Adler said:
However there is much spoken here. And all arguments are told. I suggest to stop here.
Hold your horses
Adler, I have still something
little to comment...
I decided to step in for a small chat.
C-G makes a very good point, but I think for the sake of ease those issues are usually lumped under morale. Certainly when I said Liverpool was percieved as being close to collapse it wasn't civilian morale that caused this statement as it remained high and defiant. It was rather that the infrastructure of the city was thought to have collapsed, and local efforts to keep the city going were believed to be failing.
My point is that in some cases separating strategic bombing of infrastructure from bombing in order to lower morale is quite difficult.
However I think the difference is on scale and also the methods. I think lowering "the morale" (will to fight) IMO can be quite often effectively considered only to be happening by causing terror and destruction by bombing civilians.
@ C~G:
To break the morale is a valid aim. But to do that by bombing civilians is not. And even if there was no alternative that had to be abandoned at the point it was showing that it was useless. The morale wasn't broken. Indeed all chances of a revolution against the browns were destroyed. You can't do much while you are in bomb shelters. At this point the Allies had to abandon it finally. They didn't.
The nuking of a city had to be the ultima ratio. Even if war was lasting a month loger the other possibilities had to be taken. Japan could have surrendered, too when the bomb was used in the way I already explained. Thus it was a warcrime.
First of all
Adler, I have to say I agree about some things you have said in this thread.
But like always when talking about historical facts and the decisions made by different sides based into these and the moral dimensions and possible justifications of these decisions and the following acts, it all depends what kind of approach we happen to take. And before any even distinctive lines between different premises can be drawn we have to layout the situation back then for all to see.
In this discussion more than ever (especially since it maybe heated up) people see the reality of 1940s completely differently. This causes severe problems when people then start to debate or discuss these things since people assume that other person has same kind of view about the situation. And the theoretical premises such as of "total war" and "strategic bombing" doesn't make it any easier.
I remember I once exchanged emails with one russian guy interested about history and of course as I'm a finn we talked about Winter war, the decision of finns to join the war with Nazi Germany and summer of 1944 and so on. We agreed about many things but there were issues we completely disagreed with and this lead to numerous misunderstandings until we realized that even when we originally agreed about many things we understood how differently we saw the cause-effect links between events. We arrived to the same conclusions from completely different directions!
The reason I mention is this that it's clear how differently you
Adler see the reality of WWII than many others in this thread. When you say something is fact, they say it's opinion (based into emotions). When they say it's a fact, you say it's wrong. It's not only about viewpoints but you're operating almost in different levels of the issue.
Trying to figure out whether something is justifiable in the history and what were the actual causes between different acts is almost futile act. Thing is that we don't have the information people at those times had, not only the facts but also the overall "feel of things", how people example grabbed different ideas or how likely they choose certain scenarios over different ones. Neither the people back then had the information like we have now in order to see where their actions actually lead them.
Example if you consider the atomic bombs being the first act on cold war and if Truman co. knew it, don't you consider that it might had prevented possible much more severe future conflicts by these two displays of power?
And if their calculations to use the bomb was based into this, can we blame them?
At this point we collide into this invisible wall that reminds us about the difficulty and complexity of the issue. If we start to consider how atomic bombings could had been chosen not to be used suddenly there is plentiful other scenarios that could had occurred because the lack of use of them. How history would then remember the lack of acts then?
IMO there wasn't single reason for the use of atomic bomb. I think
it's sheer error to think there's clear one decisive reason for acts as monumental as this one.
IMHO the reasons for use of atomic bomb by US in 1945 were these (some of them probably carry more weight than others):
1. Show by this act of force which is completely out of proportion compared to other ways of warfare (quickness/force/no way to retaliate) to Japan that it must surrender unconditionally (and it does follow the principles of strategic bombing theory as it has the highest score of payoff ratio)
2. Test the weapon and to make sure the project for the bomb is considered succesful (as there was probably pressure to use the bomb like OP suggests)
3. Use it as act of punishment and possible revenge to Japan for being the aggressor and starting the war in 1941 by the attack to Pearl Harbour and the continuing operations in Asia (and further stamping superiority of Allies towards those that still being sceptical about the outcome of the world conflict)
4. Introduction of the weapon to the rest of the world including russians implying that US has now the ultimate weapon (as it was clear that the russians would become eventually the opposition for US/western dominance)
For me the problem for the justifications of the use of bombs is the short window, how short was the time separated by these acts. Did Japanese have clear frame of reference at that point to really be able to justify themselves either the surrender or the continuation of the war?
Personally I consider the fire bombings of Tokyo being as vile acts as of these use of nuclear bombs. Finding justification for based into any of the above reasons is extreme difficult. You will find numerous alternative scenarios that might be much worse than what happened.
However this doesn't in general mean that the acts cannot be considered to be immoral or illegal. They are different conclusions rising from different set of values and premises. Example how we define warcrime or crimes against humanity? Etc.
