Hiroshima mon amour.

[Xipe Totec]

If I went round killing children I'd go down in history as a monster, the worst kind of human imaginable. In war we are trained and coerced into murdering many thousands of children in the most horrible way in their own homes along with their families, to scare the survivors into submission. Is that not wholly evil: the worst kind of mass terrorism we are capable of?

I don't believe deliberate killing of innocents can ever be morally justifiable. Hitler no doubt claimed that the Holocaust and the war of conquest would lead to a golden age of happy people forevermore.

If someone attacks you with a knife, you have a right to kill them with a gun in self defence. But If they kill your brother does that give you the right to kill their family, friends, neighbours - and anyone who lives nearby in vengeance?

Of course when your people are under threat you must do all you can to protect them, and wars once begun must be won at all costs. I am not convinced that anyone surrenders because you kill their children and families. It makes them rather angry. Japan didn't surrender because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the bombing of all their other cities. It was because they lost the battle on every front. Their navy and merchant fleet was entirely sunk and they could not supply their front-line troops. Complete defeat was only a matter of time and would not have required an invasion of the home islands.

Similarly the resources the Allies poured into bombing German cities had little effect on shortening the war in Europe. Half the crews died as huge numbers of planes were destroyed. The same airmen could have fought at the front to defeat the German army instead of their children to much more productive effect. The Nazis gave in because their cities were full of allied and Soviet troops and tanks, as well as German anti-Nazi resistance fighters, not because their kids were incinerated. When they bombed Britain we were outraged, it didn't make us want to surrender or give up the war. When USA bombed North Vietnam with even more tonnage than Japan took, they did not give up the struggle to unite their country.

We must be very careful what means we justify for the ends in the modern world. If a country is ruled by a tyrant their people suffer. But we do not have the right to fly round the world bombing every city and town just because we do not approve of their government. That's what Hitler would have done if he had won.

[Whacker]

So I'm a bit late to the fray here, but I'll weigh in. I couldn't put it better than Martok already said in his earlier post. I think it was a decision made at the time, and it was the "right" decision. From my readings, my view is that an invasion of Japan would have cost many millions of lives total, thus it was the lesser of two evils. A couple points to also throw out.

First, I don't know if I wholeheartedly agree on the targets being civilian. Generally I've always thought that in war, targets should be limited to things of military nature only. Obviously this never happens in practice, but it's still my general view. However, Martok had a good point. The Japanese at the time had a ... different perspective and outlook on life. By bombing a civilian target, it really is the ultimate display that we were willing to be just as savage as they were. (Yes, I've read quite a bit on WWII pacific history, and I do believe that the Japanese were far more "savage" than the US was)

Second, in regards to the surviving Japanese military leaders indicating that they were "ready to surrender"... Something to consider is a people's willingness to fight given what's at stake. I'm not a soldier, never have been and never will be, but if I try to put myself in a similiar situation. Say the US was being beaten, and we were about ready to be invaded by another nation. The US military and government leadership might be ready to surrender and might attempt to do so, but if someone were to step foot on my nation's soil, I'd probably pick up a gun at that point and start fighting, even as a civilian. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks like this, and I'd be willing to bet that the Japanese about that time would have thought the same thing. In short, not only did we have to beat them, we had to break them utterly.

Third, in regards to the bombings, I think the best way to say this is that someone had to do it at least once. In a military setting. I don't view this as any kind of justification whatsoever, BUT I still think the world had to see once what The Bomb could actually do when dropped on a major civilian center. No amount of test detonations or test scenarios could have substituted for it. So in a way, I think that doing so demonstrated to the world how terrible the weapons really are, and just how nasty they could be if used again in anger.

[KrooK]

Good post.
And you Maniac should mention that all the day Japanese army was massive murdering POWs and civilians - for example into China. Japanese army had full support of citizens of Japan.
Abombs show them that they have no chance and if they won't stop they will be killed like mad dogs.
And only this perspective forced "god on earth" to surrender.

[KarlXII]

Good post.
And you Maniac should mention that all the day Japanese army was massive murdering POWs and civilians - for example into China. Japanese army had full support of citizens of Japan.
Abombs show them that they have no chance and if they won't stop they will be killed like mad dogs.
And only this perspective forced "god on earth" to surrender.

So is the murder of German civlians alright because the Wermacht commited atrocities. You have very strange logic.

[Caius]

Abombs show them that they have no chance and if they won't stop they will be killed like mad dogs.

