Heh.
This reminds me of a verse from a Tom Lehrer song from the Vietnam Era about Germany.
" We taught them a lesson in 1918..
And they've hardly bothered us since then!"
Tom
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why hurt the innocents to stop the enemy?
- Thread starter Theweirdtophat
- Start date
Heh.
This reminds me of a verse from a Tom Lehrer song from the Vietnam Era about Germany.
" We taught them a lesson in 1918..
And they've hardly bothered us since then!"
Tom
I made no promises of lasting peace.Heh.
This reminds me of a verse from a Tom Lehrer song from the Vietnam Era about Germany.
" We taught them a lesson in 1918..
And they've hardly bothered us since then!"
Tom
Heil - I mean hail - the Wehrmacht, - no, I mean the Bundeswehr..
There are many times where one must kill many people right now to prevent even more from dying down the line because you didn't finish the job. I know a man who was in Sobibor, at the age of 12. Numbers on his arm. You want to explain to him why we shouldn't of been carpet-bombing German industrial & population centers and instead just allowed the war to drag on? Because guess what, the Death Camps only really came into play during the last 2-3 years of the war. They weren't even operating at full "capacity". The moral highground goes to whoever is able to prosecute a war as swiftly as possible, because that is the only way to prevent more deaths.
I don't understand, do you think civilized nations intentionally hurt innocents?
Because it helped the german war effort. it meant that civillian production was destroyed so that german people in bombed areas could be mobilised for war production, at least in the short-term. they simply switched people that survived to do arms production who would otherwise have been engaged in non-military production.
I only know this second hand from reading J.K. Galbraith's "The Affluent Society" in which he mentions being part of a survey on the effects of the bombing campign on the german war economy. For the sake of providing credible source material, I think this is the report he was referring to but it is a summary of a much larger document: http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm
"2. The significance of full domination of the air over the enemy -- both over its armed forces and over its sustaining economy -- must be emphasized. That domination of the air was essential. Without it, attacks on the basic economy of the enemy could not have been delivered in sufficient force and with sufficient freedom to bring effective and lasting results.
3. As the air offensive gained in tempo, the Germans were unable to prevent the decline and eventual collapse of their economy. Nevertheless, the recuperative and defensive powers of Germany were immense; the speed and ingenuity with which they rebuilt and maintained essential war industries in operation clearly surpassed Allied expectations. Germany resorted to almost every means an ingenious people could devise to avoid the attacks upon her economy and to minimize their effects. Camouflage, smoke screens, shadow plants, dispersal, underground factories, were all employed. In some measure all were helpful, but without control of the air, none was really effective. Dispersal brought a measure of immediate relief, but eventually served only to add to the many problems caused by the attacks on the transportation system. Underground installations prevented direct damage, but they, too, were often victims of disrupted transportation and other services. In any case, Germany never succeeded in placing any substantial portion of her war production underground--the effort was largely limited to certain types of aircraft, their components, and the V weapons. The practicability of going underground as the escape from full and free exploitation of the air is highly questionable; it was so considered by the Germans themselves. Such passive defenses may be worth while and important, but it may be doubted if there is any escape from air domination by an enemy."
Wirey
Fartist
In modern industrial warfare their are no 'innocents'. Civilians work at factories that feed the army the products it needs to use. Killing, dehousing, and demoralizing these people is perfectly acceptable as a war winning method assuming that you're willing to kill a bunch of people anyway. The utter destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, coupled with the ruthless march of the Soviets in Manchuria persuaded a nation that was bent on war to the last man to quit. These weapons demoralized the Japanese so badly that they gave up. Sometimes the 'innocents' are a valid target.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
The point is not to prove that we are better than they are. The point is that terrorist groups like ISIS, like the Nazis, had to be stopped at all costs. My man Churchill had it right on this one. The faster this is over, the less people will die overall. And, if we refused to act if there was risk of innocents being killed, we would get destroyed pretty damn quickly.
Their slave labour force was plenty to keep up with armaments demand. The bombing, however, was crucial in denying them any manner of fuel, destroying synthetic & other such plants
I am unfamiliar with Galbraith.
