Is violence against civilians sometimes justified?

[Norgy]

IMO it's not hard to make the leap the allies deliberately targeted civilians.

Of course they did. You don't fire bomb Tokyo to keep it from being an effective troop transport hub.

I repeat: during WWII everybody was out of their fucking minds. But you don't have to be a genius to look around at our response to terrorism to see how likely it is everybody lose their minds again.

But we were the good guys.

Actually, that sums up the argument well. It was okay because the good guys did it.

[grumbler]

You argued that the answer to my question "what evidence do we have that the Allies 'killed civilians for the sake of it'" was on Google, and I pointed out that it was not.  Your response now is that it is on Google.  That's the most feeble weasel i have seen in quite some time.  Do you have evidence, or do you not?  That's not something that google can answer.  If there is an argument to be made in order to advance a discussion it should be made.  Mere factual questions should be Googled.

Is your argument now that a particular phrase you picked does not find results? Your inability to use Google is funny, but not something worthy of further consideration.

My comment was an observation that your claim, that the answer to my earlier question was readily available on Google, was false.  If you cannot provide such evidence, then i will assume that you cannot, and that all of this weaseling about Google is just that:  a weasel to avoid admitting that you cannot provide evidence that the Allies were "killing civilians for the sake of it."

Given that you cannot provide the requested evidence, I believe our discussion is concluded.

[Zanza]

Well, I can easily find it on Google (and others as well as demonstrated in this thread) so I can only assume you are unable to use Google correctly. Given that I can't teach you how to use it, I agree that we are at the end here.

[DGuller]

I'm just curious, how in the world is Churchill's quote about terror bombing under other pretexts not a relevant one?  You would think that he would be the one is the know the most about real objectives of the bombing campaigns.  Did I miss some post here, in between refreshing sarcasm, that explained away that Churchill's quote?

[grumbler]

I'm just curious, how in the world is Churchill's quote about terror bombing under other pretexts not a relevant one?  You would think that he would be the one is the know the most about real objectives of the bombing campaigns.  Did I miss some post here, in between refreshing sarcasm, that explained away that Churchill's quote?

Thank you for at least addressing the question under discussion.  That's refreshing after all of the weaseling to avoid acknowledging a lack of evidence and the question-begging.

Bombing Germany in such a way as to lower German morale (which is what he refers to frequently as "increasing the terror") is not at all the same thing as killing civilians for the sake of killing them.  One could imagine acts of "terror" that harm no one (blowing up an empty Army recruiting station, for instance).

The quote referred to before, by the way, was from a draft memo.  The final memo read as follows:

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so called "area bombing" of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our Allies: and we shall be unable to get housing materials out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. We must see to it that our attacks do not do more harm to ourselves in the long run than they do to the enemy's immediate war effort. Pray let me have your views.

You can see here that Churchill is referring to the destruction of German housing, not the deaths of civilians. 

The belief that Churchill using the word "terror" is evidence that the Allies killed civilians for the sake of it is, lacking some link to actual decisions to preferentially kill people than damage things, just a belief.  I prefer to base my historical conclusions on the historical evidence. And the evidence says that the Allies were aiming at material damage, not killing civilians for the sake of it.

[DGuller]

Then I'll have to go back to The Brain's argument.  Saying that by bombing houses you're destroying the housing stock is like saying that Colonel Dyer was just dispersing a meeting.

[Malthus]

Then I'll have to go back to The Brain's argument.  Saying that by bombing houses you're destroying the housing stock is like saying that Colonel Dyer was just dispersing a meeting.

We weren't killing people, we were ruining their clothing to destroy their morale. If people happen to be inside those clothes, that was just collateral damage. 

[Valmy]

Actually, that sums up the argument well. It was okay because the good guys did it.

The "okay"-ness of it is pretty controversial actually.

My issue is not so much whether or not people were "good guys" or "bad guys" but rather if we can learn from the experience. The fact that people either rationalize what happened or just say "well Churchill and company were just BAD PEOPLE and we are GOOD PEOPLE" does not make me very optimistic that people understand or care why what happened occurred.

[Valmy]

Then I'll have to go back to The Brain's argument.  Saying that by bombing houses you're destroying the housing stock is like saying that Colonel Dyer was just dispersing a meeting.

We weren't killing people, we were ruining their clothing to destroy their morale. If people happen to be inside those clothes, that was just collateral damage. 

