Atom Bomb On Japan

[spidge]

(karlos @ Nov 8 2005, 09:06 PM) [post=41286]The atom bomb itself was, from a moral point of view, not worst that the ordinary bombings like Dresden, Hamburg or Tokio, which actually caused more civilian deaths. What is inmoral in war is the deliberate killing of civilians, something all sides did and that is to me clearly a war crime, be it with atomic or conventional weapons.
[/b]

What about London, Birmingham, Coventry, Bristol, Rotterdam?

[karlos]

As I said, all sides did it. It doesn't make it less of a crime. I noted Dresden, Hamburg or Tokio for being, by far, some of the most devastating. Dresden alone had more victims than the whole Luftwaffe campaign against UK. The nazis did kill a lot of civilians, wiped out whole towns especially in the east and of course there were the jews. But from the air, they were amateurs compared to the allies.

[spidge]

(karlos @ Nov 8 2005, 09:44 PM) [post=41291]As I said, all sides did it. It doesn't make it less of a crime. I noted Dresden, Hamburg or Tokio for being, by far, some of the most devastating. Dresden alone had more victims than the whole Luftwaffe campaign against UK. The nazis did kill a lot of civilians, wiped out whole towns especially in the east and of course there were the jews. But from the air, they were amateurs compared to the allies.
[/b]

What were the alternatives?

[angie999]

(karlos @ Nov 8 2005, 10:44 AM) [post=41291]Dresden alone had more victims than the whole Luftwaffe campaign against UK. [/b]

No it did not. There is a lot of misinformation and a lot of deliberate disinfomation about Dresden.

The best estimate of those killed is in the range 25,000-40,000 and probably nearer to the bottom of the range than the top. There is a detailed discussion on this elsewhere on the forum if you want to search and this is not the place to repeat it all.

The single most destructive bombing raid in terms of the loss of life in WWII was the USAAF raid on Tokyo onthe night of 9-10 March 1945.

[spidge]

(angie999 @ Nov 8 2005, 11:32 PM) [post=41300]

No it did not. There is a lot of misinformation and a lot of deliberate disinfomation about Dresden.

The best estimate of those killed is in the range 25,000-40,000 and probably nearer to the bottom of the range than the top. There is a detailed discussion on this elsewhere on the forum if you want to search and this is not the place to repeat it all.

The single most destructive bombing raid in terms of the loss of life in WWII was the USAAF raid on Tokyo onthe night of 9-10 March 1945.
[/b]

As has been said previously, the Dresden number was Herr Goebles last propaganda "Coup".

[karlos]

While the exact number of deaths in Dresden may not be exact, my point is still valid: the allies bombers killed many more civilians than the Axis, and it is unquestionable.
About the alternatives, just keep bombing industries or military targets. I don't think that everything is justifiable for the goal of winning the war. Otherwise, all war crimes can have a justification, of course from the point of view of the winner. The nazis had an evil behavior, but it does no good to deny the allies faults when they did them.

[angie999]

(karlos @ Nov 8 2005, 01:05 PM) [post=41306]While the exact number of deaths in Dresden may not be exact, my point is still valid[/b]

Your point is not valid if your history is imprecise. It you use examples, they need to be accurate.

None of the allied bombing of cities in WWII was a war crime. Neither was the German bombing of Britain. The reason is that it was bombardment of defended enemy cities and as such permitted under the Hague Convention 1907.

[spidge]

(karlos @ Nov 9 2005, 12:05 AM) [post=41306]While the exact number of deaths in Dresden may not be exact, my point is still valid: the allies bombers killed many more civilians than the Axis, and it is unquestionable.
About the alternatives, just keep bombing industries or military targets. I don't think that everything is justifiable for the goal of winning the war. Otherwise, all war crimes can have a justification, of course from the point of view of the winner. The nazis had an evil behavior, but it does no good to deny the allies faults when they did them.
[/b]

A new book by Frederick Taylor clears up a few myths about Dresden. It was a legitimate military target.

