IbrahimLumumbaOmar’s blog

Omar Fanon. Patrice Lumumba. Chama Cha Mapinduzi.

リメンバー 柳条湖事件。リメンバー 盧溝橋事件。リメンバー 南京大虐殺。リメンバー 重慶爆撃。

リメンバー 柳条湖事件
リメンバー 盧溝橋事件
リメンバー 南京大虐殺
Remember Marco Polo Bridge Incident.
Remember Mukden Incident. Remember 9.18 Incident.
Remember Nanjing Massacre.

盧溝橋事件Marco Polo Bridge Incident
The Marco Polo Bridge Incident, also known as the Lugou Bridge Incident, was a July 1937 battle between China's National Revolutionary Army and the Imperial Japanese Army.

柳条湖事件Mukden Incident
The Mukden Incident, or Manchurian Incident, known in Chinese as the 9.18 Incident, was a false flag event staged by Japanese military personnel as a pretext for the 1931 Japanese invasion of Manchuria

南京大虐殺Nanjing Massacre
The Nanjing Massacre or the Rape of Nanjing (formerly romanized as Nanking[note 2]) was the mass murder of Chinese civilians in Nanjing, the capital of the Republic of China, immediately after the Battle of Nanking in the Second Sino-Japanese War, by the Imperial Japanese Army.





リメンバー 重慶爆撃。

Remember Bombing of Chongqing.
日本はベイビーキラーだ。Japan is a Baby Killer.
日本は被害者ではない。Japan is not a Victim.
ヒロヒト戦争犯罪者だHirohito is a War Criminal.

重慶爆撃Bombing of Chongqing
The bombing of Chongqing, from 18 February 1938 to 23 August 1943, were massive terror bombing operations authorized by the Empire of Japan's Imperial General Headquarters and conducted by the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service (IJAAF) and Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service (IJNAF). 
According to incomplete statistics, a total of 268 air raids were conducted against Chongqing, involving anywhere from a few dozen to over 150 bombers per raid.
These bombings were probably aimed at cowing the Chinese government, or as part of the planned but never executed Sichuan invasion.[citation needed]

2    Raids
In the first two days of the Operation 100 bombing campaign, 54 and 27 Japanese bombers raided Chongqing on 3 and 4 May 1939 respectively, dropping approximately a 3:2 ratio of Type 98/25 high explosive "land bombs" (98 dropped on day one) and Type 98/7 incendiary bombs (68 dropped on day one). The first raid killed almost 700 residents and injured 350 more.
The pre-dawn attack on 4 May resulted in far more casualties, with over three thousand deaths, injuring almost 2,000 more, and leaving about 200,000 homeless.
The Japanese air raids against Chongqing had become increasingly intense and destructive as the "joint air strike force" of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy bomber formations began to comprise upwards of 150–200 bombers per raid
On 10, 12 and 16 June 1940, the Japanese raided Chongqing with 129, 154 and 114 bombers on these days respectively, 
The Chinese would be dealt with a serious blow a few weeks later in July 1940 when the British yielded to Japanese diplomatic pressure and closed the Burma Road, which was China's primary lifeline for material and fuel needed in the defense of Chongqing and Chengdu.

Casualties of a mass-panic during a Japanese air raid in Chongqing in 1941.

A photograph taken by IJA reporters on 16 June 1940 and published in the Asahi Shimbun showing bombs from IJAAF Type 97/Ki-21 heavy bombers exploding on Yuzhong Peninsula

The vastly improved IJNAF Type 96/G3M Model 22 placed the defending Chinese fighter aircraft, and anti-aircraft artillery at an even greater disadvantage

3    Total bomb tonnage and raids
Three thousand tons of bombs were dropped on the city from 1939 to 1942.[28] According to photographer Carl Mydans, the spring 1941 bombings were at the time "the most destructive shelling ever made on a city",

4    Lawsuit against the Japanese government
In March 2006, 40 Chinese who were wounded or lost family members during the bombings sued the Japanese government, demanding 10,000,000 yen (628,973 yuan) each, and asked for apologies.
"By filing a lawsuit, we want the Japanese people to know about Chongqing bombings," said a victim.
In 2006, 188 Chongqing bombing survivors filed a group lawsuit in Japanese courts, seeking compensation and an apology.
In 2015 the Tokyo High Court upheld a lower courts' ruling acknowledging damages caused, but denying the plaintiffs' right to compensation.