Dresden

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Udet

Sorry guys...but i do have some major issues with this type of discussion.

I will do my best effort to make this sound as "neutral" as possible...but knowing i´d make an awful politician is that i can predict i will fail.

I would struggle to define 'the right answer'

Did the atomic bombing of those Japanese cities save the lives of an imaginary number of USA soldiers? The response should be quite simple: if you were planning to land your troops in the main Japanese islands, oh well, then you bet you were going to have wounded, crippled, dead and missing items. Ask yourselves this: was it necessary to land USA troops in Japan´s main islands in 1945 to ensure defeat of the enemy?

Udet, we thought yes and the plan to be executed in November was underway. Many Allied airmen and soldiers had transferred already with many more planned. Morale was not very high for those survivors of ETO in many cases

Is this sufficient to add soundness to the allied argument for using the atomic bombs? Not entirely sure...as many people have said on this thread, you got to assess the moment and circumstances. Was Japan capable of posing a threat against the USA during 1945? Absolutely no.

Agreed, although unbeknownst to US, Japan well underway in CBW research, possibly at point of weaponizing same - this is NOT an argument for A-Bomb as we didn't know of it.

The IJN was virtually dissolved, so was their merchant marine; Japan´s supply lines for oil and other essential materials was critically disrputed if not effectively cut off. A naval blockade would have had as consequence a group of Japanese negotiators asking the USA government for a piece of paper to sign.

Blockade pretty well sewed up via sub fleets, mine fields and surface fleets from Allies pretty much impossible to defeat at that time - most merchant ships sunk.

Would the USA care for famine in Japan causing another immaginary number of deaths perhaps higher than the 2 atomic bombs? I do not think so.

The American people, if they hated anyone, hated the Japanese at this time - it was 'personal' as the POW camp horrors unfolded from Phillapines and SE Asia.

Let´s not forget the assertions issued to defend such course of action come precisely from the comfort of the bench of the victors. Some sort of automatic "moral highground" permeating everything coming from them Allies.

No moral high ground in frying civilians, even in the name of 'saving lives'..

Now i´d ask you a very simple question: could the same line of thinking be applied to defend Luftwaffe commanders?

What about General der Flieger Alexander Löhr, that right after the end of the war was handed over to the Yugoslavs to face "trial"...he was charged with "mass murder" of Yugoslav civilians during the Luftwaffe bombings against Belgrade (April, 1941).

Putting aside (i) the legitimate nature of the target (Belgrade) for it was packed with Yugoslav soldiers, and (ii) Churchill´s devotion and dedication to falsify numbers -he was the one that made up the alleged death toll of Belgrade citizens-, is that i ask: did the bombing of Belgrade save the lives of an imaginary number of German soldiers that would storm the city?

Post WWII trials failed to apply the Test 'Did the accused violate the Geneva Convention in ways that we (Allies) did not?

What i do know is Löhr did not have too many rights if any during the circus he endured, and was executed.

Neither did a multitude of jailed and executed Axis personnel... nor were some Allied personnel held to same standard

And Wolfran von Richtofen? Was the aerial bombing of Stalingrad aimed to target the units of the soviet 62nd Army (under Chuikov), and large military industry facilities (ie. Krazny Oktyabr) that were inside the city?

I´m glad von Richtofen died before being subjected to another one of those multiple allied circus trials. Von Richtofen was a man not less committed to his nation and profession as Air Commander than Spaatz or "-Civilian- Bomber" Harris.

There were significant differences between Löhr´s -or von Richtofen for that matter- bombing attacks against Belgrade or Stalingrad and those performed by the US Air Force against Japan by the time the atomic bombings were dropped...one comes to my mind:

Japan was already on its knees whereas the attack against Yugoslavia was just starting...meaning the Yugoslav enemy -whatever its military means and organizational capabilities might have been- had not yet been hit by a single bullet.

Adrian - there is no real justification for killing except in self defense, and perhaps depending on your legal philosophy, as execution for an 'executable' offense.

The devil is in the details and many moral decisions are bypassed when inspired by political pressures to 'get it over with'.

I haven't seen any changes in human nature except for the inevitable temptations that efficiency of killing (or precision in targeting) arise out of improved technology.

At the end of the day, I am more inspired by my wolfhounds than 90% of the human race.

Having said this I fail the moral test and believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings pushed the Japanese 'enough' to overcome the Tojo block - and hence forestayed the invasion to come in three months. I believe the Japanese would Not have surrendered by that time.

Both my father and my two surviving uncles had received orders for 're-assignment' to PTO by October. I am very thankful it was not necessary.

Regards,

Bill

[renrich]

Regarding the use of nuclear bombs on Japan. There were many allied service men being held in the home islands of Japan. Any measure that hastened the end of the war made it possible for more of those men to live. That alone is good enough reason to drop the nukes. Read about what those men endured and how they greeted the atomic bombing and subsequent change in the Japanese attitude and I don't see how one could disagree.

