17-12-2002 01:55									#91
	Suffering from ads?

The notion that Germnay is soleyl 'reposible' for the war and thus guilty and liable to any consequences is absurd: I do not question that Germany acted more aggresively than any other actor, save Austro-Hungary (first to declare war, by July 28 on Serbia) but that aggresiveness was dictated by many factors, military expediency being one of them. After all, General warfare starts by August 4th, By then Not only Germany and Austria, but also Russia and France, were mobilized. Lets not forget the whole MONTHLONG crisis ahead of this situation.

As for the argument at hand:

Morality and values are seperate from expediency and utilatarian motives. The mass bombing of civilians is morally indefensible, period: That does not mean that you can still act in such a way if utilatarian motives also exist. In general though, i find the evidence for the expediencey of mass bombing of civilian targets to be very small, in WW2. For example, the huge decline in Japanses military output by late 1944 is probalby better explained by the mass shortages of resources for japanese industry borught about by the extremely effective allied blockade of Japan, which by late 1944 had devastated Japan's merhcant fleet and cut of the island form its primary sources of oil, rubber, ore, and ouside foodstuffs, than it is by any huge allied bombing of Japanse industry. Surbeys of the bombing campagings in Europe, by all sides, show the geenral ineffectiveness of bombing cities, not only ass far as morale issues were concerned, but also industrial output. This does not mean all bombing was useless: directed bombing at transport, oil production, powerplants and damns all had great efefct: but the mass raids on german cities, specialy "Bomber' Harris's 'terror raids' seem to have little impact. If the issue was one of cost effectiveness, the allies would have been better off concentrating their efforts at bombing Ploesti, other oil sites, railheads and other key transport sites instead of trying to kock out German factories, which they generally failed to do, as the great incrase of German war production thorugh the war, reaching a crescendo at the same time as the strategic bombing campaign itself reached its own crescendo shows. An attack such as that on Dresden was simply pointless.

So, no, allied bombing and German and Japanese suffereing does not invalidate the suffering they caused, but the effectiveness of al this mass bombing of civilians is suspect at best.

	17-12-2002 02:23									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ozz I think a DECLARATION of war and an ULTIMATION before delaring war makes a differience don't you. I cringe when i seen this sort of BS doublespeak smear crap.

Declaration of war and Ultimatums are not a license for genocide which could be the extreme one could justify if one said the entire German/Japanese populace were at fault. They are the means that nations engage an opponent and destroy his ability/want to wage war.

Again the intent to show ability and will to use this kind of warfare is only served in my estimation if it robs the opponent of the ability to maintain war that otherwise would stretch on and cause greater casualties.

The American civil war started the modern day warfare attempt to remove war making capability (in destroying railways factories, farms etc.). In doing so, it targeted civilian/military targets. Had it not done so the civil war would have continued resulting in many more deaths.

I see no doublespeak. Targeting non-military targets is best served when its attempt is to end the fight with a unconditional surrender and when delivered from a position of strength. Other uses causes no benefit but instead causes the victims to harden their resolve. From a very short historical perspective, both WW2 and the American Civil War used these gambits and the victors were able to cause a cessation of hostilites in what otherwise would have been a protracted affair.

However, to say the general populace had it coming is not cricket. The inevitable death of civilians is unfortunately a fact of war. IMO use of this type of tactic is best served when it results in the cessation of war ASAP and as a consequence is a very moral decision.

	17-12-2002 02:36									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Targeting industrial facilities and railroads/communications networks is legitimate, for the intent is to cause damage to the enemy war machine. That is not the same as deliberately targeting civilians for the purpose of killing civilians.

Dresden was firebombed Feb14-15 1945. At this time, the German industrial production was already halted. Dresden was not an industrial center, it was not a strategic center, it was not a communication center, it was not a military center. It was simply a city packed with refugees.

