Different arguments for Japan and Germany.

Churchill himself admitted he could be tried for war crimes for his part in the German bombing. It was an act that did little more than kill civilians, although there were plenty of military personnel diverted from fighting us to manning anti-aircraft batteries, as well as those incidentally killed.

Japan, on the other hand, I would have pressed the red button myself had I been there. It was an awful tragic event, of course, but so outweighed by the lives it saved.

There was the allied invading force. Conservative estimates put it at around 200,000 lives not lost.

Then there were the Japanese, and not just the obvious collateral dead. They were so fed with propaganda about the invading forces that people willingly jumped off high buildings and cliffs rather than subject themselves to the savages.

And then there was Europe. Stalin had 400 victorious divisions against an exhausted, stretched and depleted western force. Believe me, he had expressed the desire to carry on and would have. It was only the US having and demonstrating the Bomb that changed his mind.

I recognise the problem with moralising over past wars where bomb targeting technology was different to now.

However, I can't support attacking non military targets and we did that using plenty of loosely connected 'total war' justifications.....it's weak at any time but when the war is won....well...I'll just say it's not for me.

As for Japan, the problem with the argument that we needed to drop a nuclear bomb on civilians to stop a war is that it's a level of barbarism I can't accept.

Not well known and kept from most people is that Japan had put out feelers for a conditional surrender but Truman rejected it....it was unconditional or nothing for him.

Once I heard that the justifications for dropping that bomb became very weak.

Sure, you don't get the unconditional surrender but I don't buy the argument that you kill hundreds of thousands of people to get the kind of peace you want. A conditional surrender is all in the detail, there was no need to invade.

If Japan had had the bomb we wouldn't have done it....It's a kind of evil and there should be a line beyond we shouldn't travel and I think that happened there.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Mar 2024 2.35pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

They could have tested it first as they had with the first bomb months previously.

As you see, I'm no particular fan of Truman.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Ask yourself, not worth engaging with you.

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

A UN team has concluded that sexual violence, including rape and gang rape, was committed during the Hamas attacks in Israel on 7 October.

[Link]

Using WWII as a barometer for morality in war is just a ridiculous starting point - we all recognise it was abhorrent and most of the world have spent their time since doing what they can to avoid it ever happening again.

The war against the Islamic State is a better comparable;

In the 5+ years of the campaign, 8,317–13,190 civilians were killed by Coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria (per Airwars).

The Coalition's own count was less than 1500 civilian casualties during the campaign.

Given Israel's campaign has been running for less than 6 months, with a civilian death toll conservatively at double that of a 5-year campaign... do you see the issue?

Go and read the coverage of the ISIS campaign and you will note that the Coalition forces (particularly the US) were heavily criticised throughout for what were considered as unacceptable levels of civilian dead - if they'd have conducted themselves as Israel has, I can't even imagine the fallout.