I like "cold calculation." But war isn't the right analogy. We are not in a massive war of weapons on the ground, in the air and on the seas with fatalities. We are engaged in a war of words and images on media platforms and courts of law. No fatalities.
Literally in the middle of a re-listen to Dan Carlin's "Supernova in the East" Hardcore History pod series covering the Pacific campaign of WW2 and can confirm that this is not at all the case. We fought *very* maliciously, and that was because the Imperial Japanese fought ruthlessly and to the last man in most cases. We ended up fighting maliciousness with maliciousness. Curtis LeMay's firebombing campaign alone puts this sentiment to rest. We burned to the ground 50-90% of 67 Japanese cities before we dropped the nukes. Hell, the firebombing of Tokyo alone killed more civilians than both the nukes we dropped combined.
"If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." - Curtis LeMay
I'm aware of the history you cite. If asked whether the allies committed war crimes in WW2 my answer is yes, we fire-bombed cities and dropped two nukes.
I stand by "for the most part not maliciously" aware that no war is free of malice. The question is whether malice is embraced or resisted, both happened in practice.
Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay had to push for indiscriminate bombing, they finally got their way because we could not achieve the accuracy needed for strategic bombing. They were seen as bloodthirsty within Allied command.
I dunno, listening to how fanatic/suicidal the Japanese were IтАЩm pretty sure that ground invasions of the mainland would have led to even higher Japanese casualty rates among civilians than the firebombing campaign produced.
Perennial question. That would argue the fire-bombings were not done with malice, they were necessary to prevent a still worse outcome. I have never bought that argument. The Japanese had no supply lines. They were out of petroleum, trying to struggle on with small quantities of pine oil. Airplanes were grounded, trucks were next. Japan was utterly isolated, we had full air superiority.
I have never understood we we 'had' to invade the mainland, we could lay seige to the islands indefinitely. We could have shipped in food and medicine to ease famine and disease. Without domestic oil and few other resources time would have done the work.
We insisted on unconditional surrender - the Japanese condition was not to go after the emperor, and then - we didn't go after the emperor. Go figure.
I think there were more humane options but I don't fault the Allies too much, it is virtually impossible to fight such a war without losing part of your soul, all told we did OK. I can hold two truths in my head: Our worst excesses were unnecessary, and we did OK considering how war brings out the worst in human nature.
We may be getting into word definitions, but we fought WW2 very effectively and for the most part not maliciously.
I think a spirit of cold calculation is best. You do X? I will do Y and you will regret it.
I like "cold calculation." But war isn't the right analogy. We are not in a massive war of weapons on the ground, in the air and on the seas with fatalities. We are engaged in a war of words and images on media platforms and courts of law. No fatalities.
"....and for the most part not maliciously."
Literally in the middle of a re-listen to Dan Carlin's "Supernova in the East" Hardcore History pod series covering the Pacific campaign of WW2 and can confirm that this is not at all the case. We fought *very* maliciously, and that was because the Imperial Japanese fought ruthlessly and to the last man in most cases. We ended up fighting maliciousness with maliciousness. Curtis LeMay's firebombing campaign alone puts this sentiment to rest. We burned to the ground 50-90% of 67 Japanese cities before we dropped the nukes. Hell, the firebombing of Tokyo alone killed more civilians than both the nukes we dropped combined.
"If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." - Curtis LeMay
The only real "gentleman's front" in WWII was the European campaign, and even then there were things like the Dresden bombing. For more examples in Europe, see the US section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II
I'm aware of the history you cite. If asked whether the allies committed war crimes in WW2 my answer is yes, we fire-bombed cities and dropped two nukes.
I stand by "for the most part not maliciously" aware that no war is free of malice. The question is whether malice is embraced or resisted, both happened in practice.
Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay had to push for indiscriminate bombing, they finally got their way because we could not achieve the accuracy needed for strategic bombing. They were seen as bloodthirsty within Allied command.
The Allies would have won the war without bombing cities, that particular strain of malice was not necessary; this is in itself an argument against giving malice free reign in wartime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombing_Survey
I dunno, listening to how fanatic/suicidal the Japanese were IтАЩm pretty sure that ground invasions of the mainland would have led to even higher Japanese casualty rates among civilians than the firebombing campaign produced.
Perennial question. That would argue the fire-bombings were not done with malice, they were necessary to prevent a still worse outcome. I have never bought that argument. The Japanese had no supply lines. They were out of petroleum, trying to struggle on with small quantities of pine oil. Airplanes were grounded, trucks were next. Japan was utterly isolated, we had full air superiority.
I have never understood we we 'had' to invade the mainland, we could lay seige to the islands indefinitely. We could have shipped in food and medicine to ease famine and disease. Without domestic oil and few other resources time would have done the work.
We insisted on unconditional surrender - the Japanese condition was not to go after the emperor, and then - we didn't go after the emperor. Go figure.
I think there were more humane options but I don't fault the Allies too much, it is virtually impossible to fight such a war without losing part of your soul, all told we did OK. I can hold two truths in my head: Our worst excesses were unnecessary, and we did OK considering how war brings out the worst in human nature.