	17-12-2002 02:49									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Targeting industrial facilities and railroads/communications networks is legitimate, for the intent is to cause damage to the enemy war machine. That is not the same as deliberately targeting civilians for the purpose of killing civilians. Dresden was firebombed Feb14-15 1945. At this time, the German industrial production was already halted. Dresden was not an industrial center, it was not a strategic center, it was not a communication center, it was not a military center. It was simply a city packed with refugees.

No arguement. In the Civil war the intent was to firstly to dismantle the war making machine of the south. In doing so tho' they also pillaged farms burnt homes etc. Death to civilians resulted and at times civilian property was the target.

The calculated effect of these actions was to dismantle the war making machine and demoralize the civilian populace thereby hoping to draw the war to a hasty close.

While not explicitly trying to kill civilians, the effect ended up the same. It simply became more obvious in WW2. Or perhaps destroying the ability to feed your general populace by way of torching farms and embargoing you consider fair game as well. To me its the same calculated effect. (and no I don't consider the embargo on Iraq an act of war or an act of attrocity ).

	17-12-2002 03:08									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Ogie's post was comparing the situation, and thereby it was relevant. Surely if you believe OBL has no justification for targeting civilians to achieve a political end, then neither does anyone else. Targeting civilians is wrong, plain and simple. I fail to see how it is "PC" to say murdering civilians is a bad thing. Of course, those who can't argue often fall back on the lame "PC" bogeyman.

Since when did OBL become a legalimate government.

The PC crap is playing the OBL card. Just trying to get
a knee jerk reaction (ie TROLL). I see YOU failed to notice it.

Targeting civilians is wrong? How about a factory, who
do you think is in there turning out shells. Civilians.

And for those of you who think carpet bombing was
ineffective, the British AFTER having recieved it, knew
exactly what the effects were, having first hand experience.

There ARE no civilians, never have been. You should
read up on your history. Name one war where the
civilian population was NOT massacred.

Rome, Cathage, The Crusades?, Napolean, WW1
(Turkey).

Grow up.

	17-12-2002 03:20									#96
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ozz,

My attempt to invoke OBL was not to be PC in anyway. My real point is that I agree civilian casualties have always existed in every war.

My real point is that if this gambit allowed the war to end quicker then it might indeed have been the right and moral thing to do as otherwise civilian casualties might have mounted in higher numbers than the casualties incurred.

Where you and I disagree is that there is a civilian. Just because they are members of an enemy state does not mean they are legit targets in most instances.

OBL, is not a nation, but he also claims no civilians and as such all is fair game. This is what I and if I read the papers rightly is what most others take as exception to his view of the world. I likewise promise that this is the last time I will invoke OBL's hideous name. (We'll move onto the PAL's ).

My overall point is simply this. Using this as a means to close a war out (with unconditional surrender as your goal else the conflagration can start in another generation) is perhaps the only legit way to use these tactics as the overall casualties of ongoing conflict will likely outweigh the casualties inflcited. The PAL's (is that better ) attempt to use these from a stance of weakness only results in petty death and serves no greater purpose but instead galvanizes the enemies will thereby ensuring ongoing deaths.

	17-12-2002 03:28									#97
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Vanguard This was just the rationalization. The real reason for bombing cities in WW2 was the fact that high altitude bombers couldn't hit anything smaller than a city.

High altitude bombing over Europe was far more accurate than bombing over Japan, due to wind velocity at altitude.

quote: And the commanders of the Allied air forces wanted high altitude bombers because ground support missions made it seem like they were mere assistants to the ground generals.

CAS missions are completly different from level bombing missions, and CAS in WW2 was of very limited effect due to technological limitations on air-ground coordination. Tactical interdiction missions against targets of opportunity in the rear were very effective, when allied aircraft were in range. Prior to the Normandy landings and after, this type of mission dominated in France. Against targets like Schweinfurt, Bremerhaven and Ploesti, there was no alternative to level bombing, as tactical/CAS aircraft didn't have the range.

quote: Since they had a built in reason to believe in the effectiveness of strategic bombing anyway, the air force chiefs willingly believed their own unconfirmable claims of the effectiveness of their efforts. When they were, in fact, achieving very little of strategic importance.

