[aldo_14]

A lot of people seem to think that the Second World War was a plain good versus evil, here's same food for thought (this obviously applies even today) : many (if not all) history books used in schools today seem to forget the Allied bombings of Dresden and Hamburg, and the firebombings of Japanese cities.

Unfortunately I don't have any exact figures, but thousands, maybe even tens of thousands people died. I doubt that these bombings had much military value, since the civilian to military casualty ratio was propably something like 99:1. The Allies or the "good guys" simply bombed the hell out of them.

Of course I know about the German bombing of Coventry, but how are "we" any better than "them" if we kill in "retaliation" 10-times the amount of civilians? I though "we" were supposed to be "civilised"?

The same **** goes on and on today, as demonstrated by the aerial bombings of Iraq during the war. How many civilians got killed then?

The nature of war in the 1940s was complete and utter destruction of the enemies civillian population, as said population provided the material support to persue war; the widescale devastation is simply a consequence of having the munitions but not precise aiming.

In terms of 'good versus evil', it's important to place it in context.  During WW2 the accepted tactics were targeting the civillian population i.e. as above.  So both sides did that; there was no other real way to fight a total war beyond removing the civillians' will to support the fighting (in truth, bombing was often counter-productive in this sense) - WW2 was not just a clash of armies, as pretty much every major war since has been, but of entire mobilized nations, and one where the cost of defeat was not monetary or territorial, but the loss of your country, freedom and culture.  i.e. the stakes were very high.

However, the reason the Japanese and Germans (in particular; noting the other Axis nations' actions are less well publicised in mainstream history teaching/media) are classified as evil is twofold.  Firstly, the victors write the history.  Secondly, those nations (again, in particular) performed several morally wrong actions that the 'good' side (the allies) did not (the exception being Russia, but it's worth noting that the British/US cultural history of the war tends not to focus on their pivotal role) - the Japanese places prisoners in apalling conditions and used them as slave labour, the Germans sought to literally exterminate several (Jewish, Gypsy spring to mind) ethnic groups (as well as again using them as slave labour) in a tightly controlled and planned program of genocide.

It's also worth mentioning that Germany and Japan were the aggressors; in other words the tactics they used resulted in reciprocal actions and tactics from the Allies, and they sought to exert rule over other soveriegn nations.  The only questionable mark over the Allies being 'good' is the Russians; in my experience, though, Stalin is far from exempt from criticism on this (not to mention his actions afterwards in the purges and gulags), and the general - perhaps stereotypical - view of the Russian army is of conscripts forced to fight en masse in horrible conditions, by selfish and/or inept leaders, rather than a heroic force of liberation.

But bear in mind 'good' is within the context of war.

[Andreas]

Thanks for that answer Aldo. I agree that during war it is impossible to avoid civilian casualties, but I don't think that there was much need to bomb Dresden in February 1945. Germany had already pretty much lost the war, and apparently the only reason the bombing was made was that the Soviets could speed their advance. Various sources indicate that about 25,000-35,000 might have lost their lives in the bombings.

[aldo_14]

Thanks for that answer Aldo. I agree that during war it is impossible to avoid civilian casualties, but I don't think that there was much need to bomb Dresden in February 1945. Germany had already pretty much lost the war, and apparently the only reason the bombing was made was that the Soviets could speed their advance. Various sources indicate that about 25,000-35,000 might have lost their lives in the bombings.

Well, the purpose of the bombing was ostensibly to hamper German troop and logistics deployments to the east; the Russians had requested allied bombing raids to this effect (there was a line of demarcation established for Allied - i.e. UK and US - and Russian bombing responsbility as well) at the Yalta conference, and Dresden would be able to handle such rail traffic even after bombing Leipzig and Berlin.  The war itself would not end until Germany was defeated wholesale, which is why they didn't just pack up and go once all occupied europe was liberated - whilst there are allegations that part of the purpose of destroying Dresden so completely was to impress/intimidate the Russians (primarily stemming from an RAF comment wishing to show "the Russians, when they arrive, what Bomber Command can do") that would drive a lot of the controversy - there was a clear military purpose in the actual bombing.  RAF documents from the time do state that the target list (of suitable industrial & transportation areas, including Dresden and Berlin, drawn up for Yalta) expressed a wish to destroy communications and hamper evacutation (rather than kill evacuees).

Nonetheless, Dresden as an individual act is still controversial; this is a memo sent by Churchill on March 28 -
"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.
The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive."

Arthur Harris, chief of bomber commands' response was
    "I […] assume that the view under consideration is something like this: no doubt in the past we were justified in attacking German cities. But to do so was always repugnant and now that the Germans are beaten anyway we can properly abstain from proceeding with these attacks. This is a doctrine to which I could never subscribe. Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.

