Did German and Japanese civilians deserve to be attacked with WMD during WW2?

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

a necessary evil? To fight evil. Right? One can certainly do more than hope.

Thats where a lot of people are incorrect. WW2 was not about "evil" that is debatable. It was to stop 2 major countries from taking over other sovereign nations as they were hellbent on world domination. They failed. War in itself is evil. No debate.But a necessary evil sometimes.
What is wrong with the way the countries wage war today , is they drag it out due to humanitarian reasons.But this is self-defeating. The longer it is drawn out , the more collateral damage is done and the more civilian lives are lost. Leaders of old times knew this. They had a tough choice to make. I would not have had wanted to have been the one to order the bombs dropped on Japan. But it did end the war.

a reply to: introvert

yup,

and that led to a lot of Germans getting killed.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Q33323
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Of course not. Incidents, such as the incineration of Dresden, were barbaric.
But once the blood starts flowing, it isn't easy to stop.

Yet somehow the West manages to escape the label of "rogue regimes" or "terrorists." At least they do to they and their allies. I know some countries and people consider them so.

escape? No. Redefine the label.

Dude, excepting a few developing countries, no international body calls nor considers the US or west war criminals nor rogue regimes nor terrorists for these actions.

However, many other regimes and organizations are considered so for advocating or conducting attacks on civilians. It's a double standard.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

a necessary evil? To fight evil. Right? One can certainly do more than hope.

Thats where a lot of people are incorrect. WW2 was not about "evil" that is debatable. It was to stop 2 major countries from taking over other sovereign nations as they were hellbent on world domination. They failed. War in itself is evil. No debate.But a necessary evil sometimes.

This may be true, as you say.

But that doesn't answer the question whether civilians can be targeted.

You need to remember that today people who do so are ostensibly called terrorists. The argument runs that no matter what your cause or justification is, you can't target civilians on purpose.

a reply to: Gothmog

WW2 and the Nazis/Soviets happen to be my area of expertise. Normandy, Operation Overlord, was part of the first invasions by the allied forces. If the Eastern front was not the main center of focus of the Germans, we may have lost that battle.

The Soviets took the brunt of the force in WW2.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

yup,

and that led to a lot of Germans getting killed.

Thanks to the commies.

Why are we agreeing so much today?

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

a necessary evil? To fight evil. Right? One can certainly do more than hope.

Thats where a lot of people are incorrect. WW2 was not about "evil" that is debatable. It was to stop 2 major countries from taking over other sovereign nations as they were hellbent on world domination. They failed. War in itself is evil. No debate.But a necessary evil sometimes.

This may be true, as you say.

But that doesn't answer the question whether civilians can be targeted.

You need to remember that today people who do so are ostensibly called terrorists. The argument runs that no matter what your cause or justification is, you can't target civilians on purpose.

I just got finished responding to another post on that. To sum it up : when we go into conflicts today , we go to war with no winning strategy. Just fight it . Never mind how it ends. And we drag it out for humanitarian reasons.This idea is self defeating because the longer it goes on, the more collateral damage and loss of civilian lives occur. The cost becomes greater .
I am going to research the number killed by the 2 bombs , and then research the number of civilian lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan . I betcha the latter is much more.

how can killing civilians be just? That is pure madness. You know what those dead people deserve? They deserve to die on their own therms and by natural means. Every living being deserves that!

Wars are stupid, they are started because of arbitrary things like grabbing resources, land, money. By the few most powerful and rich people. While ordinary civilians pay the price, how is that justice of any kind except in our world?

I think if there were no separators like boarders or religion or of any kind whatsoever and people would be left on their own, we would get along just fine and help a lot more where it was needed. When people are free and have a choice to make good or bad, in majoraty they would choose good and avoid any conflict. Because doing good feels good!

When you start a war and have your factories surrounded by civilians you are asking for those civilians to be killed. Especially when you factor in that a bomber in ww2 aiming for a target could easily miss by a half mile.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gothmog

WW2 and the Nazis/Soviets happen to be my area of expertise. Normandy, Operation Overlord, was part of the first invasions by the allied forces. If the Eastern front was not the main center of focus of the Germans, we may have lost that battle.

The Soviets took the brunt of the force in WW2.