The strategic and tactical air combat functions of the US Army Air Corps/Army Air Forces in WW2 and the US Air Force since the Key West Agreement have been separate, right up to the top, and those functions are still independent four star commands. The strat guys rose to prominance with the advent of nuclear weapons. The effectiveness of strategic air has been debated incessantly, and the "little importance" school relied on one core fact - the increase in total German war production until very late in the war. To support their point of view, they have studiously avoided recognition of how much higher the production levels would have been without strategic bombing, and the manpower, equipment, and materiel drain required for air defense against strategic bombing. How much longer would it have taken the allies on either front to break through into Germany if the Germans had been able to transfer 3,000 FlaK 36/37, 1500-2000 FW-190 and Me-109K aircraft, and 200,000 luftwaffe air defense personnel into army control?

	17-12-2002 03:47									#98
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ozz Since when did OBL become a legalimate government.

I don't know what "legalimate" means, but are you saying that whether or not one is a government gives one all the rights to target civilians?

quote: The PC crap is playing the OBL card. Just trying to get a knee jerk reaction (ie TROLL). I see YOU failed to notice it.

Nah, I think it was a cheap attempt on your part to score points in a failing argument. Nice backtrack attempt, though. Oh, and grow up.

quote: Targeting civilians is wrong? How about a factory, who do you think is in there turning out shells. Civilians.

You don't seem to be comprehending the moral difference between targeting industrial facilities that happened to be manned by civilians in order to hamper the enemy's war effort and targeting civilians for the sole purpose of killing civilians. There is a huge moral difference.

quote: And for those of you who think carpet bombing was ineffective, the British AFTER having recieved it, knew exactly what the effects were, having first hand experience.

Of course it can be effective, depending on the timing of the war and the nature of the bombings. Dresden had absolutely no positive effects for the Allies. In fact, it hardened German attitudes and later hampered Allies efforts to promote good ties. Many ultra nationalists pointed to Dresden as justification for the rightness of the Nazi cause and used it as propaganda agains the Allied occupiers.

quote: There ARE no civilians, never have been. You should read up on your history. Name one war where the civilian population was NOT massacred. Rome, Cathage, The Crusades?, Napolean, WW1 (Turkey).

Which proves what? Does the fact that something morally wrong has always happened in war make that thing suddenly right? If there are no civilians, then why was the Nanjing such a bad thing? Couldn't it be rationalized away as the IJA carrying out military operations that held strategic importance for them? I'm pretty sickened by such an attitude of rationalizing such horrific acts.

At any rate, you've failed to provide any adequate justification of why a civilian populace deserves to be massacred. Even soldiers don't deserve to die.

quote: Grow up.

Into what you are, a rationalizer of atrocities? No thanks.

How on earth is it immature for me to think it wrong to target civilians in war and not believe that civilians deserve to be killed because of what their government does? I think you're getting a little confused over what maturity means...

	17-12-2002 04:00									#99
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat The effectiveness of strategic air has been debated incessantly, and the "little importance" school relied on one core fact - the increase in total German war production until very late in the war. To support their point of view, they have studiously avoided recognition of how much higher the production levels would have been without strategic bombing, and the manpower, equipment, and materiel drain required for air defense against strategic bombing. How much longer would it have taken the allies on either front to break through into Germany if the Germans had been able to transfer 3,000 FlaK 36/37, 1500-2000 FW-190 and Me-109K aircraft, and 200,000 luftwaffe air defense personnel into army control?

Certainly strategic bombing was more effective against some targets than others. Destroying rail centers was probably one of the most worthwhile efforts of the bombing campaign. Strategic bombing definitely had an effect on the shipping war too. U-boat production may not have been stopped, but it clearly was hindered. Other notable effects of the bombing campaign was the hinderance of the V weapon program, the nuclear weapons development program and the jet aircraft development program. The bombing camopaign forced a lot of production to be dispersed to small shops within the cities. The shifting to small unit production badly hurt quality control. Weapons produced in 1944 and 1945 were often of poor quality becuase of the disruptions in production.

