Allied Morality Questioned in Bombing of German Cities

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ramo


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?

Nagasaki was an alternate target, in fact fourth on the list, but the only one which didn't have cloud cover reported on August 9th. I lived there, so I know more about the specific history of the city. There was a major naval base (still is, by Kaigun Jieitai standards) plus a number of medium and large manufacturing centers. Nagasaki was a major war production center, so was Hiroshima, which was also a crucial logistics center, as the southwestern port link from Honshu to Shikoku, and a major rail center on the largest trunk lines through Honshu.

"Terrorization" of the population could have been achieved by a drop over central Tokyo south of the Imperial Palace area - at least ten times the number of casualties would have been achieved.

The targets were picked on multiple bases - reduction of civilian casualties compared to much larger population centers, high military value, and not recently bombed, so they were up on the frag list.

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

God, you people are so naive. Chicken**** about "moral" warfare causes the war to drag out longer than necessary - and with a murdering, totalitarian enemy, more people end up dying. Sorry, in my view it doesn't matter whether the blood on your hands is from action, or passive, it's the quantity. The Japanese were pretty much reduced to starving their own people and using them as human shields (i.e. Okinawa), but the Nazis were killing jews and others as fast as they could until very close to the end. Anything, and I mean anything, which brings a quick end to war and defeat of a totalitarian enemy is a net gain.

[Ned]

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

SD, the vast bulk of the civilian bombing was conducted by the British. The US bombed in daylight and used precision sights to target military objectives. The Brits, in contrast, carpet bombed cities at night.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dissident
I wonder if they will demand a U.S. apology?

Dissident, the UK owes Germany an apology, not the US.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Oerdin

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.

Okay, so as long as you're "not as bad" as the other side, you can't be wrong, is that it?

Well, I'm sure Saddam, Bin Laden and all their friends will be pleased to hear that, because when it comes to amounts of blood spilled, the US is about seven leagues above the lot of them even if taken together.

[Ned]

When news of Dresden reached America through Swedish reporters, the American public was appalled. We did Dresden at the specific request of Stalin. We earlier helped out at Cologne and Hamburg at the specific request of Britain.

Get the pattern?

Even if we did not lead the effort to murder German civilians, we should never have participated. Just because your allies are barbarians does not mean that you have to sink to their bestial level

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned


SD, the vast bulk of the civilian bombing was conducted by the British. The US bombed in daylight and used precision sights to target military objectives. The Brits, in contrast, carpet bombed cities at night.

Oh thats rubbish, B17's were not stealth bombers with smart bombs, they bombed in the general area of a factory and hoped they hit it knowing full well they would flatten the surrounding town. You don't send hundreds of heavy bombers at one target. If precison was needed smaller quicker bombers were sent which could go in low level.

The British bombed at night partly because they had less fighter protection on Lancasters tahn B17's did and partly because they had the pathfinder mosquito squadrons who attempted to illuminate the same vague industrial targets as the Americans hit during the day.

On the whole they did hit industrial and military cities, Dresden being the exception

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned
When news of Dresden reached America through Swedish reporters, the American public was appalled. We did Dresden at the specific request of Stalin. We earlier helped out at Cologne and Hamburg at the specific request of Britain.

Get the pattern?

Even if we did not lead the effort to murder German civilians, we should never have participated. Just because your allies are barbarians does not mean that you have to sink to their bestial level

What about firebombing Tokyo, was that done at the request of the british or the Russains

[Ramo]

Nagasaki was an alternate target, in fact fourth on the list, but the only one which didn't have cloud cover reported on August 9th. I lived there, so I know more about the specific history of the city. There was a major naval base (still is, by Kaigun Jieitai standards) plus a number of medium and large manufacturing centers. Nagasaki was a major war production center, so was Hiroshima, which was also a crucial logistics center, as the southwestern port link from Honshu to Shikoku, and a major rail center on the largest trunk lines through Honshu.

But isn't the reason for using nukes in the first place was Japan's fanatcism in defending their territory despite the fact it was ultimately a losing war? How significantly did the nuclear bombs undermine Japan's capability to wage war?

"Terrorization" of the population could have been achieved by a drop over central Tokyo south of the Imperial Palace area - at least ten times the number of casualties would have been achieved.

Umm.. somehow, I don't think killing their God would've done much in terms of speeding up a surrender.

Anything, and I mean anything, which brings a quick end to war and defeat of a totalitarian enemy is a net gain.

But often times the means used does not cause a net decrease in casualties. For instance, the Germans were moving their industry underground, so the fire-bombing of German cities caused relatively little decrease in their industrial production.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Anything, and I mean anything, which brings a quick end to war and defeat of a totalitarian enemy is a net gain.

The problem with this approach is that it embraces the "end justifies means" mindset, which - if accepted - can be used to justify anything, and I mean anything.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Oerdin
This is a joke right? The Germans were the one who started unconditional bombing of civilians during the London blitz and now we are supposed to feel sorry for them when they get their own medicine in return? It is a pitty about the innocent civilians but that is what happens during war time and the German people should have thought of that before they blindly followed Hitler into world war.

First you say "they did it first" and then you go on to say "there's nothing wrong with it, anyways". Sounds like someone is in denial.




And I would also say that the allies are as bad as the Axis. The allied countries have certainly done more then their share of horrible things before the war, during the war, and since the war.

There's no such thing as a "lesser evil", if you ask me.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo

But often times the means used does not cause a net decrease in casualties. For instance, the Germans were moving their industry underground, so the fire-bombing of German cities caused relatively little decrease in their industrial production.

He wasn't talking about destruction of industry, he was talking about ending the war earlier.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned
Dissident, the UK owes Germany an apology, not the US.

All sides fought together, to claim the moral highground on this issue is offensive. The US partook of the raids, and raised no moral objections. At the Casablanca conference the US unconditionally sanctioned such action.

SD, the vast bulk of the civilian bombing was conducted by the British. The US bombed in daylight and used precision sights to target military objectives. The Brits, in contrast, carpet bombed cities at night.

This was a joint policy, the Allies were not acting independently. Things were done by agreement. As the war continued the US exerted more and more authority over strategies - If the US were not content to see carpet bombing then Britain would not continue. Truth is, the US command was content to see such action.

[Ramo]

He wasn't talking about destruction of industry, he was talking about ending the war earlier.

Germany didn't surrender until it was conquered; it fought to the bitter end. The only way a bombing raid against a city possibly means the war ends earlier is through undermining Germany's capacity to produce military equipment, or in other words the destruction of industry.

[Darius871]

But he wasn't talking about 'firebombing' as you put it, but strategic bombing in general. You cannot make the case that Allied strategic bombing in general did nothing to shorten the war.

[Ramo]

I'm making the case that Allied strategic bombing caused a net increase in innocents being killed.