Is violence against civilians sometimes justified?

[Eddie Teach]

I think on the note that we can be certain that civilians were not the target of massive fire raids because people are not very flammable, I am out of the discussion.

I started was laughing my as s off at that. But was too embarrassed at the time to post. Would;

"civilians were not the target of massive fire raids because people are not very flammable, "

qualify as a straw man?

Grumbler has no tears for those people because his heart is made of tin.

[11B4V]

I think the problem is, it doesn't matter that civilians arent very flammable, its an irrelevant statement including it in the same sentence as incendiary bombs.

The accelerant (incendiaries) makes the whole claim, that civilians aren't very flammable, irrelevant.

[DGuller]

Picture of damaged materiel:

[11B4V]

Picture of damaged materiel:

Yea, when you add an accelerant like napalm.

[Razgovory]

The naked girl later became a US citizen.

[The Brain]

The naked girl later became a US citizen.

Doesn't matter. You shouldn't be punished for future crimes.

[grumbler]

It is relevant to the discussion if we are debating whether or not civilians were the targets, since frag bombs are what you use to attack personnel.  A hint:  the percentage is near-zero if not actually zero.  The Allies dropped anti-materiel bombs (HE and incendiary).

Would fragmentation bombs be effective at killing personnel inside masonry buildings?

The civilians would not be inside the buildings, they would be in bomb shelters or outside, fighting the fires, or whatever.

[grumbler]

Originally, I had typed a much longer post, but I decided not to post most of it, because this was the last line, and really is about all that needs to be said with regards to many of the bombing missions flown by the USAAF and even more by the RAF in WWII:  if area bombing of cities isn't targeting civilians, it's close enough in practical terms to make no difference.

Again, this is the argument that the collateral damage was excessive to the primary damage, and so that strategic bombing was disproportionate use of force.  That is a perfectly  reasonable stance.

[grumbler]

I think on the note that we can be certain that civilians were not the target of massive fire raids because people are not very flammable, I am out of the discussion.

I started was laughing my as s off at that. But was too embarrassed at the time to post. Would;

"civilians were not the target of massive fire raids because people are not very flammable, "

qualify as a straw man?

Straw people because they are targeted by incendiary bombs?  An interesting argument.  I suppose you would use incendiary bombs on a straw man.

[grumbler]

Picture of damaged materiel:

Wrong war, and those are not material, nor were they hi by incendiary bombs.  But, 0 for 3 is a great score for a troll. 

[Richard Hakluyt]

Nah, that gets us back to relative costs - are 50 little old ladies worth the cost of the raid.

Which is the situation Churchill faced in the war, according to you.  The Allies conducted about 1.4 million bomber sorties over Germany to kill some 300,000-500,000 civilians.  If killing the civilians was the object (i.e. they were the targets), that's a remarkably small return.

I would also add that the RAF lost 80,000 men in the allied strategic air offensive as did the USAAF (79,265 and 79,281 - almost exactly the same). If they were consistently going for civilian casualties then they chose a remarkably costly way of going about it.

[grumbler]

I would also add that the RAF lost 80,000 men in the allied strategic air offensive as did the USAAF (79,265 and 79,281 - almost exactly the same). If they were consistently going for civilian casualties then they chose a remarkably costly way of going about it.

Those aren't the numbers I have seen, interestingly enough.  According to the official US figures, (http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/utils/getfile/collection/p4013coll8/id/128/filename/117.pdf) the USAAF lost 36,461 total in the entire Atlantic area.  That includes tactical air forces like the Ninth and twelfth Air Forces, and the other strategic air force (in the Med), the Fifteenth.

I don't know what would account for the discrepancy.  I think the RAF numbers are a bit higher than I have seen before (I recall something like 60,000 BC personnel KIA, but don't have a good source for that to hand).

In any case, however, you are correct:  the cost and effort would certainly seem disproportionate to the return.

[Richard Hakluyt]

@grumbler - the Imperial War Museum has an offshoot at Duxford which focuses on the air war. There is an American building with a commemorative wall showing downed planes and casualties. The figures I recall from that are also given in the wiki article on the subject which has the following reference for the table they give : http://www.wwiiarchives.net/servlet/action/document/page/113/7/0

The discrepancy probably has something to do with how the casualties were categorised.

[DGuller]

Picture of damaged materiel:

Wrong war, and those are not material, nor were they hi by incendiary bombs.  But, 0 for 3 is a great score for a troll. 

1)  People become more flammable since WWII?
2)  Yes, that was the point, the people in this picture who were targeted are not materiel, and were not inside any materiel or nearby any materiel.
3)  Napalm bombs are not incendiary bombs?

[grumbler]

@grumbler - the Imperial War Museum has an offshoot at Duxford which focuses on the air war. There is an American building with a commemorative wall showing downed planes and casualties. The figures I recall from that are also given in the wiki article on the subject which has the following reference for the table they give : http://www.wwiiarchives.net/servlet/action/document/page/113/7/0

The discrepancy probably has something to do with how the casualties were categorised.

Yeah, "personnel lost in action" is kinda vague, but what is especially interesting is that source you cite has more US personnel lost in the bomber offensive than the official record has for US Air Corps deaths in action for all theaters over the entire war (52,173).  Maybe the number in your source includes POWs?  That would move the figures a lot closer.