[Udet]

Bill, hello.

Being a direct and straight-forward person is that i can tell there should not be any "laws" or "treaties" attempting to regulate a loathesome activity such as war.

Laws...god damned laws are sometimes difficult to abide by in peaceful civilian life...now talk about a bloody war, where hundreds of thousands of men physically/mentally trained and equipped to kill are transported to the places where the enemy is.

I´d be more comfortable with government´s official postures saying things like: "We A-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to put an end to the lessons we deemed Japan required after bombing us at Pearl Harbor, plus sending a message to that moustached smiling butcherer bastard in the Kremlin. Let the world know what we are capable of if someone messes with us."

Believe me, i´d respect and admire that. I´ve been reading about Power, and world powers for the most part of my life now. A World Power reacts and behaves just like a Powerful individual would do in his home town, city or country. From this approach things are easier to comprehend. They have specific sets of interests to protect and agendas to project.

When two or more combatant nations unleash their armies against one another you can not expect any sort of engagement or treaty rules to be observed; unleash your wolfhounds when a black bear is in sight...nothing you say or do will stop them. Same applies for armies during a war.


If the idea of children, women and infirm dying due to military actions in a war is perceived with repulsion, then there is one sole solution: do not make wars...but given human nature that would be like putting rocks in a manual juice squeezer and expect orange juice to flow into your glass.

Belive me i am against wars and any other form of violence; there are many times when even verbal violence is annoying; the very few times i´ve had to fight -physically- it was the final resource, and there was this real bad taste in my mouth i´d feel afterwards.

I am only concerned with truth.

I acknowledge -and even accept- the fact that during a war, you will do anything, absolutely anything within your reach, to bring your foe down into submission; this includes propaganda which might feature both actual and made up facts about the enemy; terrorizing your enemy´s civilians as well as utilizing all kinds of weapons or destruction methods to slam his armed forces.

My problems commence when the notion of "Good vs. Evil" sets in. In a war there is no such thing.

How do the allies dare to affirm they were for Freedom, Democracy, Liberty, etc, etc, when the USSR under Smiley Dzhugashvili was a dear and spoiled business partner? Even an elementary school kid could come up with this simple argument.


From the allied perspective, Dresden was a valid a course of action, and they gut the place accordingly. Whether the main target was of military nature or not is a secondary concern.

Same goes for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

My initial participation here was rather aimed at questioning what i consider critical allied contradictions in regard to arguments explaining why Dresden or Japan were bombed in the fashion we know they did.

Men like Harris are boldly defended while men -from the foe side- who acted under nearly identical circumstances and even more respectful of specific sets of "war rules" got promptly buried.

My thoughts..

[DBII]

Shortly before his death 4 years ago, I found out that my step father's cousin was captured at Battan and held until the end of the war. He never told anyone. He did write several pages about what he lived through and passed copies out to his kids before he died. I was unable to read or get a copy from any of the family members. I know that he was happy the atomic bombs were used.

He had reenlisted to see the Pacific. He shipped off right before the war started and no one heard from him until several months after the war. The only thing that I know is that he said once the guards left and they knew of the surrender, several prisoners stormed the office and hung the Camp Commander.

He went to work for the VA until retirement.

DBII

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Udet

Bill, hello.

Being a direct and straight-forward person is that i can tell there should not be any "laws" or "treaties" attempting to regulate a loathesome activity such as war.

Laws...god damned laws are sometimes difficult to abide by in peaceful civilian life...now talk about a bloody war, where hundreds of thousands of men physically/mentally trained and equipped to kill are transported to the places where the enemy is.

I´d be more comfortable with government´s official postures saying things like: "We A-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to put an end to the lessons we deemed Japan required after bombing us at Pearl Harbor, plus sending a message to that moustached smiling butcherer bastard in the Kremlin. Let the world know what we are capable of if someone messes with us."

Democrats find that a difficult message. It's hard to reconcile a ruthless message with "I feel your pain"

Believe me, i´d respect and admire that. I´ve been reading about Power, and world powers for the most part of my life now. A World Power reacts and behaves just like a Powerful individual would do in his home town, city or country. From this approach things are easier to comprehend. They have specific sets of interests to protect and agendas to project.

When two or more combatant nations unleash their armies against one another you can not expect any sort of engagement or treaty rules to be observed; unleash your wolfhounds when a black bear is in sight...nothing you say or do will stop them. Same applies for armies during a war.

My wolfies are largely driven by instinct, you are right - I'm not sure I am much better - particularly when I spot a reaaaally sexy female!


If the idea of children, women and infirm dying due to military actions in a war is perceived with repulsion, then there is one sole solution: do not make wars...but given human nature that would be like putting rocks in a manual juice squeezer and expect orange juice to flow into your glass.