    The feeling, such as there is, over Dresden, could be easily explained by any psychiatrist. It is connected with German bands and Dresden shepherdesses. Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the East. It is now none of these things."

[Andreas]

Again, thanks for your answer. I of course didn't mean that the bombings targeted civilians, claiming that would be ridiculous.

As for the idea for starting this thread; it just came suddenly in the morning. So maybe I should have used another word other than holocaust, but I thought it would draw attention.

[aldo_14]

Again, thanks for your answer. I of course didn't mean that the bombings targeted civilians, claiming that would be ridiculous.

Well, it's worth noting this (civillian targeting) is the primary reason for the good-bad depiction of the sides of WW2 (the Russians being an exception in some of their troops' actions once they were on the frontfoot in the east - although it must be also noted that the Germans launched Barbarossa with an intent of eradicating the Russian and Slavic peoples*, which was not matched in the western european war and undoubtedly made the eastern front even less 'humane').  Any form of military action carries some risk of civillian harm, so the question is always whether it is justified in lieu of that harm, and that's a question that you can't really get an absolute answer for.

*through enslavement and forced mass starvation - the latter to create an agricultural surplus to feed Germany.  Hitler viewed the Slavs as 'untermensh', or subhuman.

[Flipside]

When it boils down to Us and Them, Us comes first, every single time. In times of War, it leads to death. When not at War, it simply leads to prejudice. Each fuels the other.

[WeatherOp]

Unfortunately I don't have any exact figures, but thousands, maybe even tens of thousands people died. I doubt that these bombings had much military value, since the civilian to military casualty ratio was propably something like 99:1. The Allies or the "good guys" simply bombed the hell out of them.

But, the real question is this would that 1% kill a few thousand of your forces?

As Flip said, in War, your own forces count first. True you may kill thousands of civilians, but in turn you kill several of the enemys top commanders, and that saves a thousand of your soldiers lives. And that is all that matters.

[ionia23]

The justification for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki is simple:  No one forced Japan to pick a fight with us.  Shoulda left well enough alone.  They wouldn't have lost a moment's sleep doing likewise, so no, I don't feel the least bit bad.

The general rule is, don't start something you can't finish. The Japanese could have backed off at any time, but noooo. 

[Grey Wolf]

On an odd note, I've seen some documents that suggest that if the Japanese had hit the Phillipines instead of Hawaii, we would have left them alone for the time being.

[ionia23]

You are correct.  Non-aggression pact.  We would've started digging in, but we'd have left them be.

For the time being.....

[Flipside]

Thing is, in a perfect world, if we expect the Japanese not to hold the H-Bombings against the Allies then we also need to not hold Pearl Harbor, Japanese PoW camps etc against them. War is Hell, so why linger there?

[Ford Prefect]

"War is much too serious a matter to be entrusted to the military."

--Georges Clemenceau

[FireCrack]

"War is definitley far too serious to be left to the politicians"

[TrashMan]

I advocate the wholesale slaughter of civillians.

They support the army. You massacre them and the army loses it's workers.

I would advocate the slaughter of you.
any takers? I'l pay 50 cents.

[NGTM-1R]

"War is much too serious a matter to be entrusted to the military."
--Georges Clemenceau

I believe it was "entrusted to the generals."

Leave it to the people who actually fight. In the end, they're the ones least likely to cause another.

[Sandwich]

Leave it to the people who actually fight.

THANK YOU!

[vyper]

There's just so many dangers associated with that idea I don't know where to begin...

[Mefustae]

Indeed, all you need is one prick to start randomly yelling "Let's do the village! Let's do the whole f***in' village!!" and all hell breaks loose.

[NGTM-1R]

There's just so many dangers associated with that idea I don't know where to begin...

Let me put it this way: when you are the person most likely to get shot, bleed, and die, are you particularly likely to start a war?

[Flipside]

My Grandfather used to tell me about WWII. He hated generals and commanders. They'd tell the men where to go to die and then sit safely back at base and count how many survivors they had left to send to their deaths the next day.

He told me a story once about when he was a Radio operator. In those days, field radios didn't go into a backpack, they were your backpack, he couldn't even reach far enough back to get his gun.

One day, he was in France and he was hiding out in a barn, when he disturbed a German soldier who was also in the barn. By all rights, my Grandad was dead, he couldn't get to his gun and there was no hope of running. Instead, in an occupied country, the German soldier surrendered to a effectively unarmed man. When Grandad asked him why he had surrendered, he broke down crying and repeating 'Not kill anymore!'. It taught a very profound lesson to an 8 year old boy who thought war was about Goodies and Baddies.