https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo Try to read something about what allies did. Nuclear strikes were hardly most inhuman thing they did. They razed cities to the ground. Both Japanese and German. Also if you read something about Russian and their contribution to the end of war you will discover that allies were just as bad as Axis.
There's a lot of things that come into play. 1)First off is the situation. In war, it is generally ok to kill the soldiers on the opposite side because of the fact that they're soldiers. As soon as they became people who are willing to hurt and kill you and others like yourself, they are no longer innocent. By doing so, they accepted the fact that they might get killed in return. (Note this refers to soldiers, and not civilians. This also does not include torture) During the war against Vietnam, (U.S. versus Vietnam), Citizens of the U.S. protested against the war because of the terrible things the U.S. soldiers were doing to innocent civilians. This ultimately led to the U.S. withdrawing, despite the fact that the U.S. was technically the war. This shows that even when at war, there is still a differentiation between Participants of a war, and Civilians. It's not ok to harm the latter. Even in the world of today, governments still have to deal with lots of backlash when stuff that harms the citizens happens. 2) There needs to be a clarification of what exactly is "bad". Prison inmates who were found guilty (assuming that the verdict was 100% accurate and the person in fact, did commit the crime) would probably argue that imprisoning them from society is a very "bad" thing to do. It's terrible.... And in some ways it is, and in many other ways it isn't. There's a level of severity for punishment that should tie into the severity of the crime. It would be ridiculous to give capital punishment for public indecency. The punishment has to fit the crime. This leads to the next part. 3) Who is the "judge" in determining if these people are bad? Excluding war circumstances, can you imagine someone in your own neighborhood who takes it upon himself or herself to judge who is or is not a bad person? And since the punishment has to fit the crime, imagine if the severity of "badness" that the self-righteous person thinks you are, also affects the severity of the punishment that you will receive. This, in and of itself, is wrong simply because the self-righteous person cannot just simply decide whether or not a person is bad. It's up to society to judge them as such, which is why it's ok for judges and jurors to determine verdicts and punishments (because we as society acknowledge them, and therefore give implicit approval to acto on our behalf) 4) We have to take into account who the perpetrator is as well. An 8 year old kid that gets caught stealing a PS4 will not get the same treatment as a 25 year old man that gets caught trying to steal the same thing. The President cannot be given a ticket for speeding and/or running red lights like a normal person would (although he might get criticized for it, the reality is that he still wouldn't get the ticket regardless). A civilian that gets caught up in a fight is not treated the same way as a military officer who gets caught up in one. Identity matters in determining whether or not you are a "bad" person, and the severity of punishment (or lack of it) which follows. 5) The Victor is always right. This saying is true to a certain extent. After all, the loser is usually annihilated in some way or the other (literally, figuratively, etc). Determining who is truly a "good" or "bad" person requires you to know ALL of the details on EVERY side. Since the Victor usually gets rid of/drowns out the loser's side, people normally assume that the Victor is always right. After all, by that point there is really no other side to get to know. In a world of only 2 sides, "good" and "evil" truly are just a matter of perspective. That's why, for a world in which Justice truly exists, there must be a neutral 3rd party that either equally cares for both sides or equally doesn't care for either of them. In addition, the 3rd party would have to know EVERY SINGLE DETAIL of everyone involved, from practically the time of their birth to the time of the incident (and perhaps beyond) in order to determine whether or not the person in question is actually a "bad" person. They would then have to have infinte wisdom to be able to determine the EXACT amount of punishment which is appropriate (an impossible thing to do as human beings, because it means that no one would be able to bring up a logical argument on why that punishment is too lenient or too harsh for that particular crime/crimes). On top of ALL THAT, the 3rd party must also have the respect (and therefore acknowledgement) of all parties involved. For reasons mentioned earlier, the people that judge us can only do so since they have our approval. Which is why a world in which Justice exists is only possible if God exists as well, and everyone is made accountable for everything they've ever done, good and bad, and the effects that their actions would have on every other living thing out there, since having a positive impact on someone even after you're dead would still be a good deed. Ergo, the judgement would have to be when everyone was all dead, and nothing could ever possibly be born again (i.e., probably after some terrible Apocalypse). Also, since God is, well, God, our immediate approval of his judgement would not be needed. Because he is God, and upon finding out that he is real (after we're all dead and can't make another good or bad deed), He will undoubtedly have our total respect and most likely fear. Also, if God is real then He would have the most right to reward or punish us, because He made us. Just like parents have the right to reward or discipline their child. So is it ok to do bad things to bad people? There are many questions that have to be answered first, but the answer would be "yes, to a certain extent only". Well.... I think I've gone off-topic somewhere along the way. It should be fine though, since I doubt anyone e will bother to read all the way through this long post, lol
Dresden, Germany, was considered one of the most culturally rich and historically significant cities in Germany. it was bombed and shelled to shit 2 days after the official surrender of Nazi Germany by the US and britbong. estimates of civilian casualties range from 30,000 to 300,000. there were no significant military or political targets, it was simply an act of indiscriminate retribution. to me, it doesn't matter what way you slice it with whatever scenarios you can think of, everyone at some point in their life has been a good guy and a bad guy. like you said, we're just animals baby.