	17-12-2002 05:00									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Even Churchill expressed horror at the results of Dresden. Incinerating 200,000+ civilians was morally wrong. You can't defend Dresden as anything but terror--it was not a strategic city, military target or industrial center. It was an old world city packed with refuges, that's all. Questioning Allied bombing is just, because, as DanS points out, it is leading us to take far greater care in targeting. Slaughtering civilians is not acceptable if one is going to claim a moral high ground in a war, which indeed we were in WW2. How could we say that we are fighting to protect the world from totalitarian regimes that commit murder and then go out and commit murder to stop them? What would the difference be, then? No one is saying the actions of the Nazis or the IJA weren't horrible and worse by comparison. But that does not excuse murdering innocent civilians for the sake of terrorizing the populace. A dispicable notion. Tell me what the thousands of women and children of Dresden did to deserve being incinerated by firebombs.

Boris, I agree with this.

I still say, despite what SD says, the impetus for the mass slaughter of German civilians was from the UK. They had a definite plan to destroy German cities. This is why I object, and strongly so, that the UK was not above mentioned in the "apology" to the German people as if the US was the sole malefactor here. We of course were participants in the slaughter. But we were not alone. And most importantly, we were not its leaders.

	17-12-2002 05:36									#101
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

For sure, Britain was the main proponent of the carpet bombing of Germany, my point to you was that the US did partake, in a big way and without hesitation when asked. Even though the US was mostly complicit in Europe it was explicit in Japan.

Your statement that I was replying to was "the UK owes Germany an apology, not the US." This is patently false. Both do if anyone does.

	17-12-2002 05:47									#102
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Gee, how did I know what side Boris would be on? Its just a pity we didnt have a nuke in time to drop it on Berlin.

	17-12-2002 06:05									#103
	Tired of ads?

While of course the Axis committed a great deal of horrible, horrible attrocities, it by no means justifies any attrocities that the Allies may have committed. The attitude that evil is always a justfication for responding with more evil has always been one of the root causes of man's troubles since the dawn of civilization.

	17-12-2002 06:22									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Gee, how did I know what side Boris would be on? Its just a pity we didnt have a nuke in time to drop it on Berlin.

Of course I would be on the side that doesn't advocate committing atrocities against civilians. I'm surprised you would be on the opposite side, though. That's the real pity.

	17-12-2002 06:39									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

So the Germans didnt drop any bombs on civilians? Maybe those attacks were not atrocities? Hows about the millions of civilians the Germans killed without planes? Germany should still glow in the dark.

	17-12-2002 06:44									#106
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin For sure, Britain was the main proponent of the carpet bombing of Germany, my point to you was that the US did partake, in a big way and without hesitation when asked. Even though the US was mostly complicit in Europe it was explicit in Japan. Your statement that I was replying to was "the UK owes Germany an apology, not the US." This is patently false. Both do if anyone does.

Yes, but we can blame Japan on America's inherent racism, can't we?

SD, our respective air forces, the UK and the US, should have refrained from sinking to the level of the Nazi's. When we, the US, bombed Japanese cities, except for the A-Bomb, we dropped leaflets warning that we were going to bomb a particular city. The Japanese then evacuated that city.

So, I still maintain, there is a major difference in conduct between the UK and the US. We joined our ally Britain and the USSR on their request for a raid against a German city. But we did not lead the effort to destroy German cities. That honor goes to Bomber Harris and the British government.

	17-12-2002 06:51									#107
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

MtG: Just wondering, do you feel as though the Terror tactics by General Sherman of the Union army were justified?