If I were God, I would reach out and touch everyone who thinks killing women and kids 'justify' the result - and send them all to an arid planet and let the fight it out - then exterminate the survivors. That might be uplifting!

Belive me i am against wars and any other form of violence; there are many times when even verbal violence is annoying; the very few times i´ve had to fight -physically- it was the final resource, and there was this real bad taste in my mouth i´d feel afterwards.

I am only concerned with truth.

Adrian - the eternal struggle for philosophy is either the question of 'truth' or 'where did we come from' - the rest is rubbish!

I acknowledge -and even accept- the fact that during a war, you will do anything, absolutely anything within your reach, to bring your foe down into submission; this includes propaganda which might feature both actual and made up facts about the enemy; terrorizing your enemy´s civilians as well as utilizing all kinds of weapons or destruction methods to slam his armed forces.

My problems commence when the notion of "Good vs. Evil" sets in. In a war there is no such thing.

Killing a kid, whether a Crusader, or Muslim, or Shinto or Atheist does not diminish the atrocity

How do the allies dare to affirm they were for Freedom, Democracy, Liberty, etc, etc, when the USSR under Smiley Dzhugashvili was a dear and spoiled business partner? Even an elementary school kid could come up with this simple argument.

Sleep with the Devil and you get the clap (or fleas, or whatever)


From the allied perspective, Dresden was a valid a course of action, and they gut the place accordingly. Whether the main target was of military nature or not is a secondary concern.

Same goes for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

My initial participation here was rather aimed at questioning what i consider critical allied contradictions in regard to arguments explaining why Dresden or Japan were bombed in the fashion we know they did.

Men like Harris are boldly defended while men -from the foe side- who acted under nearly identical circumstances and even more respectful of specific sets of "war rules" got promptly buried.

My thoughts..

Adrian - I think you would detect my agreement with most if not all of your thoughts? we have no violent disagreements.

[plan_D]

"If I were God, I would reach out and touch everyone who thinks killing women..."

Does this mean that women in uniform should not be taken as a combatant ? What makes a man any different from a woman in times of war? Why make a male civilian more of a valid target than a female one? Children are a different matter; they have no say in the matter - but even in modern circumstances (to a point World War II also) a child would be a valid target if he's pointing a Panzerfaust at your tank, or an Ak-47 at your head.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by plan_D

"If I were God, I would reach out and touch everyone who thinks killing women..."

Does this mean that women in uniform should not be taken as a combatant ? What makes a man any different from a woman in times of war? Why make a male civilian more of a valid target than a female one? Children are a different matter; they have no say in the matter - but even in modern circumstances (to a point World War II also) a child would be a valid target if he's pointing a Panzerfaust at your tank, or an Ak-47 at your head.

Good question Plan_D.

The context of my comment is that in most circumstances the concept of killing 'women and children (and the infirm)' is a catch all phrase denoting striking at innocents.

Back to my fantasy - I have the ability to filter out people plotting an act of violence in which a variety of people will be killed - just to kill. just to make a point or for no reason at all.

I wish them gone - and they are 'gone'.

Haven't figured out how to do it but I'm working the problem

The next one is the filter that catches all the politicians or other folks that decide they have the exact right scenario for other nation's people to behave and believe and take steps to 'make that happen' - zip, they and their replacements mysteriously disappear and continue to disappear.

The next one is for the politicians, religious leaders, etc who don't believe everyone has a Right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness as long as they hurt no one but themselves.. including politicians who say "we are from the government and we're here to help you" - and take steps to control your life.

They disappear continuously until the gene pool is eradicated.

That should tidy up the human race to a reasonable number - probably remove hunger and global warming.

And since I violated my own philosophy somewhere above I probably check out also somewhere in the process.

[renrich]

When one is in an idealist frame of mind it is simple to say that wars should be fought by the people who start them. Most modern wars are started by politicians because I believe the classic definition is that wars begin when diplomacy fails. Churchill was a politician, FDR was a politician. While I have some quarrels with FDR I give him credit for understanding that Hitler and Nazi Germany were evil and represented a threat to many of the world's cultures. Churchill was even more far seeing. Should we then say that because FDR wanted to get the US into the war against Nazi Germany, that he should have been the first to pick up a rifle and go( ignoring his physical problems) or should we say the same about Churchill? I say that those political leaders in the case of WW2 were perfectly correct in sending young men off to do the fighting while they stayed behind to manage the home front.

