[Andreas]

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?

[an0n]

I advocate the wholesale slaughter of civillians.

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

[Rictor]

In Iraq? Between 30 and 300 thousand.  We may never know, but you can bet the Iraqis won't be quick to forget. Which is between 10 and 100 times as many people as died in the 9/11 attacks. Though I never claimed that there were good guys and bad guys. only shades.

[neo_hermes]

I've only read about the firebombings of said cities, and i see where your going with it. lets' not forget that the Conqueror's are the one's who write the history books.

[Taristin]

You wanna talk about a holocaust, think about Belgium and the Congo in the 1860's through 1900. Millions died. Millions. No one hears about that at all.

[Mefustae]

A lot of people seem to think that the Second World War was a plain good versus evil

I don't... and i'm pretty sure most here don't think that either.

But you do raise a good point, one that has been brought up many, many times, and speaking of which I got an artwork based on said point into 'Art Express' so i'm happy (which'll only mean anything to about 3 people on the board).

You wanna talk about a holocaust, think about Belgium and the Congo in the 1860's through 1900. Millions died. Millions. No one hears about that at all.

They weren't Westerners, and as such, nobody gives a damn. It's that simple.

[ionia23]

When you sign up for the wrong team, you get what you deserve.

[Andreas]

You wanna talk about a holocaust, think about Belgium and the Congo in the 1860's through 1900. Millions died. Millions. No one hears about that at all.

Maybe I should have put the topic as "Allied bombings of German and Japanese cities", and not holocaust. I just wanted to refer to the second world war through that. I am very aware of what happened in Congo back then, and what I said can be applied to that as well. It's the double standard morality that disgusts me.

I don't... and i'm pretty sure most here don't think that either.

I didn't mean the people in this forum.

[Deepblue]

I used the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo to justify nuclear weapons in an essay. I'm a horrible, horrible person.

And we talked about the Congo in extensive detail last year.

[Grey Wolf]

Deepblue, you're not alone. That was a good deal of the theory behind the initial use of the bomb.

And to balance out Dresden, how about the Rape of Nanking?

[bfobar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

If I may, the difference between the holocaust as defined as the genocidal campaign against the jews and other groups, and the firebombings of both Coventry by the Germans and Dresden and Tokyo by the allies, is that the holocaust was a cleansing campaign internally that would have been less useful to the German war effort than say, making all those killed instead work as slave labor making resources for the war effort. I know some were used as slaves, but the majority were killed. Firebombings are a part of a total war campaign in which a country severs supply lines of the opposing country's army by hitting their source.

I also want to just add that I do in no way morally support either, but when total war is declared, annilation of civilians is expected. The morality issues you bring up and we deal with today are a byproduct of propaganda campaigns waged by the governments to convince their populace that civilian annihilation is necessary. It is by no means morally correct by just about any basic definition of morality, but when a war becomes us-or-them total war, there is little opportunity to both survive and act with compassion towards the populace of one's foes.

Of course in cases like Dresden, asking whether it was necessary in hindsight is a very valid question. Most projections show that it wasn't. From this I think there are two important conclusions. Firstly, these decisions are made by people who do not know their outcomes so it is hard to condem them or acquit them of the destruction unless we know they could determine if the ends would justify the means and made a wantonly evil choice. Secondly I think it shows that these lessons are remembered in history through free press so that we all know what really happens when nations go to war.

As for the Iraqi connection you try to make, The U.S. has not declared total war in Iraq. Had they, the whole country would be glow-in-the-dark glass. Civilians die because war planners decide that risking losing civilians in an airstrike is less damaging to the mission they've been tasked to accomplish than sending foot soldiers in to die. It's not the morally correct choice since they know that they'll hitting civilians occasionally is inevitable, but it is better strategically for accomplishing their goals.

I recognis\ze and respect your right to question morality choices of our governments, but I'm curious Andreas. What is the purpose of your thread? Or more pointedly, where do you want this discussion to go?

[kode]

I would've used the japanese treatment of chinese and koreans during WWII as an excuse for nuking hiroshima and nagasaki, if I were to justify it. the really ****ty thing about that is that they don't want to apologize for it.

[Andreas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

If I may, the difference between the holocaust as defined as the genocidal campaign against the jews and other groups, and the firebombings of both Coventry by the Germans and Dresden and Tokyo by the allies, is that the holocaust was a cleansing campaign internally that would have been less useful to the German war effort than say, making all those killed instead work as slave labor making resources for the war effort. I know some were used as slaves, but the majority were killed. Firebombings are a part of a total war campaign in which a country severs supply lines of the opposing country's army by hitting their source.