Is it about disproportiniality of your acts towards civilians, the genocidal nature of these acts even when using amoral total war theory to justify your actions?
If so, such things as Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki easily fit to those descriptions and ultimately aren't only massmurders but also crimes against humanity.
It is quite telling that some are not able to discuss issues without bringing out their pet hobby horses, without any actual support.
There is no such thing as a civilian in a total war.
Indeed it is and in your case it's pet puppy which is the theory of total war. It looks cute but doesn't really count for much else. You may feed it and play with it but still doesn't do anything but look cute.
You probably understand that if we're doing about "justification of acts" you cannot rely into total war theory. You won't find any justification from that theory since it doesn't have any. It doesn't know any nuances or value propositions outside of making the most out of the opportunity to win.
Total war theory is in the same level of justification as the holocaust is for the nazis. You annihilate the pests that are bothering you. Only difference is that total war theory also accepts total submission. Which was the case seemingly with the allies.
It's not coincidence this theory was made famous by a prussian. It is not coincidence that why westerners have been so succesful in war. They have followed this theory all of their history. You have read more than probably Victor Davis Hanson so you know what I'm talking about. But the theory has it's weaknesses, it cannot examine itself since it's justification is the very existence of itself.
Similar for you it seems the justification of atomic bomb is that it simply exists and it can be used. Civilians for you are just objects like buildings that need no considerations but problem with this is that it doesn't actually carry any further justification outside this "it exists, it's powerful, so therefore we can use it to the enemy the way it causes most harm towards it's war effort".
The theory of total war resides in totally different category where the prospect of finding justification lies (example considering the status of civilians in war). That theory doesn't have any considerations towards proportionality of the acts.
History becomes repetition of facts, behaviour and actions rather than lessons and inquirys of possibilities about alternative scenarios. And it causes serious strains towards finding optional solutions for future scenarios of warfare as our code of ethics differ from those times. In other words we are doomed to repeat the history and not learn from it. It becomes an "Orwellian machine for truth".
As soon as we apply it, all the considerations towards who's civilian and who's not flies out of the window and same goes to glorifying other side being morally somehow superior since the history is wrote by those who are victorious and not by those who have done more justifiable acts.
If we then start to think outside of that total war theory and consider that war has rules and justifications for acts apart from winning, then we suddenly realize new dimension to these things and theory of total war becomes rather irrelevant since it's completely amoral position. Nature doesn't know justifications, but we do.
Theory of total war doesn't offer any kind of fine tuning of considering between different approaches for human warfare or the applications, forms and methods of warfare. If you are trying to find justification of different value of targets apart from their value towards victory. It can be used to justify almost any actions of war even those that are completely overkill so to speak.
Regarding this scenario it might be same as if your opponent in hand to hand combat is in prone position with nose bleeding and questions is do you hit him with sledgehammer? If you base your valuation towards that theory only, the answer is of course. The justification for the act becomes from the fact it's the most decisive way of making sure you're going to win.
If you want to stick into total war theory, you can but don't try to then say allies had more justification towards any acts over japs, huns or russkies. The good intentions do nothing towards anything if the deeds are evil, leading only everybody on paved road towards the gate from which there is no return.
The atomic bomb was the ultimate expression of strategic bombing theory, and allowed the success of this in practice to a greater extent than conventional air deployed bombs.
The aim of strategic bombing is not to kill people, but to destroy cities, factories and homes. If humans get in the way, then it is their bad luck. In a total war, victory is the aim - not the preservation of enemy life, military or civilian.
The most efficient way to destroy a city with the targetting technology of the 1940s is to burn it down. This can be done rather inefficiently by massed firebombing raids, or much more efficiently and effectively by the employment of an atomic bomb.
A further consideration is the dispersal of industrial facilities in Japanese cities, and to knock these machine shops out requires a wide area effect weapon.
You're saying that bombing civilian targets like homes is attack to infrastructure and not towards people. Sure you can think that, but if we consider what kind of effects it has to the population of these cities, the sheer terror of it, they all play part in the strategic bombing theory. Bombing home that has families inside is bombing civilians whatever the way you put it.
That theory takes nice sidesteps and let's say has interesting psychological sideroutes in order to justify the bombings of civilian targets. It's similar to that of combat training were your enemy is dehumanizated in order to be able to defeat him. It will not offer anything towards justification of these acts. If you see the enemy on your sight, you shoot him.
Of course it's nice device to get around the difficulty of justifying shooting civilians, so instead you use other terms like "lowering morale" and "destroying infrastructure". Clever thing that really, shut down the empathy and mimicing part of the brain so finding any similarities between you and enemy is made harder so you are ready for the maximum potential payoff ratio in form of cold calculative murder. However people who actually do it might know exactly what happens beneath them example during fire bombing raids. At least they can wear earplugs so they don't hear the screaming of the old women and children.
However you can use also strategic bombing theory against bombing civilian targets if it means that the effects are minimal considering it's overall effect to the ability the enemy to take part in the war. If payoff ratio is low, you won't do it. In case of atomic bombings it's very difficult position since the war ended after them. But were they the real reason why the war ended or just last straw that would had been cut anyway? You won't find any evidence from that theory towards this problem only the same old mantra "might makes right" and "winners write history".