[ToughOmbre]

Originally Posted by renrich

When one is in an idealist frame of mind it is simple to say that wars should be fought by the people who start them. Most modern wars are started by politicians because I believe the classic definition is that wars begin when diplomacy fails. Churchill was a politician, FDR was a politician. While I have some quarrels with FDR I give him credit for understanding that Hitler and Nazi Germany were evil and represented a threat to many of the world's cultures. Churchill was even more far seeing. Should we then say that because FDR wanted to get the US into the war against Nazi Germany, that he should have been the first to pick up a rifle and go( ignoring his physical problems) or should we say the same about Churchill? I say that those political leaders in the case of WW2 were perfectly correct in sending young men off to do the fighting while they stayed behind to manage the home front.

Couldn't agree more ren

TO

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

When one is in an idealist frame of mind it is simple to say that wars should be fought by the people who start them. Most modern wars are started by politicians because I believe the classic definition is that wars begin when diplomacy fails. Churchill was a politician, FDR was a politician. While I have some quarrels with FDR I give him credit for understanding that Hitler and Nazi Germany were evil and represented a threat to many of the world's cultures. Churchill was even more far seeing. Should we then say that because FDR wanted to get the US into the war against Nazi Germany, that he should have been the first to pick up a rifle and go( ignoring his physical problems) or should we say the same about Churchill? I say that those political leaders in the case of WW2 were perfectly correct in sending young men off to do the fighting while they stayed behind to manage the home front.

I agree. Don't take my stupid philosophical musings for thinking it approaches my view of reality.

The 'Let's all give each other a hug' works only if everyone of same mind, all the time - As far as I know the human race will not attain that state of grace, nor must we ever believe that if we disarm everyone else will.

Still love Teddy Roosevelt outlook on diplomacy

[renrich]

Maybe if we could have gotten Hitler to go one on one with Churchill, we could have nipped WW2 in the bud, especially if they were on horseback!

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Udet

"We A-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to put an end to the lessons we deemed Japan required after bombing us at Pearl Harbor, plus sending a message to that moustached smiling butcherer bastard in the Kremlin. Let the world know what we are capable of if someone messes with us."

Believe me, i´d respect and admire that.
How do the allies dare to affirm they were for Freedom, Democracy, Liberty, etc, etc, when the USSR under Smiley Dzhugashvili was a dear and spoiled business partner? Even an elementary school kid could come up with this simple argument.

Not to break up the group hug , but that seemingly intense focus on Stalin is where I think your argument becomes weak. You might like it if the 'official' explanation for Hiroshima was as you say, but it just wasn't, or not mainly. Avoiding further American deaths in a war the American public was already very sick of by 1945 was the clear major reason. Even if the US suffered very little in WWII by other countries' standards it had already suffered a lot by its own standards. PH revenge per se or anything to do with Stalin were distantly secondary reasons, as was saving Japanese lives, although the bombings had some effect in all three aspect as well.

And even so your points about alliance with Stalin invalidating the Allied cause is actually contradictory to your theory about the A-bomb. In one the Allies amorally pick Stalin as ally as if by choice, in the other the US is mainly acting against Stalin.

The reality of Allied/Soviet alliance was that Nazi Germany was already in a war with Britain then attacked the Soviet Union, then declared war on the US (because it was helping Britain), it's wasn't a free choice among the most desirable ally. Freedom and democracy had to defeat both Nazi-ism and Communism, the game just played out in a particular order; and anyway making Anglo-American peace with the Nazi's to fight Stalin would have been even more immoral that helping Stalin against the Nazi's.

So that's further from bombing morality specifically, but I think your basic read on the war is pretty far off, or very biased, just in my frank but humble opinion.

Joe

[freebird]

Originally Posted by renrich

Maybe if we could have gotten Hitler to go one on one with Churchill, we could have nipped WW2 in the bud, especially if they were on horseback!

Corporal Shickelgruber might be in for a nasty shock, Churchill was a scrappy old gent!

[plan_D]

"Should we then say that because FDR wanted to get the US into the war against Nazi Germany, that he should have been the first to pick up a rifle and go( ignoring his physical problems) or should we say the same about Churchill?"

Churchill had seen his share of war throughout his early years - being present in Cuba during the SpanAm war and serving the trenches during World War I. As Churchill was possibly the worlds greatest leader during World War II; we have a good standing to say that maybe only a man who has seen the horrors of war should be allowed to say yeah or nay to war.

I think for World War II - that makes Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill the only two people able to say they've seen war... does it not ? And in my theory the only people who were able to say whether their nation can go to war or not.

[renrich]

Joe B, I agree plus I believe that Roosevelt did not see the Soviet Union and Stalin in the same light that Churchill did. Roosevelt was essentially a socialist and had no idea of the magnitude of the threat of communism and the ambitions of the Soviets. Churchill not only had some experience with warfare but at one time had been a worthy polo player. Hitler would have been in deep do do against Churchill, mounted and with his trusty broom handle Mauser. American presidents for a long time had some military experience but I don't believe that lack of military experience should have disqualified FDR from leading us into war alongside our British cousins. One does not have to die in order to understand that he probably won't enjoy the process.