WW2 and the Nazis/Soviets happen to be my area of expertise

You might want to find a different area of expertise.....dont quit your day job
I have just explained to you what happened and why....

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

a necessary evil? To fight evil. Right? One can certainly do more than hope.

Thats where a lot of people are incorrect. WW2 was not about "evil" that is debatable. It was to stop 2 major countries from taking over other sovereign nations as they were hellbent on world domination. They failed. War in itself is evil. No debate.But a necessary evil sometimes.

This may be true, as you say.

But that doesn't answer the question whether civilians can be targeted.

You need to remember that today people who do so are ostensibly called terrorists. The argument runs that no matter what your cause or justification is, you can't target civilians on purpose.

I just got finished responding to another post on that. To sum it up : when we go into conflicts today , we go to war with no winning strategy. Just fight it . Never mind how it ends. And we drag it out for humanitarian reasons.This idea is self defeating because the longer it goes on, the more collateral damage and loss of civilian lives occur. The cost becomes greater .
I am going to research the number killed by the 2 bombs , and then research the number of civilian lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan . I betcha the latter is much more.

I understand the argument, but then it is key to realize that all of the hyperbole about terrorists is nothing but painting weaker forces as evil for doing the same things that greater powers have done with impunity. Then our governments justify more war based on such things. And a bunch of civilians nod their heads approvingly: "Go git dem Muzzies!!!" 'Merica

Do you see what I mean?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
When you start a war and have your factories surrounded by civilians you are asking for those civilians to be killed. Especially when you factor in that a bomber in ww2 aiming for a target could easily miss by a half mile.

Yes, sure, but that may explain many bombing runs in WWII but surely not Dresden nor the two cities in Japan. Both were beyond that.

a reply to: Gothmog

Not really. But thanks for trying.

History is much more complicated than History Channel videos and internet blogs.

a reply to: muSSang

Is that supposed to change my mind about it? As though suddenly I would realize that it might affect me personally and to save myself, I would want them to drop the bomb. Sorry, but no.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Bluntone22
When you start a war and have your factories surrounded by civilians you are asking for those civilians to be killed. Especially when you factor in that a bomber in ww2 aiming for a target could easily miss by a half mile.

Yes, sure, but that may explain many bombing runs in WWII but surely not Dresden nor the two cities in Japan. Both were beyond that.

Both Japanese cities where valid military targets.
avalon.law.yale.edu...

Dresden not so much

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

a necessary evil? To fight evil. Right? One can certainly do more than hope.

Thats where a lot of people are incorrect. WW2 was not about "evil" that is debatable. It was to stop 2 major countries from taking over other sovereign nations as they were hellbent on world domination. They failed. War in itself is evil. No debate.But a necessary evil sometimes.

This may be true, as you say.

But that doesn't answer the question whether civilians can be targeted.

You need to remember that today people who do so are ostensibly called terrorists. The argument runs that no matter what your cause or justification is, you can't target civilians on purpose.

I just got finished responding to another post on that. To sum it up : when we go into conflicts today , we go to war with no winning strategy. Just fight it . Never mind how it ends. And we drag it out for humanitarian reasons.This idea is self defeating because the longer it goes on, the more collateral damage and loss of civilian lives occur. The cost becomes greater .
I am going to research the number killed by the 2 bombs , and then research the number of civilian lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan . I betcha the latter is much more.

I understand the argument, but then it is key to realize that all of the hyperbole about terrorists is nothing but painting weaker forces as evil for doing the same things that greater powers have done with impunity. Then our governments justify more war based on such things. And a bunch of civilians nod their heads approvingly: "Go git dem Muzzies!!!" 'Merica

Do you see what I mean?

Yeah I know...that made me chuckle and remember a time long ago. When McDonald's plane was shot down by the Russians . Everyone at work wanted to nuke the Russians. Uhhh.Why , I asked everyone. I answered with because the airplane was ordered by MacDonald to fly over Russian restricted airspace. You know , the ones with the red triangles that say no fly here....And they were warned off several times , including bursts over the top of the aircraft. Those same red triangles marked over Shemya Island , Eielson AFB . Where if the situation was reversed , the same results would have occurred ? All I got was silence. Amazing what logic can do still.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Did witches in the 16th century deserve to be burned at the stake? The only reason I bring this up is that to determine the action, you must first determine the mindset of the time period.
Did Germany and Japan deserve it? You'd have to be at war for several years, have massive loss of life, and think like a person who grew up in America in the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's.
Hindsight is always 20/20.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gothmog

Not really. But thanks for trying.