The bombing of Tokyo was certainly not intended as a terror bombing, but as a strategic attack on the industry, morale and war making potential of the Japanese Empire. Conventional iron bombs would not have been at all effective, given the dispersal of industry. Account, if you can, for the characterization of its only purpose being as a terror bombing.
That is quite much of BS.
You cannot say it wasn't supposed to be "terror bombing" and "attack against morale" at the same time.
Ordinarily strategic bombing like you said was targeted towards infrastructure and potential to make war (which BTW can be interpreted in numerous ways such as of => causing terror => less war making potential) but when applied in large scale towards cities like Dresden and Tokyo or Hiroshima the question is about causing massive amount of damage to the weakest links in the enemy's society to have most impact towards effecting their morale with lowest casualties to your own side. It's pure perfection of sheer terror when it comes to weapons. Stating it was all collateral damage is the vilest of lies that can exist. The extension of that collateral damage crap happens to be even exist nowadays.
Thinking that it wasn't used to purposefully terrorize and destroy civilian targets but for something else actually is against the whole notion of total war theory and might imply that you are holding these acts morally superior to something else but cannot justify them since as said total war theory doesn't have that kind of elements besides winning.
Provide evidence from the USAAF and the Strategic Bombing Survey.
You're asking evidence about wild atrocities from the side that actually carried through them?
Did general handbook of wehrmacht tell how to get rid of jews?
Adler actually mentions one such notion that can be interpreted it such here:
The primary object of the Combined Bomber Offensive laid down in the Casablanca directive of the 21st January, 1943, was “the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial and economic systems and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened.”
How they are going to weaken this "morale"?
It happens by weakening the infrastructure and like I pointed out earlier by making ordinary life much harder.
But the implications don't stop there. As we can see from history the threat of terror and actualization of it becomes available through the massive air bomber fleets allies are able to gather around those years. And they use it. They even develop methods to cause the most massive amount of damage humanly possible to these civilian targets. Civilians have become one of the primary targets and yes it follows exactly the principles of total war theory (and also strategic bombing theory) but finding justifications for it compared to some other methods of warfare are futile if using there theories. You maybe want to find them there but simply won't. The theory is similar to the theory of capitalism it's about pure profit, it doesn't count towards human factor. It's kind of like finding justification to slave trade by that it brings most profits to the slave traders by the theory of slave trade (who's side we of course take since they are the ones that eventually write the history as slaves cannot write
).
Strategic bombing theory is all about objects and it treats also people as such, you won't find any justifications for any actions from there. It's only maths, the least amount of resources towards the most impact on enemy. That's it. And primary tools to lower morale isn't only destroying the infrastructure but also cause terror. It is to subdue the enemy to the thought there's no other solutions but surrender. Atomic bomb is great tool for it since it basically since there's no shelter from it. The risks for yourself are minimal and effects almost unimaginable compared to them. Of course this only applys long as your opponent doesn't have the bomb, then it becomes more complex game-theory problem.
Of course strategic bombing theory doesn't mention human victims because people behind the theory are humans. So you create detachment and call it "destroying houses and lowering the morale". It doesn't say: "Cause as much terror and human casualties as possible with least amount of your own casualties to produce greatest payoff towards winning". But that's how it works.
It is not a matter of attacking civilians. They are not a factor. They cannot be effectively separated from targets in a total war using the methods available in the 1940s. To pretend otherwise is to avoid the facts.
You're bluffing
Simon by implying that it's about total war and then saying that it's technological bottleneck to separate the targets. That is of course partly true but there's difference between making strategic bombing towards industrial targets and massive multiple phased incendiary bombings. Allies just found it was more effective to just "give it a go" for civilians bombings and bomb everything on site rather than concentrating only into military targets. It offered highest payoff ratio towards winning the war. Or they think so but we can question the choice not only by rationality whether these actions actually affected the war outcome and also whether they are after all justifiable acts of warfare.
Of course since some people consider US and western allies being morally superior from the start they think their way of doing total war is more justifiable than those by the nazis or japs. Unfortunately, they aren't. As soon as you apply the rules of total war, there are no justifications to be found from anywhere except winning. It depends entirely what rule system we use to make the judgement calls about these issues.
And needless to mention same rhetoric is used even today.
I apologize for this quite long post but maybe I contributed at least something with it to the discussion. As last words of it I want to point out how difficult to grasp and complex this subject really is like of course many other historical issues. I have feeling some people want to call it clear cut issue and think it's simple case and sweep under the carpet other viewpoints that might have relevance to the subject.
And
Adler, no this isn't the end, this would be the beginning of the journey to find the answers if we would be serious about it.
Most of us probably aren't that serious. Not sure about OP since he's on the field.
This was my fat man.
(I come later to check&edit possible errors, I'm too tired for that of now.)