There is not a difference. They would die sooner or later.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Good post.
And you Maniac should mention that all the day Japanese army was massive murdering POWs and civilians - for example into China. Japanese army had full support of citizens of Japan.
Abombs show them that they have no chance and if they won't stop they will be killed like mad dogs.
And only this perspective forced "god on earth" to surrender.

KrooK, you aren't making the distinction between civilians and soldiers. Should the Red Army have destroyed Poland because of the Jedwabne pogrom?

[Xipe Totec]

To those who say that committing atrocities in war is justified to overcome an enemy doing the same, please consider where this logic leads. If we were morally right to terrorise the Japanese and German civilian populations to help win the second world war, then from their point of view the Imperial Japanese Empire were justified in terrorising Chinese civilians to break their will to resist, the Nazis were justified in terrorising East European and Russian people they were trying to subdue, Genghis Khan was justified in slaughtering millions of Chinese people to force other cities to surrender, and so on.

When I am playing RTW and capture a large overpopulated city I often have to butcher the poor sods until my soldiers sword arms ache from overuse. In real life I don't think I'd be quite so keen to watch thousands of people die at my command just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The game mechanic of the Total War games tends to force you to be aggressive towards your neighbours and foster a paranoid 'get them before they inevitably attack you' state of mind. It works in the game because it makes it more challenging and keeps you motivated. Peace and ease in TW can get dull very quickly. The history of the last century surely proves that in the real world, especially in the modern world, there is far more to be gained from peaceful co-operation than conflict.

The reality of nuclear bombs in today's world and the future is that they surely will eventually fall into the hands of dangerous people who will not be simply deterred by the threat of massive retaliation. This cannot be stopped from happening in a world full of antagonism and mutual suspicion, fear and paranoia. It can only be prevented by full and open co-operation and agreement between all nations and peoples who wish to see the human species and civilisation survive long enough to achieve some of what we are capable.

[KrooK]

Guys - whatever we see it
1) A bombs shorted war
2) Carpet bombings of german cities shorted war - how much resources Germany lost there
3) Germany and Japan started massive killings of civilians - and behaving same to finish war was necessary. Trust me or not but if war took longer, Germans and Japans would kill much more civilians than was killed into their cities.
4) Whole German and Japan populations supported their governments. Typical "innocent" Germans behave with Slavic workers same like "innocent" SS soldiers with villagers into Russia.

[Caius]

A bombs shorted war

Lets declare war on your country and drop Ivy Mike, Little Boy and Fat Man. Would you justify it? No. Because its your country, not mine. If I had to drop an A-bomb, I wouldn't do it. The US didn't need to drop the bomb to stop them and keep fighting. It was to show off they had the power.

Even if Japan deserved it, no one should use those bombs.

[Viking]

To those who say that committing atrocities in war is justified to overcome an enemy doing the same, please consider where this logic leads. If we were morally right to terrorise the Japanese and German civilian populations to help win the second world war, then from their point of view the Imperial Japanese Empire were justified in terrorising Chinese civilians to break their will to resist, the Nazis were justified in terrorising East European and Russian people they were trying to subdue, Genghis Khan was justified in slaughtering millions of Chinese people to force other cities to surrender, and so on.

Indeed. Another point is that if you stoop to someone elses level, you are of course no better them no matter what the cause is.

[InsaneApache]

Sorry but I'm with Churchill on this one. When facing a foe as implacable as the Nazis or Imperial Japan, you will have to adopt the methods of those twin evil regimes or lose the war.

[KarlXII]

Guys - whatever we see it
1) A bombs shorted war
2) Carpet bombings of german cities shorted war - how much resources Germany lost there
3) Germany and Japan started massive killings of civilians - and behaving same to finish war was necessary. Trust me or not but if war took longer, Germans and Japans would kill much more civilians than was killed into their cities.
4) Whole German and Japan populations supported their governments. Typical "innocent" Germans behave with Slavic workers same like "innocent" SS soldiers with villagers into Russia.

So you think random innocents should suffer because of their countries leaders? Put the leaders on trial, not the people. Do you think 9/11 is justified because America has funded terrorists/dictators/insurgents?

[Caius]

Sorry but I'm with Churchill on this one. When facing a foe as implacable as the Nazis or Imperial Japan, you will have to adopt the methods of those twin evil regimes or lose the war.

You are as evil as the enemy are, and you become the very own enemy you want to hunt.

[King Jan III Sobieski]

Whether or not the U.S.A. was "morally" right or not...well, I'd have to say you'd have to consult your particular religion's holy books.

