Posted on 05/20/2006 8:33:39 PM PDT by tbird5
Deliberately targeting civilians is widely considered terrorism nowadays, but during World War II both the Britain’s Bomber Command and the United States Army Air Force deliberately targeted civilians.
The British philosopher A. C. Grayling, in his new book Among the Dead Cities: The History and Moral Legacy of the WWII Bombing of Civilians in Germany and Japan (Walker, $25.95), points out that the two air forces combined killed perhaps 600,000 German civilians and another 200,000 Japanese. He makes the case that at least by our current standards we were terrorists, and it logically follows that the attacks were war crimes. In an age of political terror, when it is urgent to come up with a persuasive distinction between legitimate and illegitimate violence, it is hard to overstate the importance of the questions Grayling raises.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanheritage.com ...
As always, payback is given to those who didn´t order the attack on Poland or China. And don´t come me with "they voted for war". Nobody imagined in 1933 that Hitler would start a war against its neighbours.
So, bombs on civilians was surely wrong. Was it a war crime? From our viewpoint today, probably - from the ex ante view, probably not. Should those who bombed feel shame? Maybe. Should they regret that innocents died? Definitely. Should they be punished, or do they deserve contempt? He** no! They´re not to blame. They simply didn´t know better. Times were different, we´ve have developed new measures of war, and that´s good.
Michael from Hamburg,
Germany
Whether or not there is any modern anlaysis on its necessity, the invasions were going to happen.
Operation Olympic was slated for November of 1945. Operation Coronet was a go for the following spring. These two were the largest parts of the overall Operation Downfall.
Our WWII losses, though not the worst of all participants, were bad enough. But we may have lost an entire generation of men had Truman not made his choice.
This kind of hindsight analyis is, IMHO, mental masturbation designed to sow contoversy and, in the end, sell books.
Do you think that everybody has the duty to risk his life under oppression to prevent your dictator from doing something wrong? I don´t think that. I believe that those who try can be considered heros (and if they fail: martyrs). So, if we call them heros, then their behaviour must be extraordinary. If it´s extraordinary, we cannot say it´s something everybody has to do. I don´t blame Germans for not standing up against Hitler. I blame those who pulled the trigger when pointing their guns on unarmed, who filled the chambers with cyclon B, but not the average woman fearing for her husband´s life while she tried to escape the bombs or the following firestorm.
Do you think that every Iranian who doesn´t stand up against Ahmadi-F-him is guilty? Guilt is individual. And yes, if Iran gets the adequate response, I will feel sorry for those who didn´t want that conflict.
"In war, you got to beat the enemy, otherwise, you'll lose."
Yup. Today our enemies (and many of them are American politicians) consider an American attack of military nature to be an atrocity, but a senseless, insane Muslim slaughter of innocent civilians isn't even on their radar.
Every day the legions of degenrates dedicated to the death of western civilization grows. And they are birthed in the belly of academia. A region that sucks at the public teat and spits on those people that make their cozy little womb possible.
When will academia demonstrate a sense of responsibility to the culture that supports them.
Parasites the lot of them.
Thanks for the story about your dad. Everyone needs to hear stories like this to counteract the despicable revisionist propaganda that smug, holier than thou college professors, and people like Alberta's Child, try to spread about our actions. These are disgusting people who try to discredit and criminalize the heroic actions of the Allies in WWII, while enjoying the very freedoms, rights, and saftety that those actions have provided them. It's unbelieveable to think that there are so many sympathizers like this around when the facts and circumstances surrounding that war are so widely known throughout the world. These people are no different than the Ward Churchill types around today who try to justify al Qaeda's attacks on 9/11. The funny thing is that if their sick and ignorant views of history were actually true then they would be the first ones targeted for elimination by the very despots they are so eager to defend.
There is only one law of war
YOU WIN IT
We not only beat them at their own game by developing the atom bomb first, we demonstrated why they'd best not try it now or in the future as a retaliatory strike.
Big difference ~
Now,in the WOT, it is the way only ONE side fights. America observes Marquis de Queensbury rules of etiquitte while pursuing this war.
Since we won, no. If we would have lost, it would have been a war crime, sure.
In the eyes of revisionist pacifist the whole war was a crime.
Pacifism is a cancer that eats away the national guts.
Depends on who you ask. I was down south visiting a few friends last summer and I mentioned Sherman. I was told "Hey, you watch your language over there!"
Should we ever see a war like WWII agin, we will be bombing civilian targets. When it comes to survival, "nice" will not be a concern.
Exactly right on point. The problem with these revisionists is that they are viewing history while willingly disregarding the fact that they are completely secure. To them, it seems as if our victory in the war was a foregone conclusion from the outset. They either don't, or refuse, to see that this most certainly was not the case, and that there was a very real possibility of the facist Axis powers winning.
You nailed it when you say that being nice is not a concern when survival is at stake. WWII was a conflict that would determine if the forces of freedom, or the forces of tyranny and oppression, would control the world. And the outcome was never certain. Perhaps if the revisionists were capable of understanding this they would not be complaining about the way it all turned out.
Don't we owe reparations to someone?..../s
"Oh geez.
Bad things happen in war.......because it's war. People die."
Sure, but you can't excuse everything done during war with that quick statement. We wouldn't excuse what Hitler did (or the Japanese in China). FYI, I believe dropping the nukes was the right thing to do.
Times, as well as standard of conduct change.
Only losers are war criminals.
I see your point. Allow me to rephrase that. In war, especially a total war like WWII, innocent people are going to die no matter how careful you try to be. And in a total war you must be willing to do things that most decent people would find questionable if you want to win. The problem I have is with people trying to equate the wholesale genocidal actions of the Nazis, with actions that were meant to stop them. There is a good reason why they say war is hell.
Times, as well as standard of conduct change.
I believe that we may like to think that, but I'm afraid it just is not true. I guarantee you that if we were in a fight like WWII right now, that the so called standards we have today would be thrown out the window if it meant ensuring our nation's survival.
Remember, the very survival of the free world was in serious jeopardy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.