In full context, the quote from Lemay, "There are no innocent civilians," refers to officially declared "total war" -- WWII being the last example we've seen.
So remember first: nearly all those countries, including Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, had formally elected governments -- their citizens voted, at least in theory, for the leaders whose policies took them to war.
Voters were ultimately responsible.
Further, and more important, "total war" means exactly that -- the entire population was conscripted, or otherwise organized, for the war effort -- so there were no non-war related civilian activities, especially in population centers.
Therefore, it was literally impossible to bomb a city without hitting some military related targets.
That is why, when President Truman announced the A-bombing of Hiroshima, he called it "a military target".
In "total war", it certainly was, indeed was impossible not to be.
Today there is no "total war" anywhere on Earth -- indeed there are not even formally declared wars, that I can think of.
So today, all civilians are truly innocent, but that status changes if war is formally declared, perhaps explaining why countries are so reluctant to do it, these days.
PieterCasparzen: "When one says “there are no innocent civilians”, that rationalizes just going up and killing non-combatants en masse."
Indeed, that is precisely what the Axis powers did, from the war's beginning.
Remember, overall, the ratio was 16 Allied civilians killed for every one Axis civilian.
The Axis clearly understood that "total war" meant total participation by civilians, and so their destruction was considered necessary to victory.
By contrast, the Allies made some efforts -- within the limits of available technology -- to limit destruction to "military targets".
PieterCasparzen: "Aren’t we Americans against our innocent American civilians getting killed by our enemies during wartime ?"
Of course -- what a silly assertion.
But some American civilians were killed -- at Pearl Harbor, on the high seas and elsewhere -- along with many thousands of British, French, Dutch and millions of our allied Poles, Russians & Chinese.
In no case did we try Axis leaders after the war for "bombing civilians".
Necessities of "total war" were recognized by all.
PieterCasparzen: "Ok, now you cite chart of deaths, and America shows up as having zero civilian casualties."
That chart is incomplete. This charts shows about 12,000 US civilians died from war related causes.
Yes, a drop in the blood-bucket compared to other countries (i.e., millions of Russians & Chinese), but equivalent in today's population to nearly 30,000 or ten times the number of civilians killed on September 11, 2001.
PieterCasparzen: "And you cite that as justification for American planes firebombing civilians, I guess to make up for the “other Allies” civilian deaths.
I’m not a citizen of “Allied” or “the world”, I’m a citizen of the United States."
In both World Wars, the US did not fight anybody alone.
We were always a member of an allied coalition, with at least something in the way of joint command.
US forces always fought in coordinated partnership with our allies and sometimes even under allied commanders.
So you simply cannot speak as if there were separate, unconnected wars going on, between, for examples, the US versus Germany, or Britain vs. Italy.
None of that nonsense.
It was one war, with one set of allies -- the US, Britain, Soviets, Free French & Dutch, etc. -- against the Axis coalition of Germany, Italy, Japan, etc.
To think of it otherwise is to grossly misunderstand history.
PieterCasparzen: "17.5 million Allied deaths were in Communist China and the Communist USSR.
Slightly over 7 million were in Poland and Yugoslavia, two countries that for decades after the war were not American “allies”.
Technically during the war they were all 'allies'."
You said it, however reluctantly: they were absolutely our allies, and without them, especially Russia, the war could not have been won, period.
Now, I'm starting to think, that's just what you wish happened, and so are hoping to re-write history, to make it look different.
But facts, even historical facts, are stubborn things.
PieterCasparzen: "As far as which specific countries did the killing, I’m sure you’ll agree that the US and UK took the lead on those numbers, as aerial mass bombing and aerial firebombing leaders."
No, you misunderstand.
The leadership in mass firebombing of enemy civilians came from Axis powers Germany & Japan, early in the war.
In total, German bombing killed roughly as many Allied civilians (most in the East) as Allied bombing later killed of German civilians -- about half a million each.
In short, there was nothing Allies did to German civilians which Germans had not first done to Allied civilians.
And we should note a simple fact of history: while each side was engaged in maximum bombing of enemy cities, they were also winning the war.
As Germany began to lose, so did its bombing slack off, just as the winning Allies increased theirs.
My point is: WWII victory and bombing were inextricably linked, so if you deny one, you deny the other.
PieterCasparzen: "But let’s say that we have this disparity, the other side killed several times more civilians than “the Allies” did.
Aren’t we taught at a young age that just because the other person commits a crime, that does not justify our committing the same crime ?"
First of all, in that "total war" bombing cities was not considered a "war crime", there was no "international law" against it, and no leaders were tried for it afterwards.
Instead it was considered then necessary for victory.
