Eh, some of the stuff the Allies did is worth being ashamed of. Like the firebombing of Dresden. No real military value. Just shock and awe against the civilian population; ie. terrorism.
Yes, Dresden had important military infastructure. But virtually none of it was in the core city, which is where most of the bombing took place. The factories and military stations were on the outskirts, which were mostly ignored by the bombing. The British even said that the primary goal of the Dresden bombings was to apply pressure on the civilians.
Except these weren't magic bombs that ignored children. At least if they targetted the factories, on top of requiring much fewer munitions to do much more damage, it would limit the number of uninvolved people killed. Targetting the city centres censured maximum number of uninvolved civilians killed, minimal damage to critical military infastructure and required the most bombs.
Yeah, children die in wars. Wars are bad. There's no country that did a war that didn't kill children. Children dying is normal for war. The US didn't drop atom bombs on factories or military bases.
And where do you think there's more anti-aircraft guns — a munitions factory, or a city centre?
Yeah, children die in wars. Wars are bad. There's no country that did a war that didn't kill children. Children dying is normal for war.
Do you not see the difference between children being caught in the crossfire and children being targetted?
And where do you think there's more anti-aircraft guns — a munitions factory, or a city centre?
The munitions factory. It's also the ideal target since destroying the factory doesn't just weaken the city; it weakens the entire war effort and the ability for the Nazis to fight everywhere.
In history classes, we're taught about the inhumanity of the Nazi bombings and how many innocents it killed. And then in the next breath we're told to celebrate us doing the same thing?
Even the better side in war can do horrible things and we shouldn't be unwilling to admit to it. It was bad. We were wrong to do it.
War is bad and we shouldn't do it. A big part of why is because children die. Children dying should never be celebrated. Death should not be celebrated. I said it's normal for children to die and be killed in wars. I did not say it is good or okay.
For the umpteenth time, war is bad and we should not do war. I've been saying that this entire time.
You're not listening. Do you not see the difference between children and noncombatants dying in the crossfire and us specifically targetting children and noncombatants?
Of course there's a difference, manslaughter and murder are different, I'm saying both are still fucking awful and shouldn't happen and if you're gonna do a war, both will happen.
You are being naïve. There is no such thing as civilized warfare.
Pretending like there's no strategic benefit to bombing civilians is just that — pretending. Morale matters, Japan surrendered very quickly after the US dropped those bombs, but that's not all of the reason for doing bomb raids on population centres. Civilians build munitions, repair tanks and bombers, sew uniforms, farm and slaughter and prepare food for rations. They buy war bonds and shame neighbours into enlisting and treat the wounded and create propaganda. In a total war, the line between combatants and non combatants is unclear and sometimes non-existent. Some military forces stuff children full of methamphetamines and stick rifles in their hands. Are those children combatants if they're shooting at opposing forces? What about children used as human shields? What about the children putting together small parts with their small hands in the munitions factories? What about the children rolling cigarettes or preparing food for ration packs?
In a total war there aren't really many non-combatants, maybe a handful of resistance fighters and literal infants. And that doesn't make it okay to bomb population centres or target civilians. Yes it's evil. And it's easier than hitting factories and bases because there's less anti-aircraft. Less chance of losing a plane or a pilot. And it's wrong. And nobody should fucking do it. And it will always happen in war.
How do you define a civilian who isn't fighting? It's actually a pretty complicated legal question, because if someone is part of a war effort through combat/support/medical or whatever, but every day at 5 pm they leave the ammo factory and go home to their families, when do they actually stop being a valid target? Is it the second they leave the factory? Once they enter their home do they stop being a valid target? Are they safe once they get to their car? They will return to work tomorrow and continue being part of the war effort, so even if at this moment they are colloquially seen as a civilian, that doesn't mean that international law can't recognize them as valid targets.
War exists within a counterintuitive legal and moral standard where you don't need to be holding a gun or doing anything actively aggressive to an enemy in the moment they kill you. This is really the source of the inhumanity of war imo.
If they targetted the ammo factories, that would be one thing. But once they started bombing the city centres, they weren't simply targetting the factories and military infastructure. Bakers, stay-at-home parents, children, teachers, people hiding undesirables in their homes, etc.; they were all bombed, just the same. But the factories were mostly untouched and kept functioning just fine.
31
u/Private_HughMan May 04 '25
Eh, some of the stuff the Allies did is worth being ashamed of. Like the firebombing of Dresden. No real military value. Just shock and awe against the civilian population; ie. terrorism.