What do you think?
Bombing Civilians: A Twentieth-Century History
A groundbreaking historical analysis of indiscriminate bombing from the advent of aircraft to the present war in Iraq.
291 pages, Hardcover
First published February 1, 2009
About the author
Yuki Tanaka
65 books2 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
(田中 利幸, Tanaka Toshiyuki)
Japanese historian and political critic
Dr. Toshiyuki Tanaka was a Research Professor of History at the Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University.
(田中 利幸, Tanaka Toshiyuki)
Japanese historian and political critic
Dr. Toshiyuki Tanaka was a Research Professor of History at the Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
December 28, 2024
You tell me a problem, now give me a solution.
The last 2 essays discussing proportionality and target discrimination, and current international humanitarian law save the book from being 1 star. (Australian authors) The essays on the british bombing in the 1930s & the Japanese bombing of Chounging were also good. (International authors)
The rest of the essays relied heavily emotionally charged language and rehashes old complaints about American bombing in World War II. One author wrote on post WWII bombing (Korea & Vietnam), but there was still the same level of complaint without offering solutions. For example “Nothing the North Koreans, Chinese or Russians have done “excuses the terrible shambles created up and down the Korean Peninsula by American-led forces, by American planes raining down napalm and fire bombs, and by heavy land and naval artillery.””
Interestingly that was the one reference i found to artillery fire. There is no comparison to North Korean artillery pointed at Seoul, or Iraq’s firing of Scud missile against Israel in 1991. All the vitirol and hate from American authors is aimed solely at American aircrew.
I had hoped to find a book walking thru the history of aerial bombardment, from 1911 Italy in Africa, the WWI, the doctrinal writings of Duhont & Trenchard & Mitchell, the development of bombing in the 1930s, the usage of bombing in Britian’s colony policing, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Yom Kippur war, Russian Afghanistan, Desert Storm, the Falkland islands, 1995 & 1999 NATO air attacks in the Baltics, Northern & Southern watch in Iraq, 2001 Afghanistan, 2003 Iraq, 2008 Russian invasion of Georgia, 2011 Libya, and then overlay that with both the development of international law to protect civilians and an additional overlay of weapons and aircraft technological development that has changed how the war from the air is prosecuted.
For example- one author wrote about the 11 days of B-52 attacks on Hanoi and Haiphong in 72. (Operation Rolling Thunder II, dont know why they didnt use the operation name.” The author states that they B-52s were doing “carpet bombing” and dropped 36,542 tons of bombs. Counter point, in 1940, the Germans only dropped 106 tons of bombs on Rotterdam but ended up killing 1150 people. The B-52s in 11 days dropped 354x times the explosives and only killed 1,624 people. If you have to drop 354 times the explosives to raise your kill rates 1.5 times, you are obviously doing something very different then just terror bombing civilians. Thats because the B-52s were going after military targets and trying to minimize civilian casualties. But that is not mentioned in the essay.
The last 2 essays discussing proportionality and target discrimination, and current international humanitarian law save the book from being 1 star. (Australian authors) The essays on the british bombing in the 1930s & the Japanese bombing of Chounging were also good. (International authors)
The rest of the essays relied heavily emotionally charged language and rehashes old complaints about American bombing in World War II. One author wrote on post WWII bombing (Korea & Vietnam), but there was still the same level of complaint without offering solutions. For example “Nothing the North Koreans, Chinese or Russians have done “excuses the terrible shambles created up and down the Korean Peninsula by American-led forces, by American planes raining down napalm and fire bombs, and by heavy land and naval artillery.””
Interestingly that was the one reference i found to artillery fire. There is no comparison to North Korean artillery pointed at Seoul, or Iraq’s firing of Scud missile against Israel in 1991. All the vitirol and hate from American authors is aimed solely at American aircrew.
I had hoped to find a book walking thru the history of aerial bombardment, from 1911 Italy in Africa, the WWI, the doctrinal writings of Duhont & Trenchard & Mitchell, the development of bombing in the 1930s, the usage of bombing in Britian’s colony policing, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Yom Kippur war, Russian Afghanistan, Desert Storm, the Falkland islands, 1995 & 1999 NATO air attacks in the Baltics, Northern & Southern watch in Iraq, 2001 Afghanistan, 2003 Iraq, 2008 Russian invasion of Georgia, 2011 Libya, and then overlay that with both the development of international law to protect civilians and an additional overlay of weapons and aircraft technological development that has changed how the war from the air is prosecuted.
For example- one author wrote about the 11 days of B-52 attacks on Hanoi and Haiphong in 72. (Operation Rolling Thunder II, dont know why they didnt use the operation name.” The author states that they B-52s were doing “carpet bombing” and dropped 36,542 tons of bombs. Counter point, in 1940, the Germans only dropped 106 tons of bombs on Rotterdam but ended up killing 1150 people. The B-52s in 11 days dropped 354x times the explosives and only killed 1,624 people. If you have to drop 354 times the explosives to raise your kill rates 1.5 times, you are obviously doing something very different then just terror bombing civilians. Thats because the B-52s were going after military targets and trying to minimize civilian casualties. But that is not mentioned in the essay.
October 5, 2020
The dividing line of the reaction to this book and its major premise will likely be drawn on exactly the lines of people who think dropping bombs is a terror tactic in any circumstance, and those who think bombs are not only the tools of terrorists, but also legitimate tools for the military.
Because the book is written to make the argument that bombing is terrorism, and supports it with historical argument.
It's pretty convincing in the argument.
It won't be convincing, if one is driven to defend the actions of their country without thought, or forced by the ongoing actions of their government to maintain the belief that dropping bombs, particularly on civilians, is something other than physical violence used to force political change.
Because the book is written to make the argument that bombing is terrorism, and supports it with historical argument.
It's pretty convincing in the argument.
It won't be convincing, if one is driven to defend the actions of their country without thought, or forced by the ongoing actions of their government to maintain the belief that dropping bombs, particularly on civilians, is something other than physical violence used to force political change.
May 5, 2020
It is an interesting read. However, all of the contributing writers are highly bias (in my opinion) against all aspects of aerial bombardment. Some of the contributors do make valid arguments but others seemed to be grasping at straws trying to make their point. Additionally, some of the statistics that are included have been refuted (number of deaths at Guernica) for numerous years so it leads on to question the abilities of the contributor.
Read
December 27, 2009book of essays - I read the MArk Sheldon and it is AMAZING work. A great example of comparative history.
May 22, 2012
Just a bit of light reading...
Want to Read
January 21, 2013Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews