English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

should we have stopped, and returned home?

2006-07-21 04:55:55 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

24 answers

Civilian casualties are inevitable during war.

The best a country can do is attempt to minimize civilian losses.

2006-07-21 04:57:49 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 0

It's true we lost the moral high ground after use incendiaries on Dresden and nukes on Japan, but looking at what we faced in 1945, i probably would've done the same thing. To compare the moral depravity of state sponsored genocide where the death ovens at Aushwitz/Birkenau were topping out at 2,600 per day or 80,000 killed per month and the aerial bombardment of civilians is looking at different scales.

The "Final Solution" was the policy of only one country during the last century, and it wasn't the U.S. My beef is with the multi-national business cartels that allowed it to happen, the top being IG Farben (now BASF, Bayer, among others).

Not only did they finance Adolf, they supplied him with Zyclon B for use in the death camps. The American side of the company was not tried at Nuremburg, although they were just as culpable, go figure.

The fire bombing of Dresden by the 8th Air Force and RAF Bomber Command, caused the destruction of 15 square kms including 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 18 churches, etc. with a conservative estimate of around 30,000 civilians killed. At the time, the Germans used it as propaganda to advocate against following the Geneva conventions and to attack people's perception of the Allies claim to absolute moral superiority. The military claimed the railroad center was a military target, which it was, altho it was up and running a week later. Feb 1945 was only 3 months away from May 1945 (end of the Euopean war), the outcome of the war was not in doubt, so why bomb a 'cultural' medieval city of 600,000?

The firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, genocide should also include civilian victims of aerial bombardment. Even after saying this, i still don't think the Allies were close to the moral depravity of the Nazis and their wholesale holocaust of the Euopean Jews.

2006-07-21 21:17:10 · answer #2 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0 0

Yes, the bombings of Germany killed many German civilians. However, the purpose of the raids was not so much to kill Germans as to destroy Germany's means of production for war. Since most of the factories were located near railways and cities, the human price was high.

2006-07-21 05:03:17 · answer #3 · answered by Paul D 2 · 0 0

The strategic bombing was to accomplish two things: destroy the enemy's ability to fight, and diminish the enemy's will to fight. We weren't just fighting Hitler, but a powerful segment of the nation was fighting us, along with Hitler at their head. WWII would not have come to its conclusion, such as with Iraq and Afghanistan today, if all we did was shoot where swastikas were flying and the people nearby were shooting at us.

Actually, considering the wars that Europe and elsewhere has had, WWII was much more humane. Germany took their invasions as authority to loot, rape, and pillage in the older pattern. Allies, however, were intent on restoration. The same today. Look at what Saddam's army did to Kuwait, in the Nazi pattern and as long history had demonstrated. Look at what we did in Iraq. We spend Saddam's resources and boatloads of our own on Iraqi redevelopment.

Wars are not pretty affairs and we have made incredible effort to make them far, far less horrible.

2006-07-21 05:05:40 · answer #4 · answered by Rabbit 7 · 0 0

if the US had lost World War II, the people responsible for the Fire Bombings in Germany and Japan, including the nuclear bombing, would have all been brought up on charges for crimes against humanity in the same way the Germans and Japanese were. Former secratary of defense Robert McNamara will also tell you that.

2006-07-21 05:00:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I have to say there are no just wars. Having said that, If we had turned around because of that, Hitler would have been the Emperor of half the world.

The North Vietnamese understood this: the war is won by the most ruthless, willing to do to the innocent what the other side finds appalling.

2006-07-21 05:00:12 · answer #6 · answered by Tommystune 3 · 0 0

When you get involved in a war, you don't stop till you either win, or the other side wins.
Remember that the U. S. got involved in the war after a sneak bombing attack on sleeping people in Hawaii, on Sunday morning, Dec. 7,1941.

2006-07-21 05:03:28 · answer #7 · answered by Stargater 2 · 0 0

We should have been more particular in our city bombing. The massive riads over Dresden and the resulting firestorm killed more civilians than the bombs over Hiroshima.

But we were the rightoues ones, because god was on our side.

2006-07-21 05:00:14 · answer #8 · answered by Imaginer 4 · 0 0

And allow the Nazis and Japan to go on unabated? No, that's ridiculous! Sadly, civilians are a casualty of war, particularly when cowards like Hezbollah hide behind them.

2006-07-21 05:04:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No, because then there would have been more turmoil... Would you plase stop dropping these little hints trying to compare uncomparable things?

Have you been told by your overlords, George Bush et al, that you may not address these real things anymore so you must use "hypothetcal"situations. CALL A SPADE A SPADE!!!

2006-07-22 04:34:42 · answer #10 · answered by Mac Guru 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers