Is violence against civilians sometimes justified?

[alfred russel]

They weren't civilians, they were potential combatants.

Which is an interesting point. Especially in Japan's case, civilians including women and children were being instructed and to the extent possible armed (even if inadequately) to fight during an invasion. At the same time, in an industrial war, what is a more valuable target? A boeing neighborhood full of aircraft engineers or some tents of barely trained conscripts?

[Malthus]

They weren't civilians, they were potential combatants.

Which is an interesting point. Especially in Japan's case, civilians including women and children were being instructed and to the extent possible armed (even if inadequately) to fight during an invasion. At the same time, in an industrial war, what is a more valuable target? A boeing neighborhood full of aircraft engineers or some tents of barely trained conscripts?

That's the hell of true total war - it erases the distinction between civilians and combatants. Sure, some will be higher-quality targets than others, but all are targets.

[Eddie Teach]

Okay, we've got a couple of good answers on what we weren't targeting.  Let's consider that part of the question exhausted.  Now, can we get some answers on what they were targeting?  Let's take Dresden for a specific example.

The rest of your post, the part where you were making your argument, got cut off.  It is hard to respond to an argument you did not post.

You could respond to the part that didn't get cut off, where he was posing a question.

[alfred russel]

They weren't civilians, they were potential combatants.

Which is an interesting point. Especially in Japan's case, civilians including women and children were being instructed and to the extent possible armed (even if inadequately) to fight during an invasion. At the same time, in an industrial war, what is a more valuable target? A boeing neighborhood full of aircraft engineers or some tents of barely trained conscripts?

That's the hell of true total war - it erases the distinction between civilians and combatants. Sure, some will be higher-quality targets than others, but all are targets.

I assume that our plans are to respond to a nuclear attack on our cities from Russia in kind. So...I don't think the question of whether we have progressed to some higher moral plane that will never attack primarily civilian targets is so abstract. If total war breaks out we will be right back to wiping out cities.

[Zanza]

The rest of your post, the part where you were making your argument, got cut off.  It is hard to respond to an argument you did not post.

You are really the grandmaster in dodging questions. Impressive.

[Malthus]

They weren't civilians, they were potential combatants.

Which is an interesting point. Especially in Japan's case, civilians including women and children were being instructed and to the extent possible armed (even if inadequately) to fight during an invasion. At the same time, in an industrial war, what is a more valuable target? A boeing neighborhood full of aircraft engineers or some tents of barely trained conscripts?

That's the hell of true total war - it erases the distinction between civilians and combatants. Sure, some will be higher-quality targets than others, but all are targets.

I assume that our plans are to respond to a nuclear attack on our cities from Russia in kind. So...I don't think the question of whether we have progressed to some higher moral plane that will never attack primarily civilian targets is so abstract. If total war breaks out we will be right back to wiping out cities.

Absolutely. A nuclear war will likely be a total war. The most total war.

I remember reading a while ago about some war games in which NATO attempted to model a "limited" nuclear war (in which nuclear weapons were used only for military purposes). As I recall, it didn't stay limited. Once one side started losing ...   

[DGuller]

The rest of your post, the part where you were making your argument, got cut off.  It is hard to respond to an argument you did not post.

You are really the grandmaster in dodging questions. Impressive.

I beg to differ.  It's trivially easy to not answer questions.  Even a small child can do it with enough will.  Dodging the question requires concealing the fact that it is your intent to not answer the question, and not just merely being obstinate.  I don't think we're seeing a mastery of this technique here, to be honest.

[grumbler]

We were targeting civilians. We used some rather transparent fig leaves to pretend like we were not, and as Harris states it's not like it was so simple as targeting one thing or another.

We were also trying to destroy their industrial capacity to wage war, and in large part we succeeded. Both Germany and Japan were eventually nearly crippled from shortages in all kind of material.

But it is a fiction, IMO, to pretend that area bombing was not also an attempt to just kill a lot of people, and those people, by and large, were civilians.

Total war sucks. I hope we never get into another one.

If civilians were, indeed, the targets, why were the bombs aimed at the rail yards, factories, airfields, bridges, chemical and oil production facilities, and the like?  Why place the CEP of the bombing raid away from the highest concentrations of civilians, and risk them being wasted on factories, rail yards, and the like?

And why target civilians?  What was the gain perceived to lie in killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians?

I think most people arguing here either don't understand what "targeting" means, or they do understand but prefer polemics to addressing the real issue.  Sure, civilians were killed, and in large numbers.  That was an accepted cost of targeting German industry and its support infrastructure (including worker housing).

There are certainly questions about the cost-effectiveness and proportionality of some of the raids in World War Two, Dresden being perhaps the chief example.  It is a long stretch, though, from "disproportionate collateral damage was inflicted" to "[the Allies were] killing civilians just for the sake of it," which is the statement I objected to.

[Norgy]

Okay, we've got a couple of good answers on what we weren't targeting.  Let's consider that part of the question exhausted.  Now, can we get some answers on what they were targeting?  Let's take Dresden for a specific example.

Dresden, as far as I understand it, was a one-off. A rather terrible one-off. A show of force not so much made to beat Germany into submission, as that was a done deal pretty much, but to show the Soviets what airpower could do.

LeMay would've gladly started a war against the Soviets together with Patton.

Somewhat calmer minds prevailed at SHAEF.

[The Brain]

This thread reminds me of Baghdad Bob. Or Builder Bob? One of the Bobs.

[Zanza]

The rest of your post, the part where you were making your argument, got cut off.  It is hard to respond to an argument you did not post.

You are really the grandmaster in dodging questions. Impressive.

I beg to differ.  It's trivially easy to not answer questions.  Even a small child can do it with enough will.  Dodging the question requires concealing the fact that it is your intent to not answer the question, and not just merely being obstinate.  I don't think we're seeing a mastery of this technique here, to be honest.

Fair enough, I guess dodging is the wrong category. I could not think of a better word though. I was just impressed by his unconcealed and brash attempt to turn the argument in a different direction by just writing nonsense. I wouldn't have dared and would probably just not have answered at all. So his self-confidence as expressed in his completely ignoring of other posts is impressive.

[grumbler]

You could respond to the part that didn't get cut off, where he was posing a question.

He could easily Google that.  It isn't like the targets on the Dresden raid are still secret.  The six raids by 8th Air Force over six months targeted the railroad marshaling yards, for instance.

[Valmy]

This thread reminds me of Baghdad Bob. Or Builder Bob? One of the Bobs.

Can we commit violence against civilians? Yes we can!

[Zanza]

Dresden, as far as I understand it, was a one-off. A rather terrible one-off.

Not really. It was just one of many. Hamburg in 1942 was probably the first.

EDIT: And of course before that bombardments of e.g. Rotterdam or Shanghai.

[grumbler]

The rest of your post, the part where you were making your argument, got cut off.  It is hard to respond to an argument you did not post.

You are really the grandmaster in dodging questions. Impressive.

I didn't respond to the question because I am not Google.  It is trivial to discover what the targets are.  If there is an argument to be made in order to advance a discussion (see my posts, for examples) it should be made.  Mere factual questions should be Googled.