Allied Morality Questioned in Bombing of German Cities

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
The bombing was morally wrong, ever so glad the US saved our asses by doing it.

Exactly.

War is a fundamental evil, one of the greatest moral wrongs of all, in any of it's forms. Unfortunately, sometimes the alternatives forced upon you by would be enemies are worse. So pile on the bastards and break 'em as fast as possible, by whatever means are necessary and effective.

[Dauphin]

The bombing of the church was indiscriminate. The target was in Rochester, the bombs were dropped in London, 25 miles away.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Sorry, I do know, I was making a point.

The numbers was trivial compared to the 8 RAF pilots who died on the raid.

The British raids on Dresden and Berlin ended up being sure genious. In retaliation the Germans stopped attacking military targets and wasted all their planes attacking civilians ones. This gave the Brits time to rebuild their radar & air defenses plus it polarized the people against Hitler's war machine where as before many wanted to seek terms.

[Ramo]

The bombing of the church was indiscriminate. The target was in Rochester, the bombs were dropped in London, 25 miles away.

I was under the impression that the target aircraft factory was in the outskirts of London.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ramo
The mass-killing of innocent civilians, such as in the fire-bombings of Tokyo, Hamburg, and Dresden, are absolutely inexusable. Besides, more likely than not, all you're doing is hardening civilian morale and thirst for revenge (i.e. the bombing of London). Sometimes terror works, such as with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it generally fails, and is always wrong.

Mass killing of civilians was a result of decentralization of wartime industries by the Japanese. While everyone whines about Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (among many others - Yokohama, Yokosuka, Osaka, Nagoya, Kobe, Sendai, Fukushima, Niigata and more were all heavily hit, people tend to forget that the US completely exlcuded four cities from bombing because the Japanese did not put military industries there - Nikko, Kamakura, Nara, and Kyoto were all restricted areas which the US did not bomb, for both humanitarian and cultural reasons.

This despite the fact that the highest levels of US command knew about the systematic execution of 200 civilian construction workers on Wake Island, from the very beginning of the war, and many other atrocities committed by the IJA and Kenpeitai everywhere that was occupied by Imperial Japan.

[David Floyd]

So pile on the bastards and break 'em as fast as possible, by whatever means are necessary and effective.

Ah, but the German civilians were by no means "bastards". They were in the same situation as Americans - being forced to fight people who were not THEIR enemies, but rather enemies of their country's political leadership.

Murdering these people was wrong - of course, that should be a redundant statement, because murder is always wrong.

[Dauphin]

I was under the impression that the target aircraft factory was in the outskirts of London.

Recheck and look at map.

[Ramo]

Mass killing of civilians was a result of decentralization of wartime industries by the Japanese. While everyone whines about Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (among many others - Yokohama, Yokosuka, Osaka, Nagoya, Kobe, Sendai, Fukushima, Niigata and more were all heavily hit, people tend to forget that the US completely exlcuded four cities from bombing because the Japanese did not put military industries there - Nikko, Kamakura, Nara, and Kyoto were all restricted areas which the US did not bomb, for both humanitarian and cultural reasons.

Are you trying to tell me that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not to terrorize the Japanese into ending the war, but simply to destroy Japan's industrial base?

This despite the fact that the highest levels of US command knew about the systematic execution of 200 civilian construction workers on Wake Island, from the very beginning of the war, and many other atrocities committed by the IJA and Kenpeitai everywhere that was occupied by Imperial Japan.

The atrocities of the Japanese (i.e. in Nanjing) don't justify anything.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Ah, but the German civilians were by no means "bastards". They were in the same situation as Americans - being forced to fight people who were not THEIR enemies, but rather enemies of their country's political leadership.

Murdering these people was wrong - of course, that should be a redundant statement, because murder is always wrong.

Yet another whiny leftist rant. What would have happened if Hitler and his friends would have gotten their way? Of course innocent people got hurt during a war. Only a fool would think other wise. The real question is did the allies do more harm then the facists would have done if they weren't stopped?

At the end of the day even a whining leftest would have to agree that the Allies weren't as bad as Hitler.

[Ramo]

David isn't a leftist.

Recheck and look at map.

My bad; actually it was an airfield. But my source still says it was in the outskirts of London.

[Dauphin]

Is it no more specific than that?

[Dauphin]

actually it was an airfield

It was a flying boat factory.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ramo
David isn't a leftist.

He sure sounded like one. He cried so much I felt like I should have gotten him a cleanex.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ramo
The atrocities of the Japanese (i.e. in Nanjing) don't justify anything.

No they don't, and if there is a way to force Japan to surrender right away without resorting to extreme violence, I am all for it. Unfortunately, the longer it would take for Japan to decide, the more people the IJA would have systematically murdered in occupied territories.

[Ramo]

Unfortunately, the longer it would take for Japan to decide, the more people the IJA would have systematically murdered in occupied territories.

That's true. And the more people living under Japanese control would starve. And if they didn't surrender, many more would die with an invasion of the home islands.

Which is why I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. However, it should've been preceded by a casualty-less demonstration to the Japanese leaders. It's true that we had only two bombs, but it was not justified that a second bomb was dropped before the Japanese had a chance to realize what was going on.

Is it no more specific than that?

Nope...