I'm pretty sure the problem comes when you determine what exactly is it that defines 'what it takes to win' and 'what goes too far'.
Bombing a city sounds like overkill under any perspective, because of countless civilian casualties that are likely to ensue. You have to push the 'What we need' line as little as possible, not kick it open and hope for the best because it lets you win right away.
If we were really willing to go the route of "do anything to win" chemical weapons would have been a mainstay. Even the atomic bombs were used because it was viewed as the lesser of evils.
Dresden is controversial because it was part of a demoralizing campaign and the city itself had no strategic value. Firebombing's primary goal was to destroy industrial targets within cities, with civilians being in the way. I don't know if the statements regarding Dresden being used in ammunition manufacture is true, it still was a case where the allied command questioned its utility.
If we were really willing to go the route of "do anything to win" chemical weapons would have been a mainstay. Even the atomic bombs were used because it was viewed as the lesser of evils.
Dresden is controversial because it was part of a demoralizing campaign and the city itself had no strategic value. Firebombing's primary goal was to destroy industrial targets within cities, with civilians being in the way. I don't know if the statements regarding Dresden being used in ammunition manufacture is true, it still was a case where the allied command questioned its utility.
Civilian massacre served only one goal, to intimidate the soviets from advancing further. It kinda worked so you got that at least. Whether it was moral thing to do, decide for yourself.
Intended to be heartbreaking for sure. She doesn't seem to be exactly treasuring her now melted chocolate. This is why I love the subtlety of erica's works.
The problem in assessing morality in war is that it is most often done only under the scrutiny of a single action or event, and then only when immediate survival is not threatened. Neither are the indications of proper commanding mindset needed to actually win a war in the most efficient way possible (a cliched but relevant rule of Sun Tzu).
It is easy to assess and find faults of military wrongdoing in hindsight when a threat is no longer present, but it must be understood that the lack of clairvoyance is the driving force of many military strategies. Who knows if the weakened enemy of today is truly defeated for tomorrow? Anything can the change the tide of a struggle and showing sympathy before all is said and done is inviting revival of more warfare or defeat (a lion uses its full strength against a rabbit).
The very act of participating in war is not a trivial one, and it is done only with the mindset that the opposition must eliminate their current activities and mindset or die in order to ensure your own survival. In recent times, people have somehow got the idea that citizens are somehow entitled to the right of protection during times of war. This is a false, and dangerous mindset for both sides. To be a citizen of a country means to have loyalty and ownership of the core principles of that country. To not, would mean to emigrate or participate in resistance. War is hell and has no middle ground save for death. To assume the position of neutrality without the physical sovereignty to support it is to forfeit one's life to the will of the superior faction. To yield to a position of neutrality means to open a path of victory for the shrewder opponent.
Ultimately, the underlying answer to all of this is to ask the question: what is life worth? Is it so precious that slavery and acceptance of corruption is sweet compared to death? Or is there something else to where even life would be discarded for the more valuable abstract? Neither answers are necessarily guarentee more happiness over the other, but when the decision is made its consequences must be accepted in full.
In case you have not noticed, I am in the camp that thinks that Dresden was a necessary event in the war as the singularity of life itself is not the most valuable possession to an individual in my eyes
Intended to be heartbreaking for sure. She doesn't seem to be exactly treasuring her now melted chocolate. This is why I love the subtlety of erica's works.
The problem in assessing morality in war is that it is most often done only under the scrutiny of a single action or event, and then only when immediate survival is not threatened. Neither are the indications of proper commanding mindset needed to actually win a war in the most efficient way possible (a cliched but relevant rule of Sun Tzu).
It is easy to assess and find faults of military wrongdoing in hindsight when a threat is no longer present, but it must be understood that the lack of clairvoyance is the driving force of many military strategies. Who knows if the weakened enemy of today is truly defeated for tomorrow? Anything can the change the tide of a struggle and showing sympathy before all is said and done is inviting revival of more warfare or defeat (a lion uses its full strength against a rabbit).
The very act of participating in war is not a trivial one, and it is done only with the mindset that the opposition must eliminate their current activities and mindset or die in order to ensure your own survival. In recent times, people have somehow got the idea that citizens are somehow entitled to the right of protection during times of war. This is a false, and dangerous mindset for both sides. To be a citizen of a country means to have loyalty and ownership of the core principles of that country. To not, would mean to emigrate or participate in resistance. War is hell and has no middle ground save for death. To assume the position of neutrality without the physical sovereignty to support it is to forfeit one's life to the will of the superior faction. To yield to a position of neutrality means to open a path of victory for the shrewder opponent.
Ultimately, the underlying answer to all of this is to ask the question: what is life worth? Is it so precious that slavery and acceptance of corruption is sweet compared to death? Or is there something else to where even life would be discarded for the more valuable abstract? Neither answers are necessarily guarentee more happiness over the other, but when the decision is made its consequences must be accepted in full.
In case you have not noticed, I am in the camp that thinks that Dresden was a necessary event in the war as the singularity of life itself is not the most valuable possession to an individual in my eyes
I am on the other camp, there are always other means and measures that can be taken. At that point in the war there were other means open, but they were considered more risky, so the choice between whether you want to risk loosing troops or sacrificing civilians is the main point about what people argue about regarding things like this.
Personally I have always held the belief that a soldier is usually mentally prepared (at least partially) to lose his life. An civilian that is neither prepared nor wants to fight or die, is clearly not.
The bombing was a clearly immoral, but the question is whether you would rather have sacrificed soldiers to try to do it, and risk actually losing this scenario, or be completely sure of victory and bomb it. Honestly, though the indication of industry was there it was kind of too iffy to make sense to just right out firebomb the whole thing without scouting it out a bit more. It just didn't make sense how extreme the action was to such an uncertain factor.
I would always try to pick the morally right opinion, though only when it would come to civilian/innocent lives. To be able to say "We lost a lot, but we know we did the right thing." Is a lot better than "We did what we believed was necessary, even if it costed thousands of lives". But perhaps that means I am not fit to be a general. If that is the case, then I am fine with it.
I am on the other camp, there are always other means and measures that can be taken. At that point in the war there were other means open, but they were considered more risky, so the choice between whether you want to risk loosing troops or sacrificing civilians is the main point about what people argue about regarding things like this.
Personally I have always held the belief that a soldier is usually mentally prepared (at least partially) to lose his life. An civilian that is neither prepared nor wants to fight or die, is clearly not.
The bombing was a clearly immoral, but the question is whether you would rather have sacrificed soldiers to try to do it, and risk actually losing this scenario, or be completely sure of victory and bomb it. Honestly, though the indication of industry was there it was kind of too iffy to make sense to just right out firebomb the whole thing without scouting it out a bit more. It just didn't make sense how extreme the action was to such an uncertain factor.
I would always try to pick the morally right opinion, though only when it would come to civilian/innocent lives. To be able to say "We lost a lot, but we know we did the right thing." Is a lot better than "We did what we believed was necessary, even if it costed thousands of lives". But perhaps that means I am not fit to be a general. If that is the case, then I am fine with it.
To quote Andrzej Sapkowski's book The Last Wish, one of the books in The Witcher series:
“Evil is evil, Stregobor,” said the witcher seriously as he got up. “Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I’m not a pious hermit. I haven't done only good in my life. But if I’m to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
Cruel fact is: there is no moral high ground in war, no right side, no honour or glory, only death and trauma.