As for WWII, you can definitely question the morality of several actions taken by the Allies. I think no matter what though I think it goes without saying the Allies were better in their actions then the Axis was, and given the magnitude of the evil we were fighting it goes without question that the allies were the "good guys"

	17-12-2002 06:54									#108
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Ok afew points.
1. The british bombed in daylight from day 1. Targets were mainly ports and U-boat bases in Kiel and willemshaven. Before long losses per raid averaged 60% !!!!!!!!. Bomber Command retreated to lick its wounds and decided to bomb by night. The Carpet bombing was supposed to demoralise the Germans. Would the citizens still want the war to continue, when all the workers were without homes?. The problem was it worked in the opposite way. A german saying from the later war years was "Enjoy the War while it lasts, because Peace is going to be Hell" Germans in the front lines had nothing to go home to. Saying the night campaign achieved nothing is wrong. About 50 squadrons were devoted to night Fighters and a large percentage of industry supplied them. Countless AA guns, search lights, RADAR networks and command centres had to be manned. In all the night campaign tied up nearly 1,500,000 German personnel.

2. The fact that France and Britain Declared war first IMO, was not an act of aggression. Prime Minister Chamberlain was into the policy of appeasement. Hitler had Annexed Austria, The Studatedland, Czeh......(How the hell do u spell that?) and the Rhur de-militrized zone. The invasion of Poland after they refused to give up Danzig was the last straw.
Hitler did'nt want a war with the west, he was looking for labensraum(SP?)or "living space" for his Aryian empire. For this living space he looked to the east, to the "Inferior races". The reason I don't think it was an act of aggression was because from Sept '39 to May '40 nothing was done. This period was known as the "Phoney War" during this time the British dropped leaflets on german cities suggesting they should pull out of Poland and the French could have launched an offensive in to germany. There were only a few German Corps on the western front at this time as the rest were in Poland.

	17-12-2002 07:10									#109
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ned So, I still maintain, there is a major difference in conduct between the UK and the US. We joined our ally Britain and the USSR on their request for a raid against a German city. But we did not lead the effort to destroy German cities. That honor goes to Bomber Harris and the British government.

Yes you keep the moral high ground. Would you feel differently if Washington, or say New York, had been bombed. High ground my ass. I know the losses to my family from the Blitz. Tough **** to the Germans.

	17-12-2002 07:26									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH So the Germans didnt drop any bombs on civilians? Maybe those attacks were not atrocities? Hows about the millions of civilians the Germans killed without planes? Germany should still glow in the dark.

Read the whole damn thread. This isn't about saying which atrocities were worse, or which side was more "right" in the war. It's not about excusing any atrocities.

For the upteenth time, the immoral actions of a government do not justify the genocide of their people. Advocating this is taking a stance little different than what the Nazis felt towards the Jews.

It's a barbaric policy to target civilians, PERIOD. There is not a single adequate justification for it.

	17-12-2002 07:29									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH So the Germans didnt drop any bombs on civilians? Maybe those attacks were not atrocities? Hows about the millions of civilians the Germans killed without planes? Germany should still glow in the dark.

SpencerH, Did it ever occur to you that at least some of what Hitler and is troops did was in response to Allied attrocities and partisan attacks? I know at least some of them are because I have read transcripts of Hitler's orders. For example the raids on each other's cities began by a German accidental bombing of London, followed by a deliberate British attack on Berlin, which caused Hitler to attack London in response.

How much of this *** for tat barbarity went on during the war? Clearly, the Allies were willing participants in this sick game.

We know that two wrongs do not make a right.

	17-12-2002 07:40									#112
	Tired of ads?

Forget it, Ned. In his eyes, if you show any sympathy for the innocent victims of war on the other side, you're a Nazi sympathizer. Pathetic attitude.

	17-12-2002 07:57									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I am in agreement with you Boris, attrocities can never be justified for any reason, ever. Regardless of what country partook in them, and whether they were in response to attrocities by other countries.

	17-12-2002 08:07									#114
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The better question is why anyone cares about moral justifications anyway. It's not like moral rules actually exist.

