter chose the entire city rather than military targets, knowing the result that women and children would be killed?”
I have a slight problem with the black-white division of attacks as ‘military target’ or ‘civilian target’ as it simply isn’t that simple. Strategic bombing does target areas that are not directly military in nature. Essentially, they work out what they need to destroy to stop the enemy army, and try and destroy it. And that does often include workers in metal or munitions or ball-bearings factories, workers in railroad repair yards and ports, and so on. Unfortunate, but they were in fact contributing to the fight, so in that respect were seen as a legitimate target. The truly innocent – those who had nothing to do with the war effort, the children especially – are the true civilian victims.

With regard to the Tokyo Air Raid (or any other really), it wasn’t at random as such: an area was designated as the bombing field, and the lead aircraft dropped incendiaries to mark out the rough borders. Then bombing was concentrated in that area, in waves. Smaller cities had a central target area. Tokyo’s bombing was thus concentrated on the shitamachi, the Americans hoping this would knock out the side-supply factories, rather than the uptown areas. Notably, they did not bomb the Palace (you’d think that would be a prime target, but they feared reprisals against POWs), or even the Diet.

(Actually, talking of apologists and guilt, etc, it has often struck me as odd that Japanese rightists like to try and minimise Japan’s aggressiveness – wouldn’t they want to strut about proclaiming how DEADLY Japan can be, how much you don’t want to muck about with Japan ‘coz if you do, you get whomped real good? I probably would, if I was a rightist. It is suggestive, actually, especially when read with the various proclamations of the time that the war was for the good of Asia, that Japan was the good guys fighting the oppressive whities [Kobayashi Yoshinori's Sensouron etc]: I often wonder how sincere those claims actually were, and after reading a reasonable amount of prewar newspapers, especially concerning Manchuria and China, I certainly would say that unless the Japanese press wouldn’t even admit it to itself, there was a very real desire for a peaceful, economically-driven, imperial expansion. I guess my question can be rephrased as: Does the Japanese uyoku see Japan at heart as a peaceful nation, or the samurai-ideal warrior nation? [leaving aside any complications from melding the two...])

Honda is way out of his element. Aside from some POWs, Japan made Americans into sex slaves.

As for air bombing, I think we should note it is also called carpet bombing. Bombs were dropped like a carpet. I heard the story about Tokyo air raid from several survivors. As far as they remember, incendiaries are dropped at random.

As for the discourse on the events during WWⅡ, I would like to point out one thing:I have the feeling that there is unspoken assumption;When Japanese give an explanation, people tend to think that is the denial of the guilt. When the allies’s side give explanations why the killing of civilians took place, people tend to think that is justification.
Since the allies were the victor, so far there was little discussion on the wrongs the allies committed. When somebody points out the wrongs on the allies’s side, he/she
will be accused of red-herring, even in the case where he/she admitted Japanese troops atrocity was horrible.
I don’t claim since there is only victors justice, and it is unfair, Japanese troops were innocent; that is as illogical as false—Japanese troops committed atrocity and it is clear from the war tribunal in Japan, in China, etc. But I think it is time to shed light on the wrongs on the allies side, in particular when they want to keep accusing Japan for the apologies for acts during WWⅡ and , saying they were insincere.(Again as I said on another blog, I have an US representative Honda in mind.)

2, With regard to China, do we limit the comparison merely to the methods (aerial bombing) or is it better to compare civilian death with civilian death, by any means? Since it is not the fact of the bombing per se but the many deaths of civilians that is the contentious issue, I would argue that civilian deaths vs civilian deaths is the measure to use. That is one way to judge ‘proportionate’ perhaps.

The Japanese air attacks on China were indeed condemned. At first. Until the general whose name begins with C and I can’t quite remember offhand but he was the Western military advisor to China did his level best to persuade the American high command that aerial bombing of Japan would be very destructive. The 1923 Kanto Quake also showed how flammable Japanese cities were. It would be interesting to find some diaries or something that showed how senior US personnel slowly rationalised the idea. The only thing I can think of is the Stimpson diaries, but I have only seen the last years of the war for that.

Who is to judge “proportional”? I think anybody who examined the event can judge it. For instance, McNamara judged it was unproportional.

People who attacked civilians have a lot to say to rationalize it but it does not mean their claim is consistent with the facts. Interestingly in case of LeMay, he admitted he had been tried as a war criminal if had lost the war.

The comparison between the way Japan attacked China and the way the allies attacked Japan is a legitimate question. The point is one wrong does not make the other right. It would be an interesting question why the allies who blamed Japan for attacking Chinese civilians by air bombs decided to carry out more devastating attack on Japanese civilians.
In the end, And it will turn out that the both sides had dark parts of the story.
I think “War without mercy” by Dower is a relatively fair account of both sides.

The argument LeMay et al advanced to justify killing civilians was twofold: they were part of the war machine by providing labour for weapons etc, and the idea that in the event of an invasion civilians would be fighting as well, even if it was only with bamboo spears. LeMay famously said “there are no civilians in Japan.”

The question I am interested in is not do WE think it was, but did the people who did it think so, and why? Why were these tactics used, and what did people think of them in the day?

Rather than comparing the US-vs-Japan in terms of Iwo-vs-Tokyo, perhaps it would be better to compare Allies-vs-Japan and figure in Chinese civilian deaths, if the key issue is civilian deaths. If country C is whupped by Country J and COuntry C’s friend then pummels Country J….is that a legitimate way to frame the question?