- Jul 29, 2008
- Reaction score
- The Gulag
- First name
In current times, I agree. But the munitions capabilities at the time of WW2 meant it just wasn't possible to do so. The only way we could 'get at' German heavy industry and morale was by the methods used. Else, at the time, it meant a longer war. At a time when both Western Allies and Russia were suffering horrendously, and the Nazi machine was in the process of murdering millions of innocents annually.The problem with the "at the time" justification is where you draw the line. You have to accept that some actions can never be justified.
It is a dangerous path to go down to use the means justifies the end arguement.
It's hard to argue against a country which takes action to minimise casualties to their own citizens even if that results in non-combatants.
BUT from a moral standpoint I would have to argue that we SHOULD try to do better. This arguement falls down in the face to total war.
Bear in mind, even in the face of the most extreme provocation, the Western Allies did not go 'medieval' on German prisoners of war or civilians and, as a very random example, the commanders of British flamethrower tanks were still using wet shots to force surrenders at extreme risk to their own lives. There were never, throughout WW2, the kinds of atrocities conducted by any Western Allied forces on a par with those conducted by Waffen SS (and Wehrmacht !) units.
So, I think we were restrained and did "try" to a large extent. The bombing campaign, sadly in hindsight, was a product of it's capability.
Again, this is all my personal opinion.