Second, as General MacArthur said, in a different context, but certainly reflecting WWII attitudes, "there is no substitute for victory."
You may remember that President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill in 1943 set their terms for peace as, "Unconditional Surrender".
For men like Adolf Hitler, it was victory or death.
PieterCasparzen: "...why would they not prosecute the enemy leadership for their war crimes of ordering civilian killings ?
I mean, we could have prosecuted them and not our leadership, and said our killings were of “military necessity”, so they would not be prosecuted."
Obviously, you are confused & disoriented.
Throughout mankind's history, war itself has been considered not only necessary, on occasion, but noble & even glorious.
Humans have always treated our war-heroes with the greatest of respect & admiration, even in, or especially in the United States.
And war's "dark side" has not always been even acknowledged, but sometimes glorified.
On thinks of the total destruction of Jericho, or Romans said to "make a wasteland and call it peace".
So mass destruction is not a modern invention.
But it is often frowned upon, and in recent centuries rules made against it -- Marquess of Queensberry Rules of "good sportsmanship", so to speak.
Such rules, often ignored during a war, were sometimes remembered by the victors after it -- "victors' justice", it's been called.
My point here again, as I've said now several times: neither side in WWII considered "bombing cities" a "war crime", all sides did it, all thought it necessary for victory, and nobody was punished afterwards for it.
Which part of that do you not yet "get"?
PieterCasparzen: "The elites who make these decisions don’t seem too eager ever to actually do right by "the masses", even though that is whose interests they profess to have at heart.
"The masses" were the ones on the receiving end of the mass killings; no one much calls them heroes.
They’re just part of the 20th century mechanized warfare nameless faceless masses who fell as intentional targets based on their residence."
All your faux tears for "the masses" tells me that either America's public education has sunk to new lows even I never imagined, or you were educated in some Bolshevik dominated institution.
Americans don't think or talk that way, FRiend, especially not conservatives.
Why do you?
In America, we didn't have faceless "masses" or "classes", we had citizens, individuals, voters, responsible for selecting their leaders, and holding them to account on good behavior.
Duties of citizenship included jury duty and military service, as required.
Citizens are responsible for their government, and it is accountable to them -- that's the way our Founders intended it, and it's how most Americans have tried to live.
To Americans, all this Bolshevik-Communist talk about "masses" and "classes" is corrupt and corrupting to the core, and we don't like it, even a little bit.
So why do you?
Public opinion polls before & during WWII showed that Americans overwhelmingly hated Europe's wars and didn't want to get dragged in, but once attacked just as overwhelmingly supported the President's call for Declarations of War and Unconditional Surrender of the Axis powers.
What you call faceless "masses", I call responsible citizens who elect leaders to do the right thing, and trust (or at least hope) that our Constitutional system will keep things right.
Americans have many doubts about our leaders, both before and after WWII, but nearly all still agree that we were not mislead into the war, and that our "Greatest Generation" gave us the best results we could expect from it.
Unlike many wars, there is very little ambiguity in the minds of Americans about WWII.
It was "the good war".
PieterCasparzen: "Would George Washington condone the firebombing of a city ?"
Certainly not American cities.
The US declaration of independence accuses the King of England of:
Of course there's no way Washington would commit such acts on his fellow Americans.
Our Founders did, however, drive tens of thousands of loyalists out of their homes, forcing them to emigrate, most to Canada, at no doubt, considerable financial loss.
So our Founders were as hard-nosed as they needed to be.
PieterCasparzen: "Killing more Axis civilians does nothing to right the wrong of killing so many Allied civilians.
Neither sides’ civilian dead are really paid any honor.
Everyone from the leftist history professor to Hitler himself seems to say “they got what they deserved”.
Thanks, new world order !"
You don't seem to "get" that the highest order objectives of people like President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill were to not only 1) "win the war" but to 2) defeat Germany so thoroughly, so completely, that they would never, ever, think of starting another one.
That was the legacy of the First World War -- Wilson's 14 Points, "peace without victory", left Germany feeling undefeated and cheated of victory which was almost, almost theirs.
Allied leaders in the Second World War intended to make certain that could not happen again.
In their minds, bombing enemy civilians was necessary not only to win the present war, but also to prevent future wars.
PieterCasparzen: "After we “think” about this for a while (and no one has to respond), which way are we going to make our moral stand on this issue ?
Is it morality that depends upon the situation and we’ll decide situation as it arises ?"
My opinion is that you are confused, disoriented and unable to think clearly about a subject which is difficult at best, but not impossible, if you know the real history.
Fortunately for you, Free Republic provides many, many history related threads, all at a very reasonable cost in your voluntary donations...
;-)
Nothing you responded with refutes anything I wrote.