logo
Who, Neither Politician Nor Monarch, Executed 100,000 Civilians In A Single Night?

Who, Neither Politician Nor Monarch, Executed 100,000 Civilians In A Single Night?

Scoop29-05-2025
Answer: Curtis LeMay, American Air Force General, in the wee hours of 10 March 1945. While authorised by his immediate superior, this firebombing of Tokyo was a decentralised military operation which received subsequent popular approval. It was called 'Operation Meetinghouse'. While Japanese civilians were aware that they had become a collateral target to the encroaching American military machine, these victims had no prior idea of the murderous danger they faced that night.
Le May went on to execute at least another 120,000 Japanese civilians in the next five months and five days; from 10 March until 15 August. The method of execution was to burn people alive. LeMay's inflammatory instrument was napalm. The politicians approved, but did not fully comprehend. They had been softened up by bureaucratic-speak, and they did not see burning people on their TV screens.
(In that August there was an additional couplet of mass executions; nuclear executions. This parallel military operation was not under the command of LeMay, but used the same airfields and the same B29 aircraft type. Contrary to impressions given that the atomic bomb was planned for Germany, pilot Paul Tibbets was chosen in 1944, and was doing test manoeuvres from Cuba at the end of that year. And there were five cities LeMay had been asked not to firebomb, and did not bomb, knowing that these were 'reserved' targets. An additional 120,000 people were summarily executed by the untested 'Little Boy' [Hiroshima] and the New Mexico tested 'Fat Man' [plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki], with thousands more suffering lingering executions. These bombings – rubber-stamped by President Truman – were arranged by technocrats and military bureaucrats. The American authorities were preparing to give a repeat larger dose when more 'Fat Men' would become available towards the end of 1945.)
In the middle centuries of the last millennium, one particularly appalling form of execution was to burn 'heretics' and 'witches' at the stake. These executions peaked in the sixteenth century. The most renowned perpetrator was Bloody Mary, Queen of England during the 1550s. Her tally, those burned while she was queen, was about 500 people. Unlike the citizens of Tokyo, most of Queen Mary's victims had options, albeit unsatisfactory options, to escape their fates. We think of such executions-by-fire as the epitome of terror. (And we note that some Holocaust victims, in places such as Belarus, were burned in wooden buildings locked by their Nazi executioners.)
It is 200 kilometres from Auckland to Tauranga via SH2. (For an international example, try London to Cambridge.) Just imagine 20,000 stakes, faggots at the ready, 10 metres apart, all the way along the highway between those two cities. Now imagine a family being burned at each of those 20,000 stakes. That is, in essence, what General Curtis LeMay achieved in one spring night, in central Tokyo. (And, as we have noted, he was only warming up. His total civilian kill count was 'limited' because putative victims, now forewarned, were more able to take measures to save their lives though not their homes. He firebombed literally hundreds of Japanese cities.)
Did we remember this event in March this year, its 80th anniversary? No. This literal holocaust was barely remembered, even in Japan. Indeed, in the 1960s, political leaders in the new Japan presented him in 1964 with a prestigious accolade for his supposed sine qua non role in making the new Japan possible.
1945 was not LeMay's first participation in megadeath; not his first rodeo. He earned his stripes in the European 'bombing theatre' in 1942 and 1943, where he took on board the 'atrocities may be more effective' approach of the British RAF. He also operated out of Bengal in 1944, during the Bengal famine which resulted from food being diverted away from millions of Bengali civilians to facilitate war objectives, in an earlier attempt to bomb Japan via India and China. In addition to starving Indians – a somewhat wretched people, in LeMay's view – the American military was willing to sustain huge American losses, eg flying over the Himalayas, for minimal military success. A mitigating factor for LeMay, then, was that he was implementing other people's plans. On 10 March 1945, Operation Meetinghouse was his scheme.
Why?