Whether or not they were "right" overall - as far as who deserved what (which is a slippery slope, I fully realize!) - but since we are looking at strictly the conflict known as World War II - well, the Japanese did perpetrate such things as the Nanking Massacre. During said massacre, the numbers killed lay somewhere between 100,000 - 300,000 deaths (depending who you believe, of course! Early Japanese estimates were in the range of a few hundred, but later Japanese researchers claim around 150,000-200,000. May nations believe it was between 200,000-300,000). During the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaka, the tolls were somewhere in the vicinity of 220,000.

I know people will argue that taking out the sins of the ruler out on the populace is evil in-of-itself, but I'm a firm believer that the agressor sets the rules of war. That's all.

[CBR]

Please keep this discussion civil. Thank you.


CBR

[Caius]

Please keep this discussion civil. Thank you.


CBR

This may sound stupid and provocative, but are you refering to someone in particular? I don't see this has gone a little out of the standarts.

[CBR]

The tone in some posts could be less confrontational, thats all. Just trying to improve the standards here


CBR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Sorry but I'm with Churchill on this one. When facing a foe as implacable as the Nazis or Imperial Japan, you will have to adopt the methods of those twin evil regimes or lose the war.

About Nazi Germany or Japan? Maybe with Japan it shortened the war, but with Germany it didn't make a difference, and Churchill knew it. He was a bloodthirsty bastard. Great wit, decent politician, but a cold-hearted devil of a man.

1) A bombs shorted war

The ones of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, maybe, yes.

2) Carpet bombings of german cities shorted war - how much resources Germany lost there

Resources? Cities like Dresden were targeted for their ability to cause firestorms, because of the architecture. If by resources you mean humans, then yes, Germany lost a lot of "resources."

The war was finished by this point Krook. Germany was as finished as Poland was five years before. The bombing of Dresden had no effect on the war. Zero.

3) Germany and Japan started massive killings of civilians - and behaving same to finish war was necessary. Trust me or not but if war took longer, Germans and Japans would kill much more civilians than was killed into their cities.

Behaving in the same way as the leaders of the German and Japanese governments was not necessary to shorten or finish the war. The war wasn't shortened by the bombings of Germany. Not at all. Not by breaking numerous articles of the Hague Convention, not by killing thousands of civilians. Not at all.

4) Whole German and Japan populations supported their governments. Typical "innocent" Germans behave with Slavic workers same like "innocent" SS soldiers with villagers into Russia.

Of course Germans supported the Nazi government, at least at the beginning of the war - though I am sure you are aware that support drained considerably by the end of the war. At any rate, Germans didn't behave in the same way with Slavic workers as SS soldiers in Russia any more than ordinary Poles behaved towards Germans in the same way the communist government in Poland did.

You're painting with a broad brush. The resulting art looks nice, but the fact is, it's still art. More accurate sketches are with thinner brushes.

[InsaneApache]

Churchill may or may not have been a blood thirsty bastard, however it could be argued that without him WWII would have been lost. It's my opinion that he did what was necessary to win the war. The alternative is unthinkable.

Blimey, now I'm dragging my own thread off topic.

[Viking]

Sorry but I'm with Churchill on this one. When facing a foe as implacable as the Nazis or Imperial Japan, you will have to adopt the methods of those twin evil regimes or lose the war.

For the Japanese to win the war, they'd need to be able to invade the U.S.; or even, just get an airstrike on U.S. mainland. Something which they could not.

[KrooK]

The war wasn't shortened by the bombings of Germany. Not at all. Not by breaking numerous articles of the Hague Convention, not by killing thousands of civilians

Come on
1) 75% of 88mm guns were not send on front (for example to Italy) because they had to defend Germany?
2) How many tanks were not made because workers had to rebuild their facilities or their homes?
3) How many war materials had to be used into Germany instead of being send to front?


BTW After German bombings of Warsaw I don't see any reason why Dresden should not be destroyed.
Actually I completely support Churchill - he knew that Germans will stop only when see that only option is capitulation or anihilation.

[Ramses II CP]

I will say again that I think it's a mistake to somehow mark deaths by nuclear weapons as 'special' compared to deaths by other means. Conventional air bombing and simple long range shelling produce civilian casualties that are every bit as horrific and immoral as nuclear weapons. The dead are no less dead for being killed by 'ordinairy' weapons, and the maimed no less maimed. Every side in WWII killed on a vast scale, and slaughtered civilians from afar. Victor's guilt is only possible because the side being so indicted won. Their tactics, however derided and despised today, worked. If you really think you could bring about the same results without killing so many, go back and get to work.