History is much more complicated than History Channel videos and internet blogs.

So , you name your sources of expertise ? Well , that explains that.I dont suppose you could link something to back up your claim that the Russians had an advantage in any place in Russia before America entered by issuing loans and manufacturing equipment for them ? You could raise your level of expertise in my eyes with any one......and it would have to be before 1940 -1941

This brings up an important topic though: are violations of human rights or atrocities okay as long as the "people of the time acted and thought like that?" Yes, many things are relative, but it is dangerous to go to full relativity.

Your witch example is great for this. Was it quite normal during that time period for religious or governmental authorities to be ruled by superstition or religious extremism? Yes. Were many people oppressed due to this, from Jews to non-orthodox Christians? Yes. Were the consequences for not complying quit extreme often? Yes.

Does this suddenly make it okay that let's say some random women who were either falsely accused or even were just not towing the line religiously were burned alive? NO! They still lost their life.

Just because something is normal for the time does NOT make it okay nor right. Even by saying so people cast into suspicion the inviolability of such modern concepts as no genocide, not targeting civilians, no torture, no rape, etc ad infinitum. Because if they are totally relative to the time and have no objective truth, then who is to say they are really valid. If it's relative to cultures of other time periods, then why is not relative to other cultures of our period. There are cultures that value life less, or don't have a problem with torture, believe the tribe comes first at any cost.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

a necessary evil? To fight evil. Right? One can certainly do more than hope.

Thats where a lot of people are incorrect. WW2 was not about "evil" that is debatable. It was to stop 2 major countries from taking over other sovereign nations as they were hellbent on world domination. They failed. War in itself is evil. No debate.But a necessary evil sometimes.

This may be true, as you say.

But that doesn't answer the question whether civilians can be targeted.

You need to remember that today people who do so are ostensibly called terrorists. The argument runs that no matter what your cause or justification is, you can't target civilians on purpose.

I just got finished responding to another post on that. To sum it up : when we go into conflicts today , we go to war with no winning strategy. Just fight it . Never mind how it ends. And we drag it out for humanitarian reasons.This idea is self defeating because the longer it goes on, the more collateral damage and loss of civilian lives occur. The cost becomes greater .
I am going to research the number killed by the 2 bombs , and then research the number of civilian lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan . I betcha the latter is much more.

I understand the argument, but then it is key to realize that all of the hyperbole about terrorists is nothing but painting weaker forces as evil for doing the same things that greater powers have done with impunity. Then our governments justify more war based on such things. And a bunch of civilians nod their heads approvingly: "Go git dem Muzzies!!!" 'Merica

Do you see what I mean?

Yeah I know...that made me chuckle and remember a time long ago. When McDonald's plane was shot down by the Russians . Everyone at work wanted to nuke the Russians. Uhhh.Why , I asked everyone. I answered with because the airplane was ordered by MacDonald to fly over Russian restricted airspace. You know , the ones with the red triangles that say no fly here....And they were warned off several times , including bursts over the top of the aircraft. Those same red triangles marked over Shemya Island , Eielson AFB . Where if the situation was reversed , the same results would have occurred ? All I got was silence. Amazing what logic can do still.

I got you. And true. VERY few people that I meet seem to be focused enough on logic, fairness, single standards, justice, etc, that they will attempt to apply the same standards to opponents, enemies, etc.

This is just like all of the people who say it was okay for the US to preemptively invade Iraq, because we thought they were a threat. Well okay children, are you okay with half of the world attacking us preemptively because we are a threat to them (which we are, as a poll during the Bush years showed that many people abroad thought us a bigger threat than our opponents)?

Same thing with the mass bombings in WWII. Okay children, is it justified if "terrorists" blow up Americans because of all of our Cold War antics, regime changes, coups, invasions, and so on? Because we continue to mess with their countries?

I rarely get a coherent response from people on these kinds of points.

And the problem is, virtually everyone from civilians to media pundits to leaders shows this same kind of hypocrisy.