You joke but would you do differently if you felt Canada was in existential danger from an aggressive militaristic nation? And even once the Axis seemed to be beaten we were looking at sacrificing tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of our people to ensure peace. Would you be willing to sacrifice your son to bring about peace in order to keep enemy civilians alive?

[DGuller]

Then I'll have to go back to The Brain's argument.  Saying that by bombing houses you're destroying the housing stock is like saying that Colonel Dyer was just dispersing a meeting.

We weren't killing people, we were ruining their clothing to destroy their morale. If people happen to be inside those clothes, that was just collateral damage. 

[Malthus]

Then I'll have to go back to The Brain's argument.  Saying that by bombing houses you're destroying the housing stock is like saying that Colonel Dyer was just dispersing a meeting.

We weren't killing people, we were ruining their clothing to destroy their morale. If people happen to be inside those clothes, that was just collateral damage. 

You joke but would you do differently if you felt Canada was in existential danger from an aggressive militaristic nation? And even once the Axis seemed to be beaten we were looking at sacrificing tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of our people to ensure peace. Would you be willing to sacrifice your son to bring about peace in order to keep enemy civilians alive?

Hey, I'm not raising a debate about the morality of measures taken during a total war imposed by ruthless aggressors. Just making a quip about the post facto justification of its techniques. 

[Berkut]

Then I'll have to go back to The Brain's argument.  Saying that by bombing houses you're destroying the housing stock is like saying that Colonel Dyer was just dispersing a meeting.

We weren't killing people, we were ruining their clothing to destroy their morale. If people happen to be inside those clothes, that was just collateral damage. 

You joke but would you do differently if you felt Canada was in existential danger from an aggressive militaristic nation? And even once the Axis seemed to be beaten we were looking at sacrificing tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of our people to ensure peace. Would you be willing to sacrifice your son to bring about peace in order to keep enemy civilians alive?

I would not sacrifice my children for much of anything.

I would be perfectly happy to sacrifice liberty, freedom, others, torture, etc., etc., to save my children.

Which is why it is a really, really dumb question. The metric of "What would a parent do to ensure the safety of their own children" is a pretty terrible metric when it comes to deciding what societies should and should not do...

[mongers]

I'm just curious, how in the world is Churchill's quote about terror bombing under other pretexts not a relevant one?  You would think that he would be the one is the know the most about real objectives of the bombing campaigns.  Did I miss some post here, in between refreshing sarcasm, that explained away that Churchill's quote?

Thank you for at least addressing the question under discussion.  That's refreshing after all of the weaseling to avoid acknowledging a lack of evidence and the question-begging.

Bombing Germany in such a way as to lower German morale (which is what he refers to frequently as "increasing the terror") is not at all the same thing as killing civilians for the sake of killing them.  One could imagine acts of "terror" that harm no one (blowing up an empty Army recruiting station, for instance).

The quote referred to before, by the way, was from a draft memo.  The final memo read as follows:

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so called "area bombing" of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our Allies: and we shall be unable to get housing materials out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. We must see to it that our attacks do not do more harm to ourselves in the long run than they do to the enemy's immediate war effort. Pray let me have your views.

You can see here that Churchill is referring to the destruction of German housing, not the deaths of civilians. 

The belief that Churchill using the word "terror" is evidence that the Allies killed civilians for the sake of it is, lacking some link to actual decisions to preferentially kill people than damage things, just a belief.  I prefer to base my historical conclusions on the historical evidence. And the evidence says that the Allies were aiming at material damage, not killing civilians for the sake of it.

A better summary can be found here:

http://historum.com/war-military-history/100659-war-civilians-3.html

[Valmy]

Which is why it is a really, really dumb question. The metric of "What would a parent do to ensure the safety of their own children" is a pretty terrible metric when it comes to deciding what societies should and should not do...

I totally get what you are saying Berkut and I completely agree. But I am not talking about what societies should and shouldn't do at all. I am saying that was the situation the Allied nations were facing. It was not theoretical but very concrete.

[Berkut]

I think the quote from the draft memo is rather telling:

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed.

I am not sure how you can spin that to mean much other than Churchill questioning whether the current policy of bombing for the sake of increasing terror should be reviewed.

It seems like a pretty hard stretch to look at quotes like that, look at what was actually done, and come to some conclusion other than that the Allies were in fact engaged in an effort to kill large numbers of civilians as at least one of several primary goals of area bombing.