I also feel obligated to once again point out that these ex post facto judgements are from people who never had to fear for their lives, never smelled the possibility of defeat, and didn't live through the phoenix like rise of Germany following their inglorious, essentially logistical, defeat in WWI. World war was never supposed to have been possible again, and yet within a generation it rolled around... and from the same nation that had supposedly been devestated in the first war.

The essential point here should be that war is not moral in any conventional sense. It exists beyond the bounds of customary personal rights and wrongs. It was not right to bomb Hiroshima (Or Nanking, or Dresden, etc, etc.) but those men on that battlefield on that day believed it to be necessary, and to second guess them from our comfy armchairs and cushy lives when their decisions brought victory (Even at Nanking, though victory of a more limited kind) is more than a little bit silly.

[Xipe Totec]

Churchill knew it. He was a bloodthirsty bastard. Great wit, decent politician, but a cold-hearted devil of a man.

Churchill was a great orator whose speeches certainly lifted Britain's morale and will to fight back after the humiliating defeat in Belgium and France in June 1940. Towards the end of the war the desire for vengeance overcame his reason on many occasions. He gave the green light for an Anthrax bombing raid upon German cities expected to kill upwards of 3 million civilians. It was only stopped because the bio-technicians in the USA producing the Bacillus anthracis cultures refused to continue the work for humanitarian reasons. It is also worth remembering that he was responsible for the ill-conceived expeditions to Gallipoli in WWI and Narvik in WWII, which were both planned and carried out with shocking disregard for the lives of the men involved, and incompetent military strategy.

A parallel would also be General Douglas MacArthur. An undoubtedly brilliant military strategist, he allowed his anti-communist obsession to warp his judgement and escalate the Korean War beyond the UN objective. He also strongly advocated that the USA drop its nuclear arsenal on Soviet industrial sites after WWII simply to help ensure the USA maintained its technological lead.

Both these cases demonstrate the importance of not abandoning your ethical beliefs simply to achieve a military victory. It may make a war longer and more bloody in the long run, but if you adopt the brutal methods of a military dictatorship in order to defeat a military dictatorship you are in danger of forgetting what you are fighting for.

I think the same is also true now with regards to fighting terrorism. If we give up the very human rights we have long cherished and use methods of torture, imprisonment without trial and global military intervention, then we have allowed a handful of ruthless evil killers who got lucky on one day in September to alter the whole course of human history and change the belief system of the whole free world. In other words we have handed them the greatest victory they could have ever dreamed of, and the best way for them to recruit new gullible fools to die for their sterile cause.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

1) 75% of 88mm guns were not send on front (for example to Italy) because they had to defend Germany?

Yes, but I don't disagree that bombing valid targets like factories is alright, I disagree that bombing cities is alright for the purpose of killing civilians.

3) How many war materials had to be used into Germany instead of being send to front?

By the bombing of Dresden, this didn't matter. The war was over, finished, there was nothing that could change that beyond some sort of super weapon. To top it off, Dresden wasn't even a great target - except for the way the buildings were made, which made a firestorm likely and ensured maximum civilian casualties.

he knew that Germans will stop only when see that only option is capitulation or anihilation.

He was completely wrong. A large portion of Germans, including much of the military heirarchy, wanted peace. Even Hitler wanted peace in 1941.

[KrooK]

MANIAC - YOUR LAST POST IS ATTEMPT TO FALSE HISTORY

Maybe Germans wanted peace but this would be peace when
1) They would kill Jews, Gypsies then Slavs
2) They would spread around the world with their f.... doctrine
Sorry but bombing German cities caused much less victims than signing this peace.

During carpet bombing of Dresden Germany still fought. On western front they were thinking only about capitulation but on eastern - soldiers have to fight for each meter. War was still hard there.

Maybe we should think about something else. What would happen if
"German and Japan society did not vote on nazis or militarist parties and war is not starting."
In the moment their vote on people whom objective was spreading their race all over the world and
destroying "minor" races - they agreed on having big bomb into their dining room

To sum up
LONG LIVE ARTHUR HARRIS - MAN WHO HAVE EGGS INSTEAD OF BEING HIPPIE

[Conradus]

He was completely wrong. A large portion of Germans, including much of the military heirarchy, wanted peace. Even Hitler wanted peace in 1941.

Before or after the start of Barbarossa?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

MANIAC - YOUR LAST POST IS ATTEMPT TO FALSE HISTORY

You're funny...

