A few thoughts.
First off let’s get off the high horse. My family was IN the Hambuge Fire Bombing. Lost there home, my grandmother had lung issues the rest of her live. My father was almost killed in 4 seperate air raids by his count and once when the train he was on was straifed. And he was only 15 at the end of the war.
But the fact that modern generations can’t seam to understand is that war is hell for everyone and that one side is obliged to do its best to win and keep is troops and civilians alive and if that means killing the other side, we’ll sadly that happens.
And like it or not GB, France the US and the Wallies were the victims in WW2. You can argue about the USSR either way.
Some things are obviously “wrong”. Killing peoples that have surrendered, setting up death camps, torture in general. Etc.
other areas get gray very fast. It is easy in the day of smart bombs laser guided and GPS weapons and what have you to cry that mass bombing is wrong. But in a day when the tech was such that your circle of probability is measured in miles It is harder. it is the streetcar problem.
The old argument do you kill 50 “inocent” civilians to save 1000 or your troops? What about saving 100 of your troops? What about 1 of your troops? Do you want to explain t a mother or a wife or a child that you COULD have saved their loved one? How about if it was your loved one?
In general most “laws” on war crimes typ outlaw things that are in the end somewhat pointless. For example Gas. We all outlaw that because in general it is a horrible weapon that is not of much use once both sides start using it. So we outlaw things that if both sides don’t use then it won’t benefit or hurt anyone. But you will note that both GB and Japan considered using Chemical weapons to fight off possible invasion of their home islands. The US had some discussion about various options to use against Japan instead of an invasion.
In 1945 the Nuclear bomb was not viewed as It is today. It was not a NUCLEAR bomb, it was a BOMB that was nuclear. It was just a bigger bomb. And easier way to destroy a city instead of sending a 1000 bombers and risking a 1000 crews. It was frankly much like the difference between using shovels vs a backhoe. It is with hind sight that we understand that Nuclear weapons are different, But even today the big reason we don’t use Nuclear weapons even small ones is that there is no clear stopping point between tactical nukes and Czar Bomba. So we distinguish between conventional bombs and Nukes.
Is all the above ”right”? Who knows, depends on whos ox is getting gored . And I a sure not saying the US dropped the bomb or did anything else in particular in order to save a Chinese person much less a Japanese person. But it was a happy side effect of ending the war sooner, Several famous military men have said variations of the same point. The war to end the war with the fewest overall casualties is to end it as soon as possible and sometimes that requires a lot of casualties in the short term. The reality is that the Paton comment is true. You win the war by making the other re dumb sin of a bitch die for HIS country.
Is this moral or fair or whatever you want yo call it? Yes and no. In an ideal world we would not have to decide if killing thousands in bombings is right or not. But in an ideal world we would not have war. I can however tell you that from a very personal point of view anything that saves MY loved ones is “good” and anything that harms or killed my loved ones is “bad”. And anyone that tells you otherwise is lying to themselves or you.
I would push the button without hesitation that destroys an entire country if it saved my Nieces or nephews from dying in a war. And arguably that is the true definition of if something is moral.
Yes this is ugly, but war IS ugly. Let’s not pretend otherwise. All we are doing here is trying yo argue that you can pick up a turd by the clean end,
It is simple. You do what you have yo to protect yourself and what is yours and your families.
Note that yes some very very very very very very few people will be able to sacrifice thier loved ones to save others. But frankly from the per of 99.99999999999999% of the population these people are insane. And for the most part their relatives will agree that they are insane.
it is a mater of perspective. The difference between right and wrong is much like the difference between Comedy and tragedy. Tragedy is me cutting my finger, comity is you falling off a cliff. Right is what saves mine wrong is what hurts mine.
we may pretend otherwise and try to act all holier then thou but that is all it is an act.
It may be argued that a president of the US may or may not launch Nukes if he sees incoming nukes. But if he knows he can save the US by launching those Nukes he will launch them. And from the point of view of 300 million Americans he will be doing the right thing.
And if you disagree then think about this. Picture a building With 100 enemy troops, 5000 enemy citizens and it has to be taken out. You have 500 crack troops outside and a B-2 with a smart bomb. Do you send in your troops or the bomb? Many will say send in the troops it may cost 100 of them but it will save 5000 Innocent civilians,
Ok fair, but what if it was you some or daughter that was going to be the first one in the door? Or if you were going to be first in?
I am willing to bet that every single man landing in France on Dday would have pulled the trigger to drop a bomb on Berlin or Hamburg if it avoided the invasion. And even though my Father lived in Hamburg at the time I can’t say from the point of view of the troops they would be wrong to do it,
Moral ity is NOT clear cut. And anyone that says it is has never had to make a hard choice and has never realky thought it through or a lying to themselves. Look at the movie Saving Private Ryan, was the LT morally right letting the German prisoner go vs shooting him? Perhaps but when that ex prisoner laters caused the death of one of his own I bet he would change his mind and I am SURE the dead guy and his family would think hexwas wrong yo let him go. But killing prisoners is wrong and a war crime.
Is torture wrong? Sure. Should it be outlawed? Sure. But what if you know 100% sure that a bad guy buried a kid somewhere with hours of air? What if the bad guy new where the nuclear bomb was in NYC? I promise you that in these cases if torture was used to get the answers that the torturer would get pardoned.
Saddly on this forum and elsewhere we have people that just can’t see things from other perspectives. And we also have people that will use any chance they get to make a snide comment or an outright attack on whomever or whatever country or thing they don’t like especially if the can do it from the so called moral high ground.
So let’s not get stuck up on a high horse.