Okay, so i didn't hit on All of the exceptions to the rule. Still, for the most part, this wasn't done out of a desire to see germans and japanese cry, it was done out of the idea that it would end the war faster. Whether or not that thinking was flawed, the intent was there. I am ignoring the russians, they had a different thing going on. Still, one of my first points was, when you start the conflict, you are opening that can of worms yourself. The Germans invaded france, and the Japanses bombed pearl harbor, and that's after a bunch of smaller european nations fell, and a bunch of smaller south east asain nations fell. America was, perfectly content, to not get involved in that. And the Axis wasn't like, knights in shining armor, while the allies were barbarians. While the atomic bombs, Dresden, tokyo, and what else have you, were undoubtedly atrocities, they had "some" justifications, and they were in no way the biggest atrocities.
Dresden took place from 2/13 to 2/15, nazi germany surrendered 5/7 nearly three months after the firebombing. Also, the only legit casualty estimates, show that it was 20,000 to 30,000 deaths, thats from a 2010 study commissioned from the city itself. also, while the main purpose was to make the german civilians loose the will to support the war, Dresden did have numerous factories, and was a major rail depot. It wasn't like the allies just blew up a museum for no reason. Now all that being said, it was still one of the most outrageous atrocities the allies performed during the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement End war quickly? Please. It was allies who allowed war to start in the first place. Czech was one of the most advanced countries before second world war. They also had defense line, similar to that France had. Why don't you hear about it? Not a single shot was fired there because it was given away. Czech was betrayed. Also ending war sooner is no excuse to kill civilians. Germans could say the same about Jews if they won. It was to end war sooner.
I don't know about if it is ok or not but I'd most prolly do it if I wouldn't have to face any backlash
Sorry, nonsense all around. Before the war began, which is when the Czechs were betrayed, and i don't dispute that., No one wanted to have a war in the first place. Which is why the UK appeased hitler. Meanwhile, the USA wanted nothing to do with another European war, we were isolationist. Again, let me reiterate. The allies let Hitler do whatever he wanted, because they wanted to avoid the war at all costs, even if that meant giving Czech to the nazis. Once that didn't work, and war broke out completely, the goal, and the goal for nearly every war, is to end it quickly, and with as few losses as possible on your side. And just a heads up, i don't know about the rest of the world, but in america, we do learn about how countries were just handed to Hitler while the league of nations stood around twiddling their thumbs. (I imagine the underlying idea is that no one but america can be relied on to control the world, but who knows) As for ending the war faster being no excuse to kill civilians, well, that's your opinion. Wanton killing of civilians for no reason, thats a problem. But bombing factories, storage depots, railways, power plants, bridges, airfields, all of those are legitimate targets, and just because there are civilians there, doesn't mean they suddenly become an invalid target, otherwise, the nazi's would have put civilians everywhere. Its why terrorists love operating out of schools, clinics, and the like, because they use human shields as a defense, and when some one shoots back anyways, its a propaganda victory. Also worth mentioning, a lot of analyis went into whether or not the atomic bombs should be used on japan, and the general idea was that, if the bombs weren't used, a brutal, and costly, invasion of the japanese mainland would be required. The casualties, both japanese military, japanse civilians, and american military, would be way higher if that were to come to pass. And finally, The germans wouldn't have been able to make an argument that killing the jews made the war go faster, because that makes no sense. First off, they were killing jews, or at least using them as slave labor, before the war started. We weren't nuking japan, or firebombing dresden before the war started. There's also the fact that killing jews, served 0 strategic purpose. It in no way helped the war effort, and if anything, it hindered it, since soldiers and supplies had to be wasted on guarding the concentration camps. No one in germany seriously thought, "Man, once we're free of all these jews, we'll evolve into super nazi soldiers and the war will be a cake walk." On the other hands, the allies were in real jeopardy of loosing the war, operation market garden was a failure, and the battle of the bulge almost allowed the Germans to break trough the allied lines. When loosing is a real option, and someone says, "What if we firebomb dresden? might break the german's spirit? Make them surrender?" You at least consider it.
