2006-11-25 12:38:07 · 12 answers · asked by skittles 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I believe even at the time there was debate about whether they were justified. I've heard that General Lemay once remarked that if the war went the other way, they would have been tried as war criminals for their acts. I don't have the reference for that though, I'll have to look it up.
I look at it thins way, it probably was justified if you believe that war is a contest between enemy populations, and not just between militaries. If you don't believe that, then probably not.
2006-11-25 12:41:54 · answer #1 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think you have to look at it from the perspective of the time. All the participamts used area bombing as part of their military strategy. The only difference was that by the end of WWII the Allies had the industrial capacity to take the strategy to new levels of destructiveness with the 'thousand bomber raids' and firebombing and finally with the A-bomb. Industrial Age war in practice allows no one to be a non-combatant as all are directly or indirectly involved in the war effort. It is only from hindsight that these techniques appear so very morally repugnant - ie from the time of 'precision bombing'. Perhaps there will be a time when wars are won and lost in cyberspace with no blood spilled, at which time I am sure our use in our time of military violemce where real blood is spilled will be percieved as especially morally repugnant and barbaric.
2006-11-25 21:02:53 · answer #2 · answered by Hayley 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely, with out braking the will of the people supporting the insurgent armies. The people supporting the armies would have continued supporting the fighters unless they were shown in no uncertain terms that continued support meant total annihilation. My friends mom grew up in Dresden during WWII and confirms this opinion.
2006-11-25 20:50:06 · answer #3 · answered by yellowkayak 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
good question, at least someone has enough knowledge to complain against real attrocities, but my answer has to be why not, total war win's wars, and this is nothing different than what the Fascist's and militarist's did to the free people of the world during that terrible conflict, and you have to beat the enemy not make a peace with the status quo.
2006-11-25 21:56:29 · answer #4 · answered by asmith1022_2006 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It wasn't like we had extra bombs laying around and we needed the practice. What kind of question is this? Yes it was justified.
2006-11-25 22:12:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2006-11-25 20:46:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes... we were at war... a war that we won... We won because we *totally defeated* the enemy.... There was no wimpy diplomatic solution that would have smoldered until it burst into the flames of a new war. Sadly many today don't realize that winning a war requires that one defeat the enemy.... not kiss his butt.
2006-11-25 20:57:10 · answer #7 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
After the bombing of London, Paris, Moscow, Pearl Harbor, Nanking, Manilla, etc, etc, etc, etc, I would have to say, sadly, yes. (You left out Berlin and Nagasaki?)
2006-11-25 20:48:15 · answer #8 · answered by Pete 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
the winner of the war is the boss. if you lose it can hurt a lot more than the guilt of winning this way. all is fair in love and war.
2006-11-25 20:42:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, paybacks a beach!
2006-11-25 22:00:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