Allied Morality Questioned in Bombing of German Cities

[Boris Godunov]

Even Churchill expressed horror at the results of Dresden. Incinerating 200,000+ civilians was morally wrong. You can't defend Dresden as anything but terror--it was not a strategic city, military target or industrial center. It was an old world city packed with refuges, that's all.

Questioning Allied bombing is just, because, as DanS points out, it is leading us to take far greater care in targeting. Slaughtering civilians is not acceptable if one is going to claim a moral high ground in a war, which indeed we were in WW2. How could we say that we are fighting to protect the world from totalitarian regimes that commit murder and then go out and commit murder to stop them? What would the difference be, then?

No one is saying the actions of the Nazis or the IJA weren't horrible and worse by comparison. But that does not excuse murdering innocent civilians for the sake of terrorizing the populace.

The Germans, Japanese got exactly what they deserved.

A dispicable notion. Tell me what the thousands of women and children of Dresden did to deserve being incinerated by firebombs.

[Boris Godunov]

AFAIK, the German bomb that hit the cathedral in London was released by accident due to a mechanical glitch in the bomber. It certainly was not an official target.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Even Churchill expressed horror at the results of Dresden. Incinerating 200,000+ civilians was morally wrong. You can't defend Dresden as anything but terror--it was not a strategic city, military target or industrial center. It was an old world city packed with refuges, that's all.

With Dreden the Brits were telling Hitler "We can burn your cities too so leave ours alone". Of course by then the genie was out of the bottle and it was to late to stop the bombing of cities.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
A dispicable notion. Tell me what the thousands of women and children of Dresden did to deserve being incinerated by firebombs.

Voted for Hilter, They knew what He and his party
stood for.

Sang "Bombs on England", worked in factories making war materials. Called Hilter "Lord of Battle". Supplied Hilter with men, money and weapons. Danced in the streets when Paris fell. Joined and worked for the Hilter youth.

The children paid for their parents hatred and greed.

It's stupid to try and sanatizie war, it's a dirty ruthless
disaster. Thats why you don't start a war, anyone
who does deserves all the pain and suffering they get.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Oerdin


With Dreden the Brits were telling Hitler "We can burn your cities too so leave ours alone". Of course by then the genie was out of the bottle and it was to late to stop the bombing of cities.

Bull****. Dresden was bombed in February 1945, well after the Germans had been defeated in the Battle of Britain and were incapable of bombing British cities.

It was done at a time when Germany was already on its knees and everyone knew they were doomed. And it didn't further Allied objectives one damned bit.

[Vanguard]

Mass killing of civilians was a result of decentralization of wartime industries by the Japanese.

This was just the rationalization. The real reason for bombing cities in WW2 was the fact that high altitude bombers couldn't hit anything smaller than a city. And the commanders of the Allied air forces wanted high altitude bombers because ground support missions made it seem like they were mere assistants to the ground generals.

Since they had a built in reason to believe in the effectiveness of strategic bombing anyway, the air force chiefs willingly believed their own unconfirmable claims of the effectiveness of their efforts. When they were, in fact, achieving very little of strategic importance.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ozz
Voted for Hilter, They knew what He and his party
stood for.

First, Hitler and the Nazis never received majority electoral support in Germany. There were millions of Germans who never supported Hitler or his regime.

Second, what Hitler "stood for" to those who did support him was a return of German pride after the humiliating and unfair Versailles treaty of WW1. Britain and France had crippled Germany's economy and were largely responsible for Hitler's rise in the first place.

They were bitter, and understandably so. This misperception that all Hitler stood for was hate is wrong. Germans supported Hitler because he gave them hope. They did not forsee what his demonic side would lead to.

The children paid for their parents hatred and greed.

And you think it's okay to kill children because their government acts wrongly? That's immoral.

It's stupid to try and sanatizie war, it's a dirty ruthless
disaster. Thats why you don't start a war, anyone
who does deserves all the pain and suffering they get.

Nobody is sanitizing war. That's not what it is about. You also can't say the ends justifies the means (although Dresden had no ends anyway), as that makes you no better than the enemy in moral terms.

And the civilians do not deserve pain and suffering for a war their government began. Your lumping them all together with collective guilt is appalling.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ozz


Voted for Hilter, They knew what He and his party
stood for.

Sang "Bombs on England", worked in factories making war materials. Called Hilter "Lord of Battle". Supplied Hilter with men, money and weapons. Danced in the streets when Paris fell. Joined and worked for the Hilter youth.

The children paid for their parents hatred and greed.

It's stupid to try and sanatizie war, it's a dirty ruthless
disaster. Thats why you don't start a war, anyone
who does deserves all the pain and suffering they get.

While I agree with the position that the bombing had reason, I kind of cringed when I read this post as it reminded me all too much of the BS espoused by UBL saying that the US or its allies (read non-Islamics) civilians are culpable and thereby are legit targets.

I still hold by the use of this type of attack is valid only when it draws a conclusion to hostilities and thereby saves (in the future) more innocents than it hurts. In UBL's case he has simply harmed/killed innocents for the sole purpose of harming folks and instead has unified resolve against him. If additional attacks are forthcoming they will be piecemeal (including the potential of WMD) and will only serve as murder rather than as a means to end murder. It all comes down to application of overwhelming force in this case the allies were in a position to deliver it and spare future casualties both military and civilian.