What was the purpose of this mass execution, this collective punishment of civilians who happened to live in a country that was losing a war?
Japanese civilians were neither fascists nor communists nor anti-semites nor anti-hamites nor anyone else 'deserving' of immolation. Their government was however guilty of good old-fashioned imperialism, and the usual atrocities that come with conquests of other people's lands.
There were two officially-stated arguments used to justify these executions. One was that, as civilian victims of such suffering, they, demoralised, might somehow convince their political masters to end the war sooner. The second justification was that the civilian victims were either workers in factories producing military goods, or were involved in 'cottage industries' which contributed to the production of military goods; this really amounts to some kind of 'revenge' justification masked as 'normal warfare'. And this second justification is uncannily like the 'Hamas' argument used at present by the Israeli government to justify executions of civilians in Gaza.
The American bombing culture in Europe had been more reserved than that of the British. The Americans, including LeMay, witnessed the British firebombing of German cities during 1942 to 1944 – especially in the west of Germany where Nazi support was the least – which had conspicuously failed to create conditions facilitating popular revolution in Germany. Dead people tended to be passive, and survivors tended to channel their despair towards the perpetrators of their anguish. Indeed, among victimised communities, murderous bombing campaigns generally reinforced propaganda perpetuated by the victims' governments. Further, despite calling their tactic 'morale bombing', the British already knew that the morale narrative was false, having been able to closely evaluate the morale effects of comparatively small amounts of German bombing in 1940 upon British civilians.
Overall, it comes across that the main reason for the executions was some kind of 'impunity'; they did it because they could. The more they failed to bring the war to an end, the more they persevered in doing the executions that hadn't achieved their stated goals. Just one more city. And then another. And another.
The impunity argument was augmented by the 'scientific' rationalisations. Applied scientists developing ever more efficient methods of execution would never be satisfied unless they could see the success of their own apparatus 'in the field'.
Sky-executions this century: Iraq from 2003, Afghanistan, and Gaza from 2023
In the last decade (or so) of the twentieth century, most people believed that humans – except perhaps a few terrorists (who indeed perpetrated a sky-execution in 2001) – could never repeat such atrocities upon civilians. Then we saw, in 2003, based on false claims about 'weapons of mass destruction' held by Saddam Hussein, executions similar to those of WW2 were perpetrated upon the civilians of Iraq. And a huge bunker bomb – the Mother of All Bombs"the most powerful non-nuclear bomb ever used" – was dropped on a village in eastern Afghanistan in 2017. (A comment to this recent Al Jazeera news clip says: "Americans tested their weapons on innocent civilians' villages". And see BBC: The Mother of All Bombs: How badly did it hurt IS in Afghanistan? 27 April 2017.)
These executions were seen to be a mix of 'revenge' and 'impunity', although once again cloaked as being part of a higher purpose; in this case the higher purpose being the export of western-style 'Democracy'. We saw in Iraq that the main consequence of western sky-executions – the 'shock and awe' bombing campaign – was the formation of terror-group ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan dragged on for twenty years before the eventual humiliation of the United States in Afghanistan in 2021.
Since 2023 in Gaza we have seen a constant stream of airborne executions of civilians; mostly people who by fate were born into that occupied or encircled ghetto; a piece of real estate, densely populated by the descendants of refugees, coveted by the descendants of comparatively recent European colonisers making bizarre historical claims of entitlement.
The young people of this world were shocked to see that their political leaders were indifferent, and that many were actually prompting these executions; executions by explosion and fire. Admittedly the scale of what is happening in Gaza is much less than the scale of Curtis LeMay's murderous firebombs. But otherwise it is much the same. Our elders, some of whom protested against the Vietnam War, by and large couldn't care less.