Maybe Germans wanted peace but this would be peace when
1) They would kill Jews, Gypsies then Slavs

I love your generalizations. No, if there had been peace in 1941 there's a good chance the Jews would've been shipped to Madagascar. That's not very nice or anything, but it's a whole lot better than death.

2) They would spread around the world with their f.... doctrine

So Germans are now a virus? You're aware that the majority of Germans weren't Nazis, right?

Sorry but bombing German cities caused much less victims than signing this peace.

Far from it. The war was already over. Not bombing Dresden wouldn't have changed a thing.

During carpet bombing of Dresden Germany still fought. On western front they were thinking only about capitulation but on eastern - soldiers have to fight for each meter. War was still hard there.

On both fronts German generals wanted peace, an end to the way - that was a large reason for July 20th - and if Germany was fighting the Soviets, why are you - a Pole - complaining?

Maybe we should think about something else. What would happen if
"German and Japan society did not vote on nazis or militarist parties and war is not starting."

Or "what would happen if the Allies had never given them reason to with Versailles" or "if humans had never evolved from monkeys" or "if the world had never been created?"

You realize that less than half of the German population voted for Hitler, right?

In the moment their vote on people whom objective was spreading their race all over the world and
destroying "minor" races - they agreed on having big bomb into their dining room:

You know that when Hitler was voted in that everyone - even the Jews - thought it was just bluster, right?

LONG LIVE ARTHUR HARRIS - MAN WHO HAVE EGGS INSTEAD OF BEING HIPPIE

How would you feel if I went long live Wolfram von Richthofen? I mean, you know, because of the anti-semetism among Poles, you deserved it, right?

Before or after the start of Barbarossa?

Both.

[KrooK]

Red Baron - he was OK

If 75% of Germans did not belong to NSDAP but
1) voted for it
2) served into army
3) happily agreed on conquering half of europe
They supported Hitler.

What was so bad into Versailles?
That Germany had to give back provinces stolen into 1772,1793 and 1795, with polish majority.
Yes so bad - thief had to give back stolen property.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Red Baron - he was OK

Not talking about the Red Baron, but his cousin Wolfram. Manfred von Richthofen was dead by the Second World War.

If 75% of Germans did not belong to NSDAP but
1) voted for it

Very much incorrect. In the only election where reliable polls of the German people were conducted with a good selection of parties, the Nazi Party received 43.9% of the vote. Even if 75% of Germans were actively supporting Hitler - which was understandable given the circumstances, those in Dresden were not necessarily guilty of any crime.

What was so bad into Versailles?
That Germany had to give back provinces stolen into 1772,1793 and 1795, with polish majority.
Yes so bad - thief had to give back stolen property.

If you say that the other lands and cash Germany sacrificed were not German, well, I'm not going to go there. The Polish question can be debated, but I've been through this with someone else at the TWC. Prussia has as long a German history as it has a Polish history, or longer. Prussia wasn't originally Polish either, Krook.

[KrooK]

Looks like you into Germany call Prussia one province but there were 2 prowinces - since Xth century. This is biggest mistake that can be made describing these provinces.
Western (or Kings) Prussia with Gdansk as a capital were always Slavic and had polish majority
From 965 to 1308, from 1462 (practically 1454) to 1793, from 1919 to 1939 and from 1945 to eternity
-as for now about 757 years.
German 1308-1462 (practically 1454), 1793-1919, 1939-1945 - about 274 years.
Yep - if accoring to you 274 is similar to 757 - maybe even bigger - you can improve math.

Easter (or Order) Prussia with Koningsbers were never polish and Poles did not want it. Original tribes of Prussia were Balts tribes. Into history only once Poland really wanted conquer Order Prussia was into 1454 when German people of Prussia had enough of German Teutonic Order and begged polish king for help. After world war 2 poorer part of province was given Poland as a compensation for lost provinces on east. Happens - on the other hand if Germany did not start war, Poland would not lost half of the country.

Silesia - It must been old German region when people get mad. That Germans from 1000 years suddenly took weapon and 3 times started rising to join Poland (1919,1920,1921). Strange things happens after big wars.... BTW - Silesia became German into mid of XVIIIth century, right ( I don't count Austrian silesia due to tolerance into that country).

Greater Poland - theory that it was not polish territory is... Sorry but its simply so stupid that its hard to imagine. Look at map - first polish capital, one of 2 most important provinces for last 1000 years. This province it place when Poland was born. This province before 1793 had same connections with Germany like North Pole with Sahara. Claiming that it is German province would be like claiming that Munich is part of Poland.