Posted on 05/20/2006 8:33:39 PM PDT by tbird5
Deliberately targeting civilians is widely considered terrorism nowadays, but during World War II both the Britain’s Bomber Command and the United States Army Air Force deliberately targeted civilians.
The British philosopher A. C. Grayling, in his new book Among the Dead Cities: The History and Moral Legacy of the WWII Bombing of Civilians in Germany and Japan (Walker, $25.95), points out that the two air forces combined killed perhaps 600,000 German civilians and another 200,000 Japanese. He makes the case that at least by our current standards we were terrorists, and it logically follows that the attacks were war crimes. In an age of political terror, when it is urgent to come up with a persuasive distinction between legitimate and illegitimate violence, it is hard to overstate the importance of the questions Grayling raises.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanheritage.com ...
What astonishes me is that liberals so easily dismiss terrorist targeting of civilians as somehow OUR fault. "It is the only way they can fight." they say. No, it is their only hope for winning.
No, Grayling was born in 1949... But I'm not sure being alive during WWII had have made him appreciate its real significance.
His sort of presumptious, ungrateful, just-short-of-pacifism- emasculated caricature of Just War theory has a long pedgigree in analytic philosophy. In 1956, the philosopher G.E. Anscombe similarly protested against Oxford granting of an honorary degree to President Truman, who in her eyes was a "mass murderer".
Before John Rawls wrote his "Theory of Justice" analytic philosophers stayed largely aloof from actual, real life policy disputes, generally adopting a vague, leftism when they did so enter. The tone was still often aloof and theoretical-- one example that comes to mind is Bertrand Russell's calling for the U.S. to bomb the Soviet Union out of existence with nukes, then later calling for the U.S. to totally eliminate its own nuclear stockpile.
Anscombe herself was in many ways a great philosopher who made virtue ethics respectable again withing analytic philosophy. But she failed to heed the lessons of the founder of virtue ethics in this case. Aristotle refused to give moral rules as absolutes for any given situation, becuas he recognized what Kant did not-- that at some point, one might have to lie-- for instance, to save an Ann Frank, the whereabouts of whom are being asked about by Nazis. Instead, he said that one must inculcate instincts based upon great and small virtues as best as one can and then act upon those instincts.
After Rawls published his opus, some of the Olympian Ivory tower attitude of analytic philosophy started to fade as philosphers became "applied philosophers"--- people who tried to use philospophy to solve real life problems and became advisors in the government and even the private sector at times and therefore had to have a more realistic take than Mrs. Anscombe had. However, much of it still obviously remains and A.C. Grayling is proof of that. In fact, his reflexive leftism appears to have ben strenthened by experiences such as being a Davos World Economic fellow.
A typical conclusion from Grayling would and does go something like this: "European capitalism is much more efficient than the Anglo-American model, if you look at the larger, fuller picture."
In short, he is an academic peacok, driven by what he wishes were so rather than reality. What else is new?
Your comment goes right to the heart of it all. The author's purpose is not to analyse a military-ethical question but to undermine the war on terrorism, capitalism, and western democratic values through relativism
If you have time, please read Psychic Iron Cage for a fascinating explanation of the source doctrine for all this:
http://www.newtotalitarians.com/PsychicIronCagePartII.html
It would have been wonderful if Germany and Japan had surrendered in 1943 when the war was decided. But they didn't. It was total war, and they lost. But good. Easy to make decisions about morality years later.
I agree with your comments. Some people in here seem to forget who started the bloody war in the first place, both in Asia and in Europe.
Gee pal, I think the Axis powers sort of decided the question about total war...don't you? But let's go back in history and try the Allied leaders for those "war crimes" and defeating the fascists. (/sarcasm)
"hardly neutral" Gee, what was Japan doing during the thirties? Maybe we can ask someone from China.
That answer is incomprehensible. Exactly what have we become?
Ask those American Military Personnel getting ready to invade Japan.
They would not convict President Harry Truman.
The hundreds of thousands of Japanese who were not killed had the invasion of their home land taken place.
Pure BS that winning the war by bombing Japan was a war crime!
That's exactly right. I attended a reunion, last year, of the 760 Fa Bn. (To honor my dad, who served with that unit) They were going to be part of the invasion of Japan. They would have been in the first wave - second day. The number of deaths, on both sides, would have been massive. As it was, my dad's Bn was among the first to go into Japan after the bombs were dropped. They said every home - every business - was full of guns and ammunition. Even sharpened sticks. The Japanese people were armed to the teeth and ready to kill Americans - whether they wanted to or not. The Emperor had put everything into weaponry - even to the detriment of his own people. Many, many, many more Japanese would have died had we not dropped those bombs, and the American side would have incurred massive casualties beyond imagination. I would, in all liklihood, not be here today.
I always tire of folks who try to make our side look like the bad guys all of the time. We were not even involved in that war, at least not militarily, until the Japanese attacked US. In the long run, dropping the bombs ended the war quickly and, ultimately, SAVED lives.
By the way, I thought I'd understood that the cities that were bombed were where weapons manufacturing plants were located. Please, somebody correct me if i'm wrong.
Mark for later reference
FDR a war criminal?? The Dems will never allow it.
Oh, so poor little Japan couldn't sustain itself because the U.S. had occupied surrounding after Japan itself had bombed Pearl Harbor and started the fight in the first place?!!
Japan's emperor was starving his own people because he was putting all he had into weapons and the war. HE was the cause of their woes - not the U.S. Hirohito sent his invading armies to surrounding islands and forcing Filipino men into military service in the Japanese army while forcing the women into becoming sex slaves for Japanese soldiers. My dad's battalion was among the first to set foot on the Japanese mainland after the surrender. You know what? The Japanese people were SO GLAD our army was there! THEY were victimized by their own government! Several of the guys who served with my dad said that the Japanese civilian police even put guards around our soldiers (as if they needed guards) to protect them from any remaining Japanese soldiers who would try to kill them!
American soldier were not even allowed to take home souvenirs - only a sword and a flag. They did not plunder and rape and take advantage of Japanese citizens.
Come to think of it, shouldn't you be asking why Japan isn't being held responsible for bombing Pearl Harbor? We were not at war with them, and weren't innocent civilians killed there as well?
Should we ever see a war like WWII agin, we will be bombing civilian targets. When it comes to survival, "nice" will not be a concern.
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.