‘Rain of Ruin' Review: Fire From the Skies
The air campaigns have been covered from many angles in recent books. Malcolm Gladwell's 'The Bomber Mafia' (2021) focuses on the apostles of strategic bombing, notably Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, the chief architect of the firebombings. James M. Scott's brilliant 'Black Snow' (2022) balances America's drive to end the war against heartrending stories of ordinary Japanese citizens caught in the bombsights. Max Hastings's 'Retribution' (2007) frames the bombings in the context of the wider war for Asia.
In 'Rain of Ruin' Richard Overy, a British historian whose books include 'The Dictators' (2004), distills the atomic bombing campaign—and its precursor, the incendiary strikes—into a single moral issue. As he writes, 'The question asked is usually 'was it necessary?'; the question, however, should really be 'why was it thought to be necessary at the time?''
The strategy of scorching densely populated cities wasn't the initiative of a single, bloody-minded general of the Strangelove stripe. 'Area bombing' of urban centers—a shift from pinpoint bombing of factories and military targets—had been studied by the U.S. Army Air Forces since 1943. The Office of Strategic Services analyzed Japan's urban demographics to find areas most vulnerable to fire. Air Forces analysts dissected the results of Britain's carpet bombing of German cities, and a replica village of typical Japanese homes was erected in a Utah desert to test the effects of napalm attacks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Vladimir Putin to return to US for the first time in a decade
Russian President Vladimir Putin will return to the U.S. for the first time in a decade when he meets with President Donald Trump in Alaska on Friday. Following Trump's announcement last week that the pair would be meeting for an in-person summit – marking the first time a U.S. president will meet with Putin after he invaded Ukraine in 2022, less than a year after he met with Biden in 2021 in Geneva – several locations were suspected as being the most likely meeting places, including Hungary, Switzerland, Italy and the United Arab Emirates. It was reported that Putin shot down the idea of Italy, as it is seen as being favorable to Ukraine, and instead pushed for Hungary. However, Trump surprised the nation when he announced on Friday that Putin would instead be traveling to Alaska for his first U.S. trip since he attended the U.N. General Assembly in New York in 2015, when he met with then-President Barack Obama. On Monday, Trump said he thought it was "very respectful that the president of Russia is coming to our country as opposed to us going to his country or even a third-party place." It is unclear why a third-party nation like the UAE was not selected. Though the justification for why Hungary was not selected – despite being led by Viktor Orbán who is friendly with both Putin and Trump – could be because it is a member of NATO and would likely prove controversial should a NATO ally host the Kremlin chief at a time when Europe faces its greatest threat since World War II. Similarly, dubious optics could be attributed to not hosting the meeting in Switzerland, which, though not a NATO ally, is a member of the International Criminal Court which issued an arrest warrant for Putin in 2023 over accusations of war crimes. "They probably avoided Europe, because if they included Europe, then Europe would have demanded that they're actually at the table," Dan Hoffman, former CIA Moscow Station chief, told Fox News Digital. "Probably your two choices were go to Russia – which Trump would never do – or invite him here. "It also exposes the challenge that you can't solve this without Ukraine and without Europe," he added. While it remains unclear where exactly the pair will meet, or why Alaska was ultimately landed on, Alaska's senior Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said it was "another opportunity for the Arctic to serve as a venue that brings together world leaders to forge meaningful agreements." "While I remain deeply wary of Putin and his regime, I hope these discussions lead to genuine progress and help end the war on equitable terms," she added, noting her concern when it comes to dealing with Putin. Russian officials appeared to take a more optimistic tone about the location of the meeting when Russia's special economic envoy Kirill Dmitriev took to X to acknowledge the historical role Alaska has played in the Russia-U.S. relationship. "Born as Russian America — Orthodox roots, forts, fur trade — Alaska echoes those ties and makes the U.S. an Arctic nation," Dmitriev said, later describing it as the "perfect stage" for the meeting. Hoffman argued that the location is not hugely significant and said, "What's going to matter is what they talk about. The details of the meeting more than the venue. "No one can predict what's going to happen. I don't even think Trump or Putin knows what's going to result from this," he added, noting there were too many variables to start predicting or analyzing any element of the upcoming talks. Trump wouldn't detail what he specifically hopes to get out of the talks with Putin on Friday, though he argued he'd be able to tell within the first "two minutes" whether a ceasefire deal in Ukraine was even possible. "I'm not going to make a deal. It's not up to me to make a deal," he said. I think a deal should be made for both [Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy]. "I'd like to see a ceasefire. I'd like to see the best deal that could be made for both parties. You know, it takes two to tango," he added. Trump said he would relate the details of the conversation to both Zelenskyy and European leaders immediately following the meeting. "We're going to see what he has in mind," Trump said of his upcoming meeting with the Kremlin chief. "And if it's a fair deal, I'll reveal it to the European Union leaders and to the NATO leaders, and also to President Zelenskyy – I think out of respect I'll call him first. "I may say, 'lots of luck, keep fighting' or I may say, 'we can make a deal'," Trump concluded.
