Posted on 08/07/2022 6:13:37 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
Not to mention rehearsals....
It occurred to me that this debate happens every year on 6 August, and (moreso of late) on 13 February (anniversary of the first attack on Dresden, in 1945).
The self-appointed moral arbiters post their condemnations of Allied air campaigns, and criticize their inferiors (the rest of us) for daring to gainsay their orthodoxies. No counter-argument penetrates their self-righteousness; no restatement of fact, nor historical context, nor strategic constraint, seems to make a dent in their certitude.
Their claim to be in possession of an all-encompassing moral code and their eagerness to jawbone us lesser mortals into complying with their diktats can tell us nothing useful about the validity (or the flaws) of that code, but it might be giving us hints about the size of their egoes, and the level of their self-regard. Repeated attempts to enlighten them don’t seem to do anything except solidify their certitude.
Whatever the value of morality and certitude of conviction might be, it is unwise to give priority to moral strictures if they degrade military effectiveness. And the more total any given conflict becomes, the more unwise such behavior can be. Being moral won’t help us if we happen to lose the war thereby.
And if the Second World War cannot qualify when it comes to totality, it’s tough to imagine what might.
This underscores the point that I have been trying to make throughout the thread: the civilians were always considered fair game.
Whenever the subject of Japan and the Bomb comes up, there seems to be an element of the population that is incapable of considering even the idea that the Americans could have behaved viciously in order to achieve certain ends. Nobody wants to believe Steven Ambrose's "Citizen Soldier" or Norman Rockwell's "Homecoming G.I." were capable of any wrongdoing.
(It was only those "Japs" and "Krauts" who behaved badly dontcha know, the Americans were as pure as the fresh-fallen snow.)
All I know is that I had two uncle over there. One in the Marine Provisional, or whatever it was called, and the other on the USS Missouri. The one in the Marines told of how they were required to put all their personals in a brown envelope and write a farewell letter.
Said that when they heard of those being dropped they got their stuff back and went on one hell of a bender...even though it was piss warm beer.
The navy uncle had to make way to go into harbor for the surrender. He witnessed it up from the bridge. Also said they was some real tight ass people on those ships. They didnt know what to hell to expect.
While I disagree with everything you have written here I would like to commend you for at least trying to alter the ethics of our firebombing campaign against Japan and not the history of it, as some would do.
“Not to mention rehearsals....” [GingisK, post 162]
The test structures built in Utah and in Florida weren’t used for anything except evaluation of weapons effectiveness; too small and too costly.
Tactics development & evaluation - sneered at as “rehearsals” - were undertaken only spottily during World War Two. Such efforts picked up after Korea, but had little influence on actions in Southeast Asia. Better organization began to bear fruit only in the late 1970s.
And answers are still being worked out. The arguments over how much time & resources to devote to such activities are by no means settled.
“...The one in the Marines told of how they were required to put all their personals in a brown envelope and write a farewell letter...” [crz, post 164]
I’ve seen several accounts, telling us that such orders before a major assault were often given, but if they were Corps-wide policy, I cannot say.
As a B-52 aircrewmember, I deployed in 1979 to the forward area just after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. RUMINT had it that we would soon be making airstrikes; before we took off on what turned out to be surveillance sortie, we were required to sanitize uniforms and remove all personal articles from our pockets and flight kits. No letters home though.
Just what policies are in effect now, I’ve no idea.
“While I disagree with everything you have written here I would like to commend you for at least trying to alter the ethics of our firebombing campaign against Japan and not the history of it, as some would do.” [Captain Walker, post 165]
I don’t really care what your take is on the ethics of this or that WW2 Allied airstrike campaign, but suspect your counterattack on those citing bits of history from the period isn’t undertaken with decent motives. I question both the honesty and the probity of self-appointed moral arbiters, who cast aspersions on the character of decisionmakers of those days, and on the actions of those lesser personages, who had to carry out the actual orders. Their sweat and their sacrifices made possible the life we enjoy today; second-guessing them now breaks faith with our predecessors, casting a cloud of doubt over actions that cannot be redressed now.
Moralizers are freeloaders, contributing little.
You have no idea what anyone here has "contributed", and the sanctimony you display while you deride others for the same is laughable.
1. We didn’t start the war.
2. We didn’t engage is systemic war atrocities, as did the Japanese, towards us and their neighbors. Wake Island. Execution of missionaries. Comfort women.
3. We gave the civilian population warning. They baked out of their own pride. If Japan had the same capability, there is nothing in their culture or history that suggests they would do in kind.
4. Heavy industry and their workers, were equally legitimate targets as military dispositions.
5. Japan knew they couldn’t win. But they were willing to continue the misery for everyone.
6. We spared Tokyo so that there would be a government post-war in order to rebuild. And then we rebuilt their economy, later super-charging it via the Korean War.
They got what they deserved. FAFO at the nuclear level.
Well, we're no longer denying that the US deliberately targeted population centers, so I feel like I've made some progress.
Maybe next there will be an admission that the "LeMay Leaflets", if they even were actually dropped, were simply too vague to be of any practical use. www.quora.com
Maybe we won't see eye to eye on this; I've made my point and I'll step out here.
“You have no idea what anyone here has “contributed”, and the sanctimony you display while you deride others for the same is laughable.” [Captain Walker, post 169]
You’re absolutely right that I’ve no direct knowledge.
But I can bet the odds, after having accumulated at least a little knowledge of how people behave. I spent years grubbing about in the the trenches, we might say. The metaphorical trenches, mind you; for a long time, I labored behind the scenes to help those who were required to enter real trenches, improving their equipment and their training. Those practitioners are the reason the nation stands; they hold all of the rest of us (including moralizers) in their hands.
As a self-appointed moralizer, you claim complete, final, and absolute knowledge of everything - or at least the things that matter (according to you). All your protestations and assertions are but to say, “I know more than you do, so my moral code is better, and therefore I own an unlimited right to tell you lesser mortals what to do. You have an unlimited responsibility to obey. And you are not even permitted to question my diktats - if you dare, you will be banished from the community.”
My ego isn’t quite expansive enough to allow me to aspire to such sweeping authority. Most of my professional life, I was required to concern myself with somewhat less exalted and rather more grubby realities.
Many examples could be given, but here’s a simple one: if a space rock falls from orbit and hits you on the head, the results will be serious. Nothing in your moral code will save you.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/08/opinion/teachers-guns-schools.html
Another example I stumbled across minutes ago.
My surmise is that most forum members will look on this as an illustration of flaws in Left/Progressive worldviews.
I consider it a wider-ranging admonition: about how unwise it might be, to trust our security - our very fate - to self-appointed moralizers. And to the chattering classes in general.
Draw your own conclusions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.