This indifference is facilitated by the fact that the victims' fates are simply too graphic to show on television. There is no lack of footage; it's just too horrible. But now, there is footage that's less horrible – though still very horrible – of emaciated starving children. I don't think that those western elites who were indifferent to the live burnings are really any less indifferent to the starvations perpetrated, not by Jews, but by the state of Israel. But the elites are sensitive to the impact of detrimental optics on their ability to garner political support from non-elites.
G-Hats and B-hats
It must be hard for young people to explain why there is so much indifference among their elders, especially their elite elders, towards the sky-executions that appear on daily news feeds (though commonly at about 6:25pm – after two sets of advertisements – on the nightly six o'clock news).
My explanation is this. We put hats (ie labels) on various groups of people. Especially 'Goody' and 'Baddy' hats. Hats labelled G (for good or for God), and hats labelled B (for bad, or evil). Sometimes there is a D-hat; western liberal 'Democracy', the imperialism we most see today.
Following westerners' contrition for The Holocaust, the first people in line to be awarded G hats were the Jewish citizens of the newly created state of Israel. We gave out many G and B hats to various other people of course. And, of course, just about every identity group issues themselves with G-hats, reserving B-hats for distinct others.
One of the problems with the human brain is that it reacts badly to contradiction. Neural pathways short-circuit when we see people with G-hats doing B (bad) – often very bad – things. Most observers will resolve the contradiction in favour of the hat rather than in favour of the observed action. So, if a G-hatted person or institution sky-executes some people, then we rationalise this dissonance by ignoring the action or by presuming that the victims must have been B (effectively converting a grotesque action into a good action). We expect our societal leaders to rise above these forms of neural conflict.
Through this kind of dissonance, we both excuse the bad actions of the Good, and fail to acknowledge the good actions of the Bad. (An example of the latter is that, in many contexts, colonisers and their descendants are given B-hats by the descendants of the colonised; and any genuine achievements which may have arisen from a colonised setting are devalued, deamplified, or disregarded.)
On the matter of cognitive dissonance, for which my hat explanation is an example, see Social Atrophy on the Rise, France24 26 May 20125, featuring Sarah Stein Lubrano, author of Don't Talk about Politics (published this month). She says: "When people are given new information or new arguments about something about which they already hold beliefs – especially strong beliefs – they experience cognitive dissonance, they feel discomfort between the contradiction between new ideas and existing ideas and this often causes them to re-entrench, to double-down on their existing ideas."
Conclusion
Some things are so horrible - including inflammatory executions – we cannot compute them. That's no excuse to repeat them.
-------------
On Curtis LeMay, my three main sources have been:
Richard Overy (2025), Rain of Ruin
Malcolm Gladwell (2021), The Bomber Mafia
James Scott (2022), Black Snow
-------------
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
© Scoop Media
Keith Rankin
Political Economist, Scoop Columnist
Keith Rankin taught economics at Unitec in Mt Albert since 1999. An economic historian by training, his research has included an analysis of labour supply in the Great Depression of the 1930s, and has included estimates of New Zealand's GNP going back to the 1850s.
Keith believes that many of the economic issues that beguile us cannot be understood by relying on the orthodox interpretations of our social science disciplines. Keith favours a critical approach that emphasises new perspectives rather than simply opposing those practices and policies that we don't like.
Keith retired in 2020 and lives with his family in Glen Eden, Auckland.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Countries are making promises to Trump, while leaving the difficult to achieve detail for later
Countries are making promises to Trump, while leaving the difficult to achieve detail for later