Well yes. That's kind of obvious. You need to control the sky to bomb with nigh-impunity, especially with the daylight raids the Americans did.
Did you read this? It's supporting what I'm saying.
Sure. Collateral damage.
Refer : Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, London, etc
leibowde84
Veteran Member
This is counter intuitive. Collateral damage is unintended by definition.
You need to think this one through for a moment.
In any of the cases I listed, do you think civilian casualties were avoidable, or were at less than extreme levels? They were planned for and intended, but individual civilians were not targeted.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
If they aren't targeted, they are unintended. The US didn't want them to get hurt, and would have rather had them be absent. But, they ended up being nearby to a military target. It is an unintended, collateral casualty, not intended. The US certainly make efforts to avoid as many as possible, but it is a war zone.
You're kidding, right?
I'm not stating ANYTHING specifically about the US. You said 'civilised nations'.
Now consider my examples in turn...
Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, London, etc
RAF and USAF dropped almost 4000 tons of bombs on the center of Dresden, including incendiary devices. They also ignored some of the heavy industrial areas just outside Dresden. Was Dresden a military target? Sure. Were the large number of civilian casualties unintended? Nope.
Tokyo was firebombed by the USAF. Militarily, this one is somewhat defensible. Whilst it had little impact on heavy industry, it caused significant damage to light industry, which did have an indirect impact on heavy industry. 88000 dead in the center of Tokyo, which included bombing runs at high altitude (which the USAF knew were inaccurate due to jet streams) utilising incendary devices designed to burn houses. Were the large number of civilian casualties unintended? Nope, but there was a military target in there somewhere.
Hiroshima is obvious enough. No-one knew exactly what the bombs would do, so they were more 'let's use enemy civilian populations as a science experiment' as much as anything. The destruction of the civilians and the flow-on moral impact were very much intended consequences.
Nagasaki...well, it's harder to argue they didn't know the impact by that point. And Nagasaki wasn't high on the list of military targets. If you turn the civilians of Nagasaki into 'unintended casualties' I think you need to start asking yourself what they heck you are arguing about here.
London was targeted multiple times, but my specific example was 'The Blitz'. 24 August 1940 some Luftwaffe night bombers were tasked with attacking airfields, but mistakenly hit London proper. This resulted (indirectly) in a strategic change, and London herself was targetted 57 nights straight, not to mention a plethora of other cities, in an attempt to break the spirit of the British population, and procure a peace.
Are you seriously still arguing that only uncivilized nations have killed civilians? Did you ever read the linked article about drone pilots I directed you to in the other thread?
Your position is simplistic.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
When did I say "civilized nations"? I'm pretty sure I have been referring to the US throughout.
Apologies...it wasn't you that said civilized nations. @George-ananda did. But my original post (re: Tokyo, Dresden, etc) was in relation to civilized nations.
Mind you, it applies to the US as well, I just don't want to give anyone the impression I think the big bad US are civilian killers. I think they are neither particularly worse not particularly better than most civilized nations have proven to be over modern history.
esmith
Veteran Member
I look at it this way, in a very "simplistic" manner. Let say you and your spouse have a child that you purchase baby food for. You have just found out that .001% of a lot of 500000 cans have been contaminated with a deadly toxin. You check and find that you have some of the contaminated lot. Would you feed you child with the product?
esmith
Veteran Member
Study what happened on Okinawa and magnify that by having to invade Japan.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I study military history, and I have my own opinion. If you want to discuss it in detail, I'm more than happy to, but probably not in this thread.
My basic premise is that I can see the first bombs sense, but am less clear on the second. And I think it was not purely the bomb which led to Japanese surrender.
But really, I never said I wouldn't have dropped the bomb. I said civilized nations knowingly kill civilians. Do you disagree?
Well that George-ananda thinks any civilian casualties by the US in any recent times were the result of best calculations for the overall good; like shortening wars. Any moral guilt is at the feet of the evil party that started and was continuing the conflict (Germany and Japan in the two above mentioned examples).
*grins*
Okay. I don't remember arguing anything to the contrary. I merely made the point that civilized nations hit civilians. You can make your own call on whether that is justified or not. Just don't like seeing facts misrepresented.