Taylor has benefited from the opening up of the former East German archives and, as a German speaker, he has been able to research his subject thoroughly. He has looked at the history of the city (large parts were destroyed by war several times before 1945) and its social and cultural background. The myth has it that Dresden was full of harmless, arts-loving innocents concerned only with manufacturing luxury goods such as cameras and china. In fact, Dresden was a Nazi stronghold before Hitler even took power. Martin Mutschmann became the regime's longest-serving Gauleiter (governor), and one of its most brutal. Anti-Semitism was a popular policy pursued with gusto. In 1938 the people of Dresden sacked the synagogue, one of the city's most beautiful and arresting buildings. And though the city was known around the world as "Florence on the Elbe", by 1945 it was home to no fewer than 127 factories employed in war work – work that occupied the vast majority of the population and that, in the context of the war, made it a legitimate military target.

By February 1945, Dresden had also become an important railhead, with hundreds of thousands of troops heading to the rapidly approaching Russian front - and it was for this reason, officially, that Dresden was bombed: we were helping the Russians. As Taylor proves, the Nazis were every bit as keen on wiping out cities as the Allies, but by 1945 we were better at it. Over Dresden, the conditions were perfect: the anti-aircraft defences had largely been removed, the sky was clear, and the targeting as precise as the technology of the day allowed.

[karlos]

I don't buy the theory of the collective guilt as an excuse to kill innocents. Among the german population there were evil nazis, undoubtely, but the vast majority were common people, as in any country. Bomber Harris himself acknowledged many times that his goal was to kill germans. The military or industrial structures of Dresden, or of any german or japanese city in 1945, where just the official excuse for the raids. And about helping the soviets I bet more on the theory that the raid was a show of allied air power just to warn the soviets against future ideas of non-pacted expansion. Which, by the way, was also a good reason behind the atomic bomb.

[spidge]

[quote name='karlos' date='Nov 9 2005, 12:47 AM' post='18556']

I don't buy the theory of the collective guilt as an excuse to kill innocents.

I am not selling and I am not theorising. The collective guilt as you prefer to call it is all in your mind. You would prefer then that only military people die. I would prefer that there was not a war in the first place however neither of our prayers will be answered.

War is a terrible waste of life and WW2 saw carnage that was beyond belief. Wars occur, people die. Non combatant Men, Women and Children on both sides suffer however when countries are fighting for their lives and their way of life, a win at all costs and reciprocated, "in kind" mentality comes into force. If you think that there can be war without collateral damage you are living a dream as it will not happen.

Among the german population there were evil nazis, undoubtely, but the vast majority were common people, as in any country.

This is the most ridiculous and unsubstantiated statement you have made so far. You cannot just put your beliefs into a forum and expect that they be accepted. You sound like the present day Nazi movement denying the Holocaust and attempting to change history.

There was a "SMALL" percentage of the German people who rejected Adolf Hitler yet "MOST" were caught up in the euphoria of the thought of the 1,000 year Reich being a reality and in so doing were responsible for the carnage that beset their children. The Hitler youth, the children chanting dirty jew, the millions, yes millions cheering after the invasions in the early part of the war were riding the Hitler train with glee. When they started to see the the reverse side and the carnage and their wounded men returning home in their 10's of thousands, then they started to pull the cord and shout let me off but by then it was too late.

Bomber Harris himself acknowledged many times that his goal was to kill germans.

Would you have preferred he just wounded them instead. Or maybe you would have preferred him to kill the British. Of course his job was to kill Germans however you would take it as the children he was referring to. Germany's will to fight had to be tested..........fact! Sad but a fact all the same

The military or industrial structures of Dresden, or of any german or japanese city in 1945, where just the official excuse for the raids.

Had Germany surrendered in February 1945?..........No. The Battle of the Bulge emerged when the allies mistakenly thought Germany was a defeated enemy and lost thousands of men in the true realisation that they were not.

Japan similarly was not a defeated enemy "in mind" in August 1945. Your theory would be that it would be okay for 1,000,000 or more Americans & British troops to die but not alright for 500,000 Japanese men, women & children to die....................A life is a life!

And about helping the soviets I bet more on the theory that the raid was a show of allied air power just to warn the soviets against future ideas of non-pacted expansion. Which, by the way, was also a good reason behind the atomic bomb.

Yes it was perfectly demonstrated and the bomb has not been used since because the world now knows the destructive power. If not used to save lives, yes save lives in defeating Japan the bomb may have been used in Korea or...????............................which would have been much more devastating and the start of a Nuclear Holocaust.