What would you call massive area and fire-bombing of German and Japanese cities then?
I agree that the firebombing of German and Japanese industrial centres was morally problematic and that massive civilian loss of life occurred.
I couldn't agree (and I don't think you're proposing) that the prosecution of the strategic bombing campaigns mean that we must equalise, as it were, the Western Allies and the Axis / Soviets. The Western Allies were fighting a defensive war, in defence of liberty, democracy and hearth and home. I note the treatment of German civilians during the occupation of West Germany, which was extremely benign, under the circumstances.
Regarding the spin-off discussion that followed:
As this is a wargamer's forum with ASL focusing on WW II in particular, one has to assume that its members should have at least an above average knowledge about that war compared to an average member of their respective nationality - which does not necessarily mean much.
Still, I find it remarkable, that while the undoubted magnitude of actions beyond the contstraints of civilized warfare by Axis powers are readily pointed out, the question if such constraints might have been violated by Allied powers beyond the scope of not taking prisoners in a particular military operation or something comparable, is hardly ever raised.
Please do not get me wrong: It is not my intention to sum up two sides of a bill - far from it.
But I do find it remarkable.
The reasons for this, particulary for Americans, lie probably in the fact, that their civilian population has not been subject on a large scale to war since the US Civil War. In fact, one could advance the argument that the US population has lost most memories of how it is to be on the sharp end of a war as a civilian. In Europe, almost every grandmother could tell to us grandchildren.
The one most vivid memory US civilians have of being "bombed" is 9/11. This time, there were US civilians on the sharp end large scale. I dare to raise the question for contemplation: Would it have made a difference for the survivors and bereaved if the terrorists had put forward some just cause? Would it have made a difference for any civilian survivors or bereaved if they had been targeted by indiscriminate bombing?
I leave that to be sorted out for anyone to himself.
Suffice it to assess, that those who have closer memories to being at the sharp end of war or atrocities, especially as civilians, might find a "game" scenario a bit too close to reality and thus tend to adhere to a tighter frame of ethics as a basis for such.
I think that neither the game of ASL as such nor the community would lose anything taking this into account.
von Marwitz
I think you raise interesting points, particularly in relation to the American cultural experience of war, as something which happens elsewhere, very far away.
That said, the UK's experience of war is more European. While occupation didn't occur (with the exception of a few strategically irrelevant and small islands off the French coast), the UK did experience, and prosecute, protracted campaigns of strategic bombing of industrial centres.
I think many people in the UK are happy to acknowledge that ethically questionable actions were performed by the military during the war. It was a 6 year period of Total War, after all, and at times the country's very existence was at risk. One can debate Dresden and the other bombings; the objectives, the degree to which vengeance was a motivation, etc. but I think few people would regard the civilian carnage as anything less than utterly regrettable.
However, what I can't stomach is the repreated assertion on these boards that during WWII all belligerents committed war crimes, therefore all are equally morally culpable.
