The Morality of 'Area Bombing'

[mongers]

Catching up with some podcasts I came across this interview with a British war veteran who experience the bombing of Dresden.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21440139

I at least found it interesting and thought it might be a good starting point for a debate about area bombing and especially his own view on the morality of it. 

[The Brain]

I don't know, depends on the area I guess.

[mongers]

I don't know, depends on the area I guess.

I think if you have a spare 8 minutes, this man's experience is worth listening to.

[derspiess]

How about the area of morality bombing? 

[mongers]

How about the area of morality bombing?

OK I'll get right onto it and start a few more threads.   

[Viking]

I don't know about the morality of the bombing, but flattening dresden saved this guys life, literally.

[Ideologue]

There's a debate about the morality of area bombing?  Since when?

[Viking]

There's a debate about the morality of area bombing?  Since when?

Well yes. The Oppenheimers, Harris' and even the LeMays of WW2 had some serious reflection about what they had done in WW2 and for the most part expressed the view that it had been better had the destruction of cities not been necessary. Then the america and west hating culture relativists of the 1960s decided that because the allies did this during ww2 the allies were just as evil as the nazis.

[The Brain]

They had serious reflection and reached the conclusion that WW2 was bad?

[Viking]

They had serious reflection and reached the conclusion that WW2 was bad?

Did I say that?

[The Brain]

They had serious reflection and reached the conclusion that WW2 was bad?

Did I say that?

Yes. Also, define oil company.

[derspiess]

[Viking]

They had serious reflection and reached the conclusion that WW2 was bad?

Did I say that?

Yes. Also, define oil company.

I didn't say that.

[OttoVonBismarck]

WWII was not a prize fight, area bombing was basically not a moral issue. In a War of that nature you do whatever you need to do in order to win, it's not about morality. Now that being said, there has been substantial arguments by some corners over the years that our large scale strategic bombing, relative to the resources and personnel used, actually did not do enough damage to the enemy industry to justify its use. Now yes, having air superiority for basically the entirety of American involvement in Western Europe was very important, but I'm more receptive to the arguments that strategic bombing paid poor dividends strategically than I am concerned at all about its morality.

I'll also note that countries like Germany, which embraced and put Hitler into power, are (if there are moral concerns with area bombing in a conflict like WWII) "more appropriate" as targets because the people themselves are part of the problem. It isn't the same as if we were in a war with North Korea, Nazi Germany was a dictatorship swept into power by popular support and even many Germans moderately opposed to Nazism were willing collaborators. The North Koreans are born into their state, and have little knowledge or understanding of the outside world. I'd feel more qualms about leveling Pyongyang than I would nuking say, Berlin 1945.

[Siege]

I don't know.
North Koreans could rebel and bring down the dictatorship.

Everybody is responsible for their own freedom.