	17-12-2002 08:12									#115
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Forget it, Ned. In his eyes, if you show any sympathy for the innocent victims of war on the other side, you're a Nazi sympathizer. Pathetic attitude.

Not everyone, but you cross the line too often. I think this quote by you sums up your opinions quite well.

"Hitler was less evil than Stalin, IMO. He certainly wasn't intending to be "evil," as he thought he was doing stuff that was really good for the world and for Germany"

I doubt that you're a Nazi sympathizer, but you are a germophile (its a new word for the other thread).

	17-12-2002 08:16									#116
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I make no apologies about being a lover of much of German culture, especially in terms of classical music. But please point me to anywhere where I have excused Nazi crimes, or expressed anything but disgust for them.

And I stand by quote about Hitler--I think he was deranged and thought he was doing "good." He did not view his own actions as evil. His twisted mind allowed him to see genocide as a positive thing. Stalin, I think, knew full well his actions were morally wrong and didn't care so long as it consolidated his grip on power. That in no way mitigates Hitler's crimes or lessens their horrificness.

Regardless, how does any of that make me a Nazi sympathizer? Unless you're equating being German to being Nazi, which speaks for itself in terms of ignorance.

	17-12-2002 08:32									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov I make no apologies about being a lover of much of German culture, especially in terms of classical music. But please point me to anywhere where I have excused Nazi crimes, or expressed anything but disgust for them.

Its true that I havent seen you excuse Nazi crimes, but I havent seen you stand up and denounce them in the same way in which you denounce the bombing of Dresden. I think you're opinion of Hitler is an example of this i.e. he was bad but he was crazy- so he thought he was doing good.

quote: Regardless, how does any of that make me a Nazi sympathizer? Unless you're equating being German to being Nazi, which speaks for itself in terms of ignorance.

Maybe you should read the posts. I said I doubted you were. As for equating Germans with Nazi's, guess what? They were. Stop coddling the Germans.

	17-12-2002 08:45									#118
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Its true that I havent seen you excuse Nazi crimes, but I havent seen you stand up and denounce them in the same way in which you denounce the bombing of Dresden. I think you're opinion of Hitler is an example of this i.e. he was bad but he was crazy- so he thought he was doing good.

I haven't seen any threads here particularly addressing Nazi crimes. That's pretty much a no-brainer, though. I mean, can you think of people standing up for Nazi crimes? Has that been a problem here? If someone created a thread about Nazi crimes, I'd be happy to denounce them. And there have been past threads about Nazi crimes in which I've talked about them. In fact, look in the thread about Nanjing. I think you're just only seeing what you want to see.

Another point here is that Dresden NEEDS to be discussed more. History has done plenty on the Holocaust, and everyone is aware of it. But Dresden is something many people are still unaware of, or worse, it is rationalized by bullshit "we were at war, so anything went" mentalities. You hardly have to contend with the same attitudes about the Holocaust, because only Neo-Nazis would be here saying such things. And I don't know of any around here.

quote: I think you're opinion of Hitler is an example of this i.e. he was bad but he was crazy- so he thought he was doing good.

How is giving my opinion that Hitler wasn't the most evil man in history remotely excusing the Nazis? So anyone who doesn't feel he was quite the most evil is sympathizing with the Nazis? Come on. And can you say he wasn't deranged? That he didn't think he was doing something he believed was good? He laid out his philosophies extensively. His was a twisted worldview, warped beyond my recognition. And he indeed felt it was a moral good to exterminate "inferior" people. It was the basis of much of his doctrine. In that sense, he did not think of his actions as conscious evil.

quote: Maybe you should read the posts. I said I doubted you were. As for equating Germans with Nazi's, guess what? They were. Stop coddling the Germans.

German history extends for 2000 years. Nazism was a factor for a very, very small part of it. And even when it was in control, most Germans were never Nazis. To associate all Germans with Nazism is unfair bigotry, no different from Nazi bigotry against other races.