Chicago Tribune
3 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Threat of nuclear war has increased, Evanston peace rally speakers warn
Public awareness is shifting toward the possibility of nuclear annihilation, said David Borris of Chicago Area Peace Action at an antiwar rally Saturday in Evanston. Two major nuclear powers no longer believe that a nuclear war cannot be won, he warned, referring to the United States and Russia. 'We are literally sleepwalking our way to unimaginable disaster,' said Borris, of Highland Park. 'We're not going to succeed in influencing the world's politicians until we change the narrative.' Borris was one of five speakers at 'Nuclear Roulette – 80 Years on the Brink,' a peace and disarmament rally hosted by Chicago Area Peace Action and the Buddhist Peace Fellowship of Chicago at Fountain Square in Evanston on Saturday, Aug. 9. The rally marked the 80th anniversary of the U.S. dropping an atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan, just three days after dropping the first atomic bomb ever used in warfare on Hiroshima, Japan. Sean Reynolds, another member of Chicago Area Peace Action, warned that world leaders are increasingly unstable and a nuclear war 'could end our planet in a tantrum of the elites.' 'We have to understand our species is precious and the threat of nuclear war is real,' said Reynolds, of Chicago. 'There is no sign leaders or voters are giving any thought to seeing human lives extinguished. And the fate worse than dying in a nuclear war is surviving it.' Antiwar organizations need to launch a broad campaign to stop the U.S. from using nuclear weapons, he said. The hope of antinuclear negotiations succeeding is 'antagonistically faint' today, Reynolds said. 'How are hopes for peace possible when our future is tied to making everybody else like us?' he said. 'This is not a drill. We need to stop rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and start talking about icebergs.' Neal Resnikoff of the Chicago Antiwar Coalition charged that the U.S. is using Ukraine as a 'proxy' to eventually launch nuclear weapons in a first strike attack on Russia. 'The U.S. government acts to suppress opposition and beat back competition in the markets,' Resnikoff said. 'These ruthless acts of imperialism are usually covered up by noble justifications.' Resnikoff argued that World War II would have ended in two weeks without the use of atomic bombs in Japan. Japan was already defeated and prepared to surrender, he said. 'The U.S. broke Japanese code to learn Japan was negotiating for surrender with Russia,' Resnikoff said. 'We have the responsibility to share the lessons of this ruthless killing to as many people as possible.' Renikoff led the small crowd in chants of 'No More Hiroshimas and Nagasakis' and 'No to Use of Force to Settle Conflicts Between Nations.' Borris, coordinator of the rally, said the devastation of the two bombings in Japan has 'lulled' the world into a false sense of security. 'The effect of the two bombings was so horrific that the world's conscience has not offered space for another use of such diabolical weapons – until now,' he said. 'We have had the benefit of an extraordinarily long winning streak with nuclear weapons, and it won't last forever. Our luck will run out, and we won't get a second chance.' David Conrad of Evanston led the crowd in a singalong of 'Doing the Two Step,' a song he wrote about sacrificing self interests for the better good. 'It's a dance of believing,' Conrad sang. 'It's a dance of forgiving. Dance to give up your tears.'
Los Angeles Times
5 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: Readers debate the ‘moral necessity' of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings
To the editor: Acknowledging that the war crimes of imperial Japan were informed by a ruthlessness akin to Nazi Germany does not explain (or justify) the choice of densely populated cities as targets for demonstrating the strategic superiority of the United States ('Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a moral necessity,' Aug. 8). Consider the 'targeting' of Uraga (near present-day Tokyo) by Adm. Matthew Perry in 1853. With orders from Washington to persuade the Tokugawa government to open its Pacific ports to trade with the West, he chose to direct the cannons of his warships to fire blanks rather than real ordnance toward the city. While not dismissing the moral questions that attend 'gunboat diplomacy,' we can appreciate that Perry supported and eventually accomplished an American objective without descending into brutality. The same cannot be said for the strategic missions of the Enola Gay and Bockscar Superfortress bomber planes in 1945. Paul Humphreys, Los Angeles .. To the editor: Contributing writer Josh Hammer's argument for the U.S. dropping atomic bombs on Japan skipped lightly over the real reason. It wasn't until the 1990s that the U.S. released its files on how much it knew about Japanese preparations for the American invasion. The Japanese knew where and when, had drawn 15 army divisions there and all males ages 15-60 and females 17-40 joined the 2.4 million civilians on the Kyushu peninsula based on the slogan 'The glorious death of 100 million.' Plus, all Allied prisoners of war (up to 100,000) were to be executed. The Japanese plan was not to defeat their invaders, but to make it so bloody that American public support would wane and they'd negotiate a favorable peace. The pros and cons of dropping the bomb used to be a standard school essay assignment, but by 1995 its necessity was public information and the question became moot, morals aside. Joel Athey, Valley Village .. To the editor: At the time, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower attempted to persuade President Truman that using the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was not a moral necessity. His reasons: 'First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.' I am very concerned about what are likely to be labeled as 'moral necessities' in the next decade. Was Hiroshima supposed to be a moment of glory for us? Steve Wood, Ventura .. To the editor: The atomic bombs may have saved 'countless' lives, but if Truman had dropped one on a remote island nearby as a demonstration, it might have saved another 200,000-plus lives. Dean Van Eimeren, Long Beach