NZ Herald

time13 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Countries are making promises to Trump, while leaving the difficult to achieve detail for later

'This is new, and generally that's because in trade agreements you want things that are clear and enforceable,' said David Goldwyn, a former US diplomat and Energy Department official. 'These energy commitments are neither clear nor necessarily enforceable. They're more aspirational, political encouragements.' The European Union, for example, committed to purchase US$750 billion in US energy products — including crude oil, natural gas and other petroleum derivatives — over three years. On an annual basis, that would amount to more than three times the amount the bloc bought last year from the US. The EU has been buying more American gas since Russia, previously a big supplier, attacked Ukraine in 2022, and there is appetite to buy more. But purchasing US$250b a year would require the bloc to use the US as essentially its only supplier. 'They would have to not buy from anybody else, and that would just be an enormous amount of dependency on one country, whether it's us or anybody else,' said Jason Feer, an analyst at the energy and ship brokerage Poten and Partners. 'And the whole premise of modern energy systems, energy supply, is you always want some diversity.' Conversely, US$250b is around 80% of the total amount that the US exported to the entire world in 2025, according to a ClearView Energy Partners analysis of federal data. Plants are coming online that will double the country's natural gas export capacity by 2030, and stocks in export companies like Cheniere and Venture Global climbed after the deal was announced. In the near term, sending significantly more to the EU may mean sending less to customers elsewhere in the world. Even if these quantities made economic sense, the EU cannot compel private companies in its member countries to buy so much. And the US Government doesn't have the power to tell its oil and gas companies where to sell. The challenge of holding a government to a purchase commitment made in a trade deal became apparent in Trump's first term. He persuaded China, an economy tightly steered by the Government, to agree to buy certain amounts of energy and agricultural goods. Most of those targets were not met, and there were no consequences. Typical trade pacts have protocols that allow either side to enforce pledges like commitments to buy energy; they usually even lay out remedies for violations. None of those exist in Trump's agreements. When asked how the US would react if the EU didn't meet its energy purchase target after three years, a White House official said that the response would be higher tariffs. It is not yet clear what the trade agreement with the US will mean for the EU's ability to meet its climate targets. A 2021 law requires member nations to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions 55% below 1990 levels by 2030. In the short term, more gas could help with that by supplanting coal. Purchasing too much gas could end up squeezing out clean power sources such as wind and solar. Before the trade deal, the continent's overall gas demand was expected to decline in the coming years. 'It is possible that it would displace some deployment of renewables,' said Joseph Majkut, director of the energy security and climate change programme at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. 'But the reality is that the EU has very firm climate commitments enshrined in law.' The parties could, potentially, hit US$750b with tricky accounting. The EU members could purchase tankers full of oil or gas but not use it all and instead resell it to other buyers around the world. They could also make long-term purchase commitments that look like very large numbers when they're announced, but in practice are realised over, say, 20 years. 'To do that involves using something we respectfully call political maths,' said Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners. 'Some of the best tools of diplomacy involve ambiguity.' So far, the EU's energy purchase commitment is as specific as Trump's trade deals have got. The framework for Japan, for example, is much more vague. That leaves even more room for interpretation. A White House fact sheet on the Japan deal trumpets a 'major expansion' of US energy exports, and says the US$550b in US investment that Japan pledged would be partly focused on 'energy infrastructure and production'. That is probably a reference to the proposed US$44b infrastructure project that would bring gas from the North Slope of Alaska to an export terminal. From there, it could be shipped to Asia. Right now, however, there are cheaper sources available on America's gulf coast that are connected to gas fields with many years of supply left. It's also not clear how much value there is in signing multidecade purchase agreements when Japan has also committed to reducing its consumption of fossil fuels. The same logic applies for South Korea. It began to buy natural gas from the US in 2017, when the country was trying to phase out nuclear energy. Signing long-term agreements didn't work out as well as hoped: An explosion at a gas terminal in Texas in 2022 interrupted supply, leaving less gas available to buy and raising prices sharply. That's why Michelle Kim, an energy specialist at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, argues that buying gas as needed, rather than committing to a multiyear deal with US exporters, would give South Korea more flexibility as it managed declining demand for gas. 'It's not a good and wise decision to make another long-term contract,' Kim said. If the US presses ahead to drastically increase its exports, there could also be ramifications for America's own energy market. As long as enough infrastructure exists to move it around, fuel generally flows to the highest bidder. With more gas going overseas and powering data centres for artificial intelligence, domestic prices are likely to rise, said Aneesh Prabhu, a managing director at S&P Global Ratings. That impact could worsen in the coming years, since Trump and congressional Republicans cut subsidies for wind and solar deployment passed during the Biden Administration. 'Because of the loss of tax credits, or at least a significant erosion of it, you could have a slowdown in renewables, which means there would be more draw on gas,' Prabhu said. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Lydia DePillis and Rebecca F. Elliott Photograph by: Tierney L. Cross ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES

