3 ms·

There were military factories in the city center also. What I'm saying Jacques, is that the issue is nuanced. I encourage you to read Frederick Taylor's excel

by nvy 3y ago

There were military factories in the city center also. What I'm saying Jacques, is that the issue is nuanced. I encourage you to read Frederick Taylor's excellent book on the subject.

jacquesm 3y ago
I've read that already (note: history is written by the victors) as well as a whole pile of other books on war (WWI, WWII) and ethics, rules of engagement and so on. My takeaway is that if you want to be able to take the moral high ground as a nation state you play by the rules even if that gives you a disadvantage on the off chance that you win the war. Because if you do you will end up with a more broken world than the one that you had before and now you have no tools to fix it without being labeled a hypocrite. This is all pretty complex stuff and not worthy of treatment by comment (books would be more appropriate) but that's how I feel about it and I don't think that it is going to be a trivial affair to move me from that position. It also informed my stance on how I perceive war and my own possible role in it: I would definitely find myself mobilized (financially, personally) to help defend countries that are overrun by obvious aggressors, including my own but I would under no circumstance allow myself to be roped into a war of aggression up to the point where I would be happy to go to prison or worse if it came to it. This is not trivial stuff and I have so far been fortunate enough not to have seen this put to the test in a practical sense. I know Dresden was not a purely civilian target, but civilians were fairly explicitly targeted, either that or you'd have to chalk that all up to extreme sloppiness, which is not a case that anybody credible has ever made.
- nvy 3y ago
  >I know Dresden was not a purely civilian target I feel like we're pretty much on the same page, then.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    I really don't know why all the people defending strategic bombing of civilians, targeted at civilians at that, ignore all the contemporary documents from the people doing it, Harris, the RAF, USAAF and so on, clearly showing they knew already back then that a) it was a war crime and b) didn't even have remotely the effect they used to sell it in public (namely destroying enemy moral to the point the enemy surrenders).

by nvy 3y ago

There were military factories in the city center also. What I'm saying Jacques, is that the issue is nuanced. I encourage you to read Frederick Taylor's excellent book on the subject.

jacquesm 3y ago

I've read that already (note: history is written by the victors) as well as a whole pile of other books on war (WWI, WWII) and ethics, rules of engagement and so on. My takeaway is that if you want to be able to take the moral high ground as a nation state you play by the rules even if that gives you a disadvantage on the off chance that you win the war. Because if you do you will end up with a more broken world than the one that you had before and now you have no tools to fix it without being labeled a hypocrite. This is all pretty complex stuff and not worthy of treatment by comment (books would be more appropriate) but that's how I feel about it and I don't think that it is going to be a trivial affair to move me from that position. It also informed my stance on how I perceive war and my own possible role in it: I would definitely find myself mobilized (financially, personally) to help defend countries that are overrun by obvious aggressors, including my own but I would under no circumstance allow myself to be roped into a war of aggression up to the point where I would be happy to go to prison or worse if it came to it. This is not trivial stuff and I have so far been fortunate enough not to have seen this put to the test in a practical sense. I know Dresden was not a purely civilian target, but civilians were fairly explicitly targeted, either that or you'd have to chalk that all up to extreme sloppiness, which is not a case that anybody credible has ever made.

nvy 3y ago
>I know Dresden was not a purely civilian target I feel like we're pretty much on the same page, then.
- hef19898 3y ago
  I really don't know why all the people defending strategic bombing of civilians, targeted at civilians at that, ignore all the contemporary documents from the people doing it, Harris, the RAF, USAAF and so on, clearly showing they knew already back then that a) it was a war crime and b) didn't even have remotely the effect they used to sell it in public (namely destroying enemy moral to the point the enemy surrenders).