What historically-considered war atrocities do you think were justified?

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,876
Spain
#81
But all the cities you list were HEAVILY defended. For example Germany protected Dresden with anti-aircraft weapons, the Luftwaffe, and their ground forces nearby. It wasn't like Russia was able to just march into the city without being stopped.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were protected by submarines, ships, anti-aircraft weapons, aircraft, etc... You are really making the argument that if the US chose to send troops into two cities they would have met no resistance defending them?
To say Hiroshima or Nagasaky were "defended" is a bad joke... about Dresde to have a few AA .. it is not heavily defended... by your logic, Syrian Air Force bombing Duma is right... in Duma we can find weapons...
 
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
#82
To say Hiroshima or Nagasaky were "defended" is a bad joke... about Dresde to have a few AA .. it is not heavily defended... by your logic, Syrian Air Force bombing Duma is right... in Duma we can find weapons...
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only had air defenses set up, but were major IJA or IJN C4I hubs. Hiroshima was home of the major army command who had control over all IJA in southern Japan. Nagasaki was a major naval base. Both also had large numbers of troops stationed inside the city limits. They were of major military importance, which is why they were targeted.

Don't compare WW2 and the current Syrian Civil War, not only are they completely separate type of wars (industrial nation state near peer total war vs an insurgency against relatively small Phase 3 insurgent groups with underwhelming supplies and little outside support), but the scope of the wars, cost in lives and money and forces involved are completely different.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,876
Spain
#83
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only had air defenses set up, but were major IJA or IJN C4I hubs. Hiroshima was home of the major army command who had control over all IJA in southern Japan. Nagasaki was a major naval base. Both also had large numbers of troops stationed inside the city limits. They were of major military importance, which is why they were targeted.

Don't compare WW2 and the current Syrian Civil War, not only are they completely separate type of wars (industrial nation state near peer total war vs an insurgency against relatively small Phase 3 insurgent groups with underwhelming supplies and little outside support), but the scope of the wars, cost in lives and money and forces involved are completely different.
Not.. what you want to say it is USA have the right to bomb when they want.. but not Russians or Syrian...Ok?
Japan was not an industrial State in August 1945... not more than Syria today.
 
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
#84
Not.. what you want to say it is USA have the right to bomb when they want.. but not Russians or Syrian...Ok?
Japan was not an industrial State in August 1945... not more than Syria today.
No, what I want to say is that anyone who takes the worst and bloodiest conflict in human history, that ended 70+ years ago, and compares it to an internal phase 3 insurgency civil war today, just so they can win points in a modern political discussion of the sort not even allowed on historum in the first place outside the Chamber, is wrong. Understand what I'm saying now? I can be more detailed if necessary, hopefully I'm clear though.

And Japan was the greatest Asian industrial state in 1941. You might remember that they didn't need to buy equipment from Russia or Iran or North Korea to bomb Pearl Harbor, the IJA had an entire fleet of ships they built, aircraft carriers they built, planes they built, bombs they built, machine guns they built, radios they built, etc. All IJA equipment, of artillery and tanks and other weapons were built by Japan.
 
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
#86
"Japan was not an industrial State in August 1945... not more than Syria today." I can't believe that I'm reading that!
Yeah. Japan only even launched the greater war because of the need for natural resources to fuel its industrial state. The attack on Pearl Harbor was the direct response of US oil embargoes which were strangling Japan's industrial economy, a nail in the coffin for its society. Either scale back heavily to the point Japan would be unrecognizable. Or go to war.

Meanwhile Syria is a tinpot dictatorship in a country whose chief export after oil/natural gas are nuts. All their military equipment they get from outside nations. Their war isnt' a war of annihilation/total war, its a civil war/rebellion by poorly armed and equipped insurgents now largely contained to Syria itself, with little outside support as well.

In 2018 Assad cannot act the same as the US did to defeat Japan in 1945 against Syrian cities anymore than I can legally shoot some jackass in a bar who grabs my wife's butt, while no district attorney in his right mind would indict me for emptying the magazine of my nightstand Glock into said ass grabber's face if he did it in my house in the middle of the night. Apples and oranges, a completely different situation in every meaningful way.
 

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,185
South of the barcodes
#87
To say Hiroshima or Nagasaky were "defended" is a bad joke... about Dresde to have a few AA .. it is not heavily defended... by your logic, Syrian Air Force bombing Duma is right... in Duma we can find weapons...
This is one of those trick questions isnt it?

Because i keep coming up with 'yes' as both answers?
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,864
Sydney
#88
As far as I know Dresden had been declared an open city ,
it was not defended , there were no military manufacturing in the place (?)
if someone has better info , I would be delighted to be proven wrong

from previous reading , Churchill urged Harris to show more action ,
Stalin had bitterly commented that while the Soviets had to fight for each crossroads ,
whole cities were surrendering to the allied ,by telephone ,without firing a shot .
the Bombing of Dresden was because of a scarcity of good targets
nominally to impede the redeployment of the 6th panzer Army to Hungary for the "spring awakening" operation
..........it didn't, the forces had already passed through
 

Theodoric

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,554
#89
I'd say on the mere fact that they're called atrocities implies they aren't justifiable in any moral sense of the word.
Although, from a narrow sociopathic point of view, an atrocity is justified as an effective means to an end.
 
Last edited:
Likes: martin76
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
#90
As far as I know Dresden had been declared an open city ,
it was not defended , there were no military manufacturing in the place (?)
if someone has better info , I would be delighted to be proven wrong

from previous reading , Churchill urged Harris to show more action ,
Stalin had bitterly commented that while the Soviets had to fight for each crossroads ,
whole cities were surrendering to the allied ,by telephone ,without firing a shot .
the Bombing of Dresden was because of a scarcity of good targets
nominally to impede the redeployment of the 6th panzer Army to Hungary for the "spring awakening" operation
..........it didn't, the forces had already passed through
Open city is one about to be attacked by ground forces. The side holding the city either fights to defend it or they don't, the latter is open to the aggressor, without organized resistance.

Dresden was not in danger of ground attack and that status doesn't apply to bombers. They did have some air defenses, but most got sent to reinforce the Ostfront. They had no major active bases inside the city but they willfully routed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of troops and supplies through its rail lines and roads into Poland and east.

It was a legitimate target. C'est la guerre. Next time don't perpetrate the most horrific war of annihilation in human history and then lose.
 

Similar History Discussions