Call for inquiry after collusion revealed
Call for inquiry after collusion revealed

Otago Daily Times

timea day ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Call for inquiry after collusion revealed

Public health researchers across New Zealand are calling for an independent public inquiry after it was revealed New Zealand First has been colluding with international tobacco giants. Initially, public health authorities called on the Prime Minister to show some leadership and remove the tobacco and vaping portfolio from New Zealand First. But now the Public Health Communication Centre Aotearoa (PHCC) wants to go another step further, and have a full investigation into the tobacco industry's influence on public health policy, and it wants the inquiry to report to the Governor-General — not a minister. PHCC member, University of Otago Aspire Aotearoa co-director and public health researcher Prof Janet Hoek said the aim of the inquiry was to strengthen regulation of corporate lobbying, to end tobacco companies' ability to influence public health policy. She said a recent cache of thousands of documents released following lawsuits against American vaping company Juul raised important questions about the influence tobacco and vaping companies have exerted on public health policy in New Zealand. The documents suggested there was evidence New Zealand First had engaged "inappropriately" with tobacco companies. Prof Hoek said the Tobacco Industry Interference Index scored New Zealand highly in 2023, which implied the nation had been able to withstand tobacco industry interference. However, recent analyses now suggested otherwise, and the Juul documents provided further evidence that reinforced these concerns. She said the Juul collection contained market surveys and stakeholder maps that discussed strategic business opportunities within New Zealand. The documents also commented on the politicians or political parties that could enable these opportunities. One of the documents from August 2018 mentioned New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, in his capacity as acting prime minister during prime minister Jacinda Ardern's maternity leave. "[He] randomly criticised how the increases in the tobacco excise tax over the years contributed to the rise in illicit trade in tobacco as well as violence and thefts in 'dairies' ... using talking points from Imperial [Imperial Tobacco New Zealand]," the document said. "This clearly shows that Imperial has worked to solidify its relationship with NZ First." Another document from February 2019 said Philip Morris International had allegedly "given [a] draft piece of regulation to the government's coalition partner New Zealand First", and the party had "undertaken to put that draft into the policy mix. This is supposed to be secret". Another document described Mr Peters as "very powerful. Has a relationship with [Philip Morris International]. Positively disposed. Spoken out against tobacco taxes. Lifetime smoker, now on HEETS [the tobacco sticks used in Philip Morris' IQOS product]. "Any regulation he [Mr Peters] champions is likely to be very industry friendly and highly geared towards commercial interests in the sector." The allegations come after NZ First list MP and Associate Health Minister Casey Costello led the repeal of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022. It effectively scrapped laws aimed at slashing tobacco retailers, removing 95% of the nicotine from cigarettes and creating a smoke-free generation by banning sales to those born after 2009. Prof Hoek said the documents suggested tobacco companies viewed New Zealand's small market as an opportunity to plant policy proposals and talking points at the highest levels of government. "Aotearoa's reputation for policy-making integrity is at risk unless we investigate these interactions and improve transparency around lobbying. "At a minimum, transparency rules must be strengthened so New Zealanders can clearly see when and how industry voices enter the policy arena. "We owe it to our communities to ensure public health decisions are made in the open, free from the influence of industries that cause health harm." A PHCC briefing said NZ First's responses to these claims raised questions that required further investigation. Last week, Mr Peters said the documents referred to were more than six years old, and the attempt to "attack" NZ First was "old, stale, repetitive and utterly baseless". Prof Hoek said public health advocates supported the call for an independent inquiry. "I think there's actually a real question about integrity of the political process here, and what people want to feel is that politicians are acting in the best interest of the country, not the best interest of the tobacco company," she said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store