----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 10:45 PM Subject: RE: Secret Military Tribunals >During World War 2, we didn't have other options than the indiscriminate bombing of civilian > targets.
Why didn't we? Let me go over what I remember from WWII, and you can tell me where you differ with my understanding of history or my interpretation. First, Hitler made a big mistake when he started the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets. If he had focused instead on military targets, such as the radar stations and Spitfire airfields, he would have been more sucessful. Thus, restricting bombing runs to military targets would have been better, not worse tactics. Second, let us consider our bombing. I have no compunction at all with considering factories producing material used in the war efforts of Germany and Japan as a military target, even though civilians worked in those factories. However, I do have problems with the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in order to lower the moral of the enemy. I cannot see how one could justify the massive civilian deaths as reasonable considering the minimal military advange afforded by these bombings. The fire bombing of Dresden is the clearest example of this. The firebombing of Tokyo also comes to mind. (There is probably more justification for Tokyo because there were military targets that did get hit there.) The only massive killing of civilians that did make sense from a military point of view were the A-bomb drops. It was enough of a shock to afford Japan's high command an excuse to surrender. (Even so it took the Emperor's request to get them to surrender and even after that it was by 1 vote (4-3 or 5-4 IIRC). So, why did the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo present tremendous military advantages over simply targeting factories, airfields, anti-aircraft batteries, etc. for bombing? Dan M. Dan M.