I recognis\ze and respect your right to question morality choices of our governments, but I'm curious Andreas. What is the purpose of your thread? Or more pointedly, where do you want this discussion to go?

How do you change the name of the ****ing thread since my choice of words was OBVIOUSLY completely wrong.

My point? God, I've already forgotten it.

[Mefustae]

Nah, keep the title. It'll draw people in and keep 'em for a good debate, which is what HLP is here for. Frankly, I don't see any difference between the Holocaust and the use of Firebombs & Atomic Weapons, so sue me.

[Andreas]

And to balance out Dresden, how about the Rape of Nanking?

I didn't mean that the Japanese, Germans, etc., didn't commit attrocities. My point was that how are "we" any better than "they" if we devalue the lives of "their" civilians?

And Mefustae, thank you. The other reason I selected the title was that it would draw attention.

[Grey Wolf]

Who, in their right minds, claim we were that much morally superior? Hell, we were allied with the Soviets. Do I have to bring up the gulags or the purges? Those cost far more lives than the Holocaust.  Just remember: History is written by the victor. If the Germans, Italians, and Japanese had won, what do you think the history books would talk about? They'd be talking about the purges of Stalin and the firebombing of Germany and Japan.

At the same time, though, we may have done some fairly nasty things to both our enemies, and even our civilians (the internment camps), but at least we didn't resort to secret police and the murder of "undesirables".

[Sandwich]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

If I may, the difference between the holocaust as defined as the genocidal campaign against the jews and other groups, and the firebombings of both Coventry by the Germans and Dresden and Tokyo by the allies, is that the holocaust was a cleansing campaign internally that would have been less useful to the German war effort than say, making all those killed instead work as slave labor making resources for the war effort. I know some were used as slaves, but the majority were killed. Firebombings are a part of a total war campaign in which a country severs supply lines of the opposing country's army by hitting their source.

I also want to just add that I do in no way morally support either, but when total war is declared, annilation of civilians is expected. The morality issues you bring up and we deal with today are a byproduct of propaganda campaigns waged by the governments to convince their populace that civilian annihilation is necessary. It is by no means morally correct by just about any basic definition of morality, but when a war becomes us-or-them total war, there is little opportunity to both survive and act with compassion towards the populace of one's foes.

Of course in cases like Dresden, asking whether it was necessary in hindsight is a very valid question. Most projections show that it wasn't. From this I think there are two important conclusions. Firstly, these decisions are made by people who do not know their outcomes so it is hard to condem them or acquit them of the destruction unless we know they could determine if the ends would justify the means and made a wantonly evil choice. Secondly I think it shows that these lessons are remembered in history through free press so that we all know what really happens when nations go to war.

As for the Iraqi connection you try to make, The U.S. has not declared total war in Iraq. Had they, the whole country would be glow-in-the-dark glass. Civilians die because war planners decide that risking losing civilians in an airstrike is less damaging to the mission they've been tasked to accomplish than sending foot soldiers in to die. It's not the morally correct choice since they know that they'll hitting civilians occasionally is inevitable, but it is better strategically for accomplishing their goals.

I recognis\ze and respect your right to question morality choices of our governments, but I'm curious Andreas. What is the purpose of your thread? Or more pointedly, where do you want this discussion to go?

I nominate this for Most Informative Post. Well writ, good sir!

[FireCrack]

^Me too, very well written.

[Andreas]

I agree as well. Sorry for getting a little bit hot earlier.

[vyper]

And to balance out Dresden, how about the Rape of Nanking?

I didn't mean that the Japanese, Germans, etc., didn't commit attrocities. My point was that how are "we" any better than "they" if we devalue the lives of "their" civilians?

In war, there is only one rule. Win. Does that mean killing enemy civilians to slow down the enemy military machine, or to destroy their morale? Perhaps. Is it right? Probably not. But when you're in a fight for your very survival there is no room for idealism. Britain had been bombed from coast to coast, experienced bloody fighting across the entire Empire, and mainland Europe ravaged by four years of German occupation. To the people of that time, there was no price too high for an end to the war.

Either way, it looks like bomber command made the right choices most of the time: The fact we're here having this conversation goes some way to proving it.