Oh, and as for the Germans I admire from the WW2 time period, they are the ones who abhored/resisted the Nazis (Schindler, Einstein, Bruno Walter, Furtwangler), or even a Nazi like John Rabe. He certainly didn't deserve to die.

	17-12-2002 11:18									#119
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi MtG: Just wondering, do you feel as though the Terror tactics by General Sherman of the Union army were justified?

They damn sure were effective, I'll give you that.

There's a big difference in land warfare and aerial bombing, in that ground troops can physically seize, control and search an area for contraband and enemy troops/caches.

To the extent that Sherman (may he enjoy eternal barbecue ) ordered the destruction or confiscation of war supplies or materiel, that is entirely justified. If someone was found to be an active collaborator - say an arms cache is found in their farm, or hidden troops who are not wounded and hospitalized, then turning them out and razing the buildings is harsh, but permissible treatment of collaborators.

Wholesale destruction of non-military supplies such as all farm buildings, all food, residences not used for military non-hospital purposes, etc., is not acceptable, if it is feasible to distinguish them from military supplies or support. The notion that soldiers eat food, therefore all food is a military supply doesn't wash, but if you have a town of 300 with food supplies adequate to feed 15,000, well, there's a bit of a problem.

The big difference is that invading ground forces with a permanent occupying ability (more than a small force cavalry raid) has the ability to separate items with military use from normal levels of civilian supply and commerce.

	17-12-2002 11:49									#120
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

loinburger,

quote: That's what I expected you to say. Yes, you are responsible for your own actions. If the action you take is to "do nothing," even though by "doing something" you could have done good and/or prevented evil, then by "doing nothing" you have caused less good and/or more evil to result. If you know that John wants to find Joey in order to murder him, and yet when John asks you where Joey is at you give him the information "because it would be wrong for you to lie," then you are going to be culpable in Joey's murder -- you share John's responsibility for the murder because you assisted him. If John is in the act of attempting to kill Joey (say he has a loaded gun pointed at him), and you are able to prevent the murder (by, say, breaking John's arm, or shooting him with your own gun) but do nothing "because John has done nothing wrong to you, so it would be wrong to harm him," then you share John's responsibility for the resulting murder because you had the ability to hinder/prevent the murder but did not do so.

Very nice argument. Also very irrelevant. You see, the German civilians we are referring to were NOT the ones with the proverbial gun to the head of an innocent. That was the leadership of the Nazi Party, the SS, and that kind of thing.

You are very correct. If I allow a murder to happen when I have a reasonable chance of stopping the person committing murder (note, though, that I am under NO moral obligation to give my life in the process), I am in the wrong in terms of morality.

However, if I attempt to stop a murder - no, let's make it a mass murder, or a genocide, even - by spraying machine gun fire into a crowd in the hopes of either turning the crowd against the murderer or killing the murderer, but in the process slaughtering dozens of innocents, EVEN IF the murder/genocide is prevented, I have committed murder.

quote: Apathy is not always an ethical response to a dilemma. You are responsible for your own actions, so if your action or lack of action causes harm or does not result in good then you are culpable.

Where would you like to draw the line? Perhaps it would be OK for us to nuke every inch of Iraq in order to stop Saddam from killing the Kurds? Hell, it would be an effective tactic, and would prevent Saddam's wrong from being committed - but it would not be RIGHT, because then WE would be committing a wrong.

quote: It is what we're talking about -- was there a net loss of life as a result of allied bombing, or did allied bombing reduce the number casualties that would have been inflicted by the Nazis and the IJA thus resulting in a net gain of life?

This isn't relevant - if you want to boil everything down to hard numbers, you are simply talking about egalitarianism, ie, a system where it is acceptable to kill 50 innocents to save 100 other innocents. I just cannot comprehend how one can defend that system.

quote: You've somehow reduced the question to "Is it wrong to kill innocents," which is irresponsible of you -- you've tried to present your own position as a tautology that pretty much everybody else on the thread already agrees to (while you imply that they disagree with it and thus that they aren't even worth debating with),

Obviously, "Is it wrong to kill innocents?" IS the question this thread is dealing with, and asking that question is not irresponsible at all. It is an attempt to tie people down to a position. If killing innocents is wrong, then bombing civilians is wrong, but if killing innocents is OK, or "dependent upon circumstances", then the Holocaust can be justified.

