How Pure Must a Good Cause Be?

[Woodmonkey]

Click here to see the source of this story

[RAMESES the Great]

German, Japanese, Spanish, Italian, US and British bombing of cities and civilian targets in WW2 were in my opinion, equally barbaric violations of the International Laws of Warfare, or at least they should be so considered. The air corps generals who directed it, and the national leaders who permitted it should have faced international tribunials, like the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials for the losers.

They were not because they were the heroic victors! We did not prosecute the enemy air corps generals for the bombings because it was obvious to all that our leaders were equally guilty. We should take no pride in those actions. I am not saying that all bombing was wrong, but that targeting civilians was. I am not even saying that the crews that did it were wrong, they were brave men doing what they were ordered to do, frequently dying to do EVERYTHING necessary to win the war. I fail to see how anything the "strategic bombing of the reich" did, brought any results worth the human costs of the bombing of the cities and the firestorm of Dredsen. The strategic bombing and firebombing of Japan accomplished nothing before the nuke at Hiroshima. And Yes, I have the self proclaimed congratulations of the air corps in the Strategic Bombing Surveys. Innocent civilians should not be targets. In today's situation, Terrorists are not innocent civilians, they are criminals, not even entitled to POW status.

The other point, we are stained because we associated with Stalins dictatorship to defeat Hitler's and Tojo's. This, to me, misses the point we did not permit Stalin to help us win the War. We (US and Britain) put on a little side show in North Africa, Italy, France, etc.; while the bulk of the fighting in all significant statistics was between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army. Our long promised and long delalyed Second Front diverted very few German Forces from their real enemy to the East. Stalin's tyranny existed before the war, during the war, and after the war and we had no real power to change that.

[JohnRN]

I think I know why the Russians were enraged.

All those who fought, bled and died fought not for Stalin or Communism - but for Russia.

There's a reason it was called the "Great Patriotic War". Stalin KNEW he could count on the intense bond that Russians have for their home. Which was why he INVOKED the name of Mother Russia - not Communism, Not Marx, Not Lenin ... Russia. He called on the people (in his thick Gerogian accent, speaking for the first time to the large public) to defend their homes and Mother Russia.

If people read any of the wartime material put out by ordinary Russians, you can see the clear trend that follows - official propaganda focuses a lot on smashing the fascist beast, while the tremendous amount of unofficial material focuses on the call to defend Russia's honour.

8 out of 10 German soldiers fought and died on the Eastern Front. The Soviets lost 10 million soldiers and 17 million civillians. After the war, whole villages in Western Russia had not a single male between the ages of 15 and 60. The russian soil is SOAKED with blood.

When the President made the statement that he did, russians are rightfully going to be pissed.

The enslavement of Eastern Europe was not the Russian peoples fault - it was Stalin's fault.
The rape and pillage of Germany wasn't exactly the fault of the frontoviki - the combat troops... but rather the crimes commited by vengeful rear-echleon personel. Here again there exists the difference between the Soviets and Nazis - the Nazis were officially immune to persecution for commiting offenses. In other words it was ok to shoot people simply because they were slavs, or jews or communists. The Soviet Army had no such order and often did punish soldiers caught violating orders. Contrast this with Hitler's Kommissarbefehl and Special Orders for Operation Barbarossa.

Besides - what else were the Allies supposed to do? Stalin could well have over-run ALL of Europe - is this preferable to over-running half of Europe?

I'm not trying to find excuses for Soviet crimes - just pointing out that it isn't as simple as it seems.

[JohnRN]

Originally Posted by Bill Davies

I am not saying that all bombing was wrong, but that targeting civilians was. I am not even saying that the crews that did it were wrong, they were brave men doing what they were ordered to do, frequently dying to do EVERYTHING necessary to win the war. I fail to see how anything the "strategic bombing of the reich" did, brought any results worth the human costs of the bombing of the cities and the firestorm of Dredsen. The strategic bombing and firebombing of Japan accomplished nothing before the nuke at Hiroshima.

You know what? I read so much about people decryig the horrible use of nukes on Japan - nobody mentions the horrible effect of napalming Tokyo! 100,000 people died in the firebombing of Tokyo - how many died in the two nuclear bombs?

The entire war was an abberation with civillians routinely targetted. 95% of the casualties in WWI were military. In WWII that number dropped to about 60%

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by John.

... - just pointing out that it isn't as simple as it seems.

Good post, John. Very little is as simple as some would have us believe.