If you are from the USA, you can't argue against the concept of concentration camps. You had them for Japanese. Germans could say that by ridding themselves of them, they could redirect resources to war. A winner can justify everything. Let's not go to the way USA operates when civilians are in area. We all hear about the bombing of civilian targets all the time. Your country isn't well known to be humane when dealing with others. I don't know much about bombings exept that they shifted to destroying entire cities before the end of war, but trust me when I say, If someone bombed your city because you are in a war, how would you react? The USA is in war practically permanently. What if today, your city was razed to the ground? You wouldn't approve. Also USA supplied Germany before and even during second world war.
We had internment camps, a fact that almost all of the country realized was a bad idea and a mistake, although the recent election has... blurred that a bit. The difference between these camps, and the german concentration camps, was that we put the japanese there because we were, unfairly, afraid they would do something to us during the war. Yes, the japanese didn't like it, i wouldn't have liked it if it were me. The germans on the other hand, used the jews as slave labor, and then when that got old, the killed them wholesale. Huge difference there. I can't find numbers about how many japanse died in those camps, but only 100,000-120,000 were put in the camps, a far cry from the germans death total of 5-6 million. Winners can justify anything, but the justification that murdering 6 million jews helped the war effort, is a much larger stretch than the justification that obliterating a city to break the will of the enemy, needs. The usa would probably inflict less civilian casualties, if the enemies weren't civilians themselves, living, hiding, working, and fighting, from civilian areas. Theres a lot more at work than the allies just deciding to obliterate cities towards the end of the war. You linked that wiki article about the bombings of tokyo, in it, they mention how the development of a new plane allowed for the bombing of the japanese mainland, and how as more islands fell to the US, they were able to build airfield to get more bombers to the mainland. The allies were bombing the enemy from the start, but at the start, the enemy had stronger defenses, it wasn't until those defenses were overwhelmed and destroyed, that the bombing could commence in earnest. Its easy for someone who doesn't know the intricacies of war, and of that war in particular to sit back and go... "hurting others is bad, hurting others greatly is really bad, hurting lots of people is also, really bad, since the allies did both, hurting a lot of people, and hurting them greatly, they must be really, really bad." Whether or not i approve of my city getting razed, is irrelevant. I never said the germans or japanese can't be upset their cities were razed. I don't want to go to war myself, but if i get drafted, i'll need to. I'll understand that i have too, but that doesn't mean i'll like it. I also don't like paying taxes, but i do, because i have too.
Sorry, I always get a bit too salty about the second world war. Anyway, main thought was: In that war, everyone was bad. This devolved into this guy was worse than this. With enough propaganda, Germans would definitely find a way to justify themselves. And if not, they could always erase that part of past. As they say, winners write history.
It's dehumanization, just like how soldiers are trained in order to be ok with killing other humans (enemy soldiers) by thinking of them as enemies rather than individuals, calling someone 'bad' reduces the whole person to that one thing, and sweeps the rest under the rug, making it easier to think of that person as less than human, and so 'ok' to do bad things to them. For wars, a big part of it is trying not to let the soldiers feel guilt or think of it as murder, or at least make it so that it isn't strong enough to stop them from pulling the trigger. That's why propaganda is a thing. http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization#The_role_of_nations_and_governments I'm against unnecessary suffering in general. And I grew up with a parent who could seem bad at times and good at other times, so it is very difficult for me to view someone as entirely bad enough to justify hurting them. At the same time, I believe that criminals should pay for their crimes, and viewing a person as a criminal is a form of dehumanization. I think it has it's use in preventing crime but still, technically... And that's without mentioning anything about war. So it's kind of complicated.
The main reason Nazis were so hated was because they systematically singled out a single race/religion. I mean Stalin killed more, but no one talks about him as much. The atom bomb was an atrocity, but I think most people realized that when they saw it's destructive capabilities. Though in times of war it doesn't matter how many you kill as long as their on the other side. Words like good, bad, right, and wrong. In my opinion are just words cowards use to justify taking what they want. Word such as freedom, love, or justice can change the hearts of the people. Those words may make people feel comfortable with fighting for their cause, but in the end they still did what they did. People are okay with killing if it was in a war, if it was self defense, and some even if the person being executed already killed. In a time when the life of a single soldier mattered one could judge it reasonable to send them off to their deaths. Anyways what right or wrong is completely dependent on a person's moral compass. My opinion is that there is no justification for harming another person. Sure when someone does something wrong they should be punished, but to what degree is reasonable?
Well you couldn't just leave bad people be. For example, rapists and serial killers..., yea? But the thing is, there should be a proper formula for punishments, if you mess that up, it'll most likely make you a bad person yourself. For example, you can't give the same punishment for rapists and panty thieves; you couldn't just drop a nuke on the pantsu thief's house either, that is totally not acceptable. Lolis are acceptable, but no touch!