The last part of your quote I have no issue with. War is inherently amoral and to try to apply moral judgments against it will indict all parties involved.

[DanS]

Please note that even though I think it's fair to question the morality of these bombings, I'm not shedding a tear for the Japanese in Tokyo or the Germans in Dresden. No self-flagellation here.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov Second, what Hitler "stood for" to those who did support him was a return of German pride after the humiliating and unfair Versailles treaty of WW1. Britain and France had crippled Germany's economy and were largely responsible for Hitler's rise in the first place.

They were bitter, and understandably so. This misperception that all Hitler stood for was hate is wrong. Germans supported Hitler because he gave them hope. They did not forsee what his demonic side would lead to.

And the civilians do not deserve pain and suffering for a war their government began. Your lumping them all together with collective guilt is appalling.

They LOST WW1, what are the allies who they assaulted
expected to do throw them a birthady party? Hilter stood for exactly the same greed and oppression that
caused WW1. The germans wanted round 2 and started
it up again, well knowning the Horror they were unleasing on the world.

Quit making excuses for Germany, the greedy,ruthless
society they had is inexcuseable especiall y after WW1.

Collective guilt, yes, cause the other way it all comes
down to Hilter's totally responsible, " I was ordered to" is not a valid excuse"


!

[Gatekeeper]

Isn't this debate sort of misleading, in the sense that we're applying 2002 sensibilities — and are a two, sometimes three, generations removed from 1939-1945 — to a point in time when "being nice" was the last thing on anyone's mind?

Time allows one to look back critically, IMHO, but it can also cloud our ability to "understand" what was going through the minds of people back then. The "moral superiority" of succeeding generations, when they look back on their predecessors, can make for it's own sort of trouble, IMHO. (And this has ramifications far beyond the bloody arena of war.)

Gatekeeper

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
AFAIK, the German bomb that hit the cathedral in London was released by accident due to a mechanical glitch in the bomber. It certainly was not an official target.

So what excuse the other fifteen?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ozz
They LOST WW1, what are the allies who they assaulted
expected to do throw them a birthady party? Hilter stood for exactly the same greed and oppression that
caused WW1. The germans wanted round 2 and started
it up again, well knowning the Horror they were unleasing on the world.

Ok, so you don't know history. Germany was no worse than the other European powers of WW1, and they were certainly no less culpable. WW1 was a war fought by all of Europe and all the powers involved had their selfish interests at heart.

To say that Germany lost therefore it is the villain of WW1 is laughably revisionist. And remember that the Allies declared war on Germany first in WW1. So there goes your "assault" nonsense.

And the peace was inexcusably harsh. You think that victory in a war gives the victors the right to impose a crippling punishment? Do you have any idea what Germany went through because of it? Does the death of a million people by starvation mean anything to you? Wilson had pleaded with them to make a lighter peace deal, but to no avail. Had Britain and France not been vindictive, the conditions allowing Hitler's rise would not have happened.

Quit making excuses for Germany, the greedy,ruthless
society they had is inexcuseable especiall y after WW1.

Wrong again. First, German society was no more greedy or ruthless than other European societies of the time. They existed under harsh conditions that allowed Hitler to seize power. It could have happened in any European society under the same strain.

Second, your racism against Germans is pretty apparent. No one needs to "make excuses" for Germans, because as a people they have nothing to be excused, not any more so than the British, French, Russians, Turks, Americans, etc. Nobody is making excuses for the Nazi Government and its horrendous policies. But saying German civilians deserved to die for the acts of their government is barbarous. That's like saying I deserve to die if the Bush administration invades Iraq, when there is no way of you knowing if I participate in or even support said invasion.

Collective guilt, yes, cause the other way it all comes
down to Hilter's totally responsible, " I was ordered to" is not a valid excuse"

No, it comes down to holding those who actually did something responsible and not blaming those who didn't do anything wrong. I doubt you'd like to be held collectively guilty for the unjust and immoral acts of your country's government.

We're talking women and children civilians here, not concentration camp guards.

Saying they deserved to die for things they didn't do is immoral, period. It was the same rationale the Nazis used for exterminating people. They believed the Jews had conspired against Germany in years past, so they all deserved what they got. And you know what, it's a dispicable attitude no matter who uses it.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Isn't this debate sort of misleading, in the sense that we're applying 2002 sensibilities — and are a two, sometimes three, generations removed from 1939-1945 — to a point in time when "being nice" was the last thing on anyone's mind?

Time allows one to look back critically, IMHO, but it can also cloud our ability to "understand" what was going through the minds of people back then. The "moral superiority" of succeeding generations, when they look back on their predecessors, can make for it's own sort of trouble, IMHO. (And this has ramifications far beyond the bloody arena of war.)

Gatekeeper

Very true. Nice post, Gatekeeper.

And the rest of ya'll need to calm down. Looking for moral behavior in a war is like looking for crack at Whitney Houston's house. You aren't going to find it.

[DanS]

"Ok, so you don't know history."

WWI was due to Germany's negligence. Their attack was contingent on a guarantee that they had no business making, with end points that were or should have been foreseeable.