Ogie,

quote: As for the piece in question, I believe the commanders had moral misgivings before they pulled the trigger on these operations,

I doubt it, and even if they did, I seriously doubt that the average US soldier felt any qualms in bombing German or Japanese cities, given the level of hateful propaganda they were being fed.

DanS,

quote: It seems likely that the US didn't have a sufficiently advanced protocols to make these trade-off decisions.

I'm not sure I see what you mean. Is it your position that in the 1940s, people did not know it was wrong to kill civilians? If so, why the Nuremburg trials?

quote: Since then, and especially since Vietnam, we've taken great pains to make our weapons more precise. There is a moral element to that.

Come on. The primary element to that is military efficiency. If morality factored in there, we wouldn't be targeting cities with ICBMs, and, for that matter, we wouldn't do lots of the things we do today.

Ozz,

quote: The Germans, Japanese got exactly what they deserved.

Really? The average German got what he deserved when he was burned to death? I'm not sure, but I bet certain people would say that same thing about certain other people. You work out what I mean.

quote: Voted for Hilter, They knew what He and his party stood for. Sang "Bombs on England", worked in factories making war materials. Called Hilter "Lord of Battle". Supplied Hilter with men, money and weapons. Danced in the streets when Paris fell. Joined and worked for the Hilter youth. The children paid for their parents hatred and greed.

Interesting. So, if you vote for a militaristic government, believe propaganda, produce war materials for an aggressive war, and celebrate military victories, you deserve to be incinerated?

How many people in the world today do you imagine fit that framework? Hint: A lot.

quote: Hilter stood for exactly the same greed and oppression that caused WW1.

Umm, WW1 was ultimately caused by imperialism, military buildups, and entangling alliances. Churchill stood for that stuff too.

quote: Collective guilt, yes,

So where, then, is your condemnation of American and British actions throughout history? Why aren't you calling for trials for US Presidents?

Gatekeeper,

quote: Isn't this debate sort of misleading, in the sense that we're applying 2002 sensibilities — and are a two, sometimes three, generations removed from 1939-1945 — to a point in time when "being nice" was the last thing on anyone's mind?

Just because someone doesn't want to "be nice" doesn't mean that excuses them when they incinerate innocent civilians.

Drake,

quote: Looking for moral behavior in a war is like looking for crack at Whitney Houston's house. You aren't going to find it.

As I've pointed out, we can't control what other people do, but we can control what we ourselves do.

DanS,

quote: WWI was due to Germany's negligence.

Yes, it had nothing to do with Russian influence on Serbia

Ozz,

quote: We're talking shell fillers, machinists...

Looks like you just condemned every industrial worker in the world, pretty much.

quote: Never said that, i said they paid the price for their greedy and cruel society.

So, basically, they got what they deserved, right?

DanS,

quote: While true (there was enough war fever to go around), Germany provided the trigger, and German troops were the first ones to cross borders.

I'm certainly glad you agree with me that the Mexican War was the US's fault, then

Ozz,

quote: Since when did OBL become a legalimate government.

Or, for that matter, one could argue, how is George W. Bush legitimate?

quote: Targeting civilians is wrong? How about a factory, who do you think is in there turning out shells. Civilians.

Absolutely. War is wrong, with no exceptions except for the case of defending yourself against blatant military aggression against yourself only, reliant TOTALLY on volunteerism.

quote: There ARE no civilians, never have been. You should read up on your history. Name one war where the civilian population was NOT massacred.

I quite agree. That doesn't excuse those actions, of course, and it only supports my position that fighting a war is morally wrong.