What are your experiences, interests and areas of expertise?

[_Mary]

Question Shades!

Were the British morally justified in bombing Dresden?

I think not, but my parents nearly chucked me out of the house when I suggested the same!

[_Fortigurn]

* Born into a Christian family (but not LDS)

* 34 years old

* Raised a Christian, questioned my beliefs in my late teens, again in my early twenties, and occasionally now but continue to be convicted

* Bachelor of Arts with a double classics major (Greek, Latin, classical and later Greek and Roman history, art, architecture and oratory), plus a couple of years of philosophy, English (language and literature), European history (16th to 20th centuries), and some IT units (eclectic is the word to describe my interests)

* Halfway through a Master of Information Management and Systems

* Worked in the libraries of two Australian private schools in Melbourne as IT manager and librarian (I love libraries)

* Left Australia over two and a half years ago, moved to Taiwan, taught English for two and a half years (loved it), now a technical writer for a wireless technology company based in Seattle (I work for their Taiwan R&D company)

* Personal interest in history and language, theology, religion, origin of ideas, and IT (occasionally in philosophy, but find most of it is pointless)

[_Dr. Shades]

Question Shades!

Were the British morally justified in bombing Dresden?

Absolutely, unequivocally NOT! Although all terror bombing is, in my opinion, morally inexcusable, a case can be made that the Allies' moral status is even less tenable within the ethical spectrum of terror bombing, since, thanks to the Blitz, they knew for an absolute fact that terror bombing doesn't work, yet they carried it out themselves anyway.

As an aside, one of the more recent WWII-related books I read was an insider's view of life within the Third Reich. The author had gotten involved in an underground railroad-type of operation smuggling Jews out of the country. He related instances of Allied bombing raids killing people opposed to and actively working against Hitler, destroying Jewish safe-houses, etc. So terror bombing kills potential friends and allies just as indiscriminately as it kills enemies.

I think not, but my parents nearly chucked me out of the house when I suggested the same!

You need to ask if the Blitz was justified, then ask whether Dresden was justified, then remind them that the answer needs to be the same to both questions.

[_Ray A]

Shades,

What is your opinion of the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima?

[_Mephitus]

I think that the first bomb was a horrific, but nessecary show of force to stop the war with the japanese. If we had waited a while longer (another 3-4 days tops) they would have surrendered with just that. The second was completely unnesscary. If it had not been done though, more lives would have been lost overall from the protracted war. Its sad that such things may be done, but i can see their function.

[_Mary]

Just topping this, to see if anyone else will contribute?

Roger?!!!

Mary

[_Fortigurn]

I think that the first bomb was a horrific, but nessecary show of force to stop the war with the japanese. If we had waited a while longer (another 3-4 days tops) they would have surrendered with just that. The second was completely unnesscary. If it had not been done though, more lives would have been lost overall from the protracted war. Its sad that such things may be done, but i can see their function.

I believe neither were necessary, since there is clear evidence that the Japanese were already desparately negotiating for a surrender before either bomb was dropped. The bombs appear to have been more of a statement to Russia.

[_richardMdBorn]

I think that the first bomb was a horrific, but nessecary show of force to stop the war with the japanese. If we had waited a while longer (another 3-4 days tops) they would have surrendered with just that. The second was completely unnesscary. If it had not been done though, more lives would have been lost overall from the protracted war. Its sad that such things may be done, but i can see their function.

I believe neither were necessary, since there is clear evidence that the Japanese were already desparately negotiating for a surrender before either bomb was dropped. The bombs appear to have been more of a statement to Russia.

Some of the Japanese were trying to surrender, but there were strong elements opposing this. Even after the two atomic bombs were dropped and the Soviets attacked, there were attempts to keep the Emperor's address from being broadcast.

[_Fortigurn]

I think that the first bomb was a horrific, but nessecary show of force to stop the war with the japanese. If we had waited a while longer (another 3-4 days tops) they would have surrendered with just that. The second was completely unnesscary. If it had not been done though, more lives would have been lost overall from the protracted war. Its sad that such things may be done, but i can see their function.

I believe neither were necessary, since there is clear evidence that the Japanese were already desparately negotiating for a surrender before either bomb was dropped. The bombs appear to have been more of a statement to Russia.

Some of the Japanese were trying to surrender, but there were strong elements opposing this. Even after the two atomic bombs were dropped and the Soviets attacked, there were attempts to keep the Emperor's address from being broadcast.

Official diplomatic overtures of surrender had been made. The fact that some of the Japanese didn't like this doesn't change the fact that they were made. There was no reason for a wholesale invasion of Japan at this point in any case, so there's no argument to be made that the bombs were necessary in order to avoid Allied deaths in an invasion of Japan. Japan had no naval, air, or land forces capable of launching an attack anywhere outside Japan.

The place was being regularly firebombed indiscriminately by Allied aircraft which enjoyed total air supremacy. The intelligent plan would have been to suspend all military incursions into Japan (air, sea and land), simply hold Japan under siege, and threaten additional air strikes in the case of non-surrender.

[_Gazelam]

Chugga- chugga Chugga- chugga

Hear that? that's that train on the other track heading to the off-topic forum, here to pick up those poor souls whose train was derailed!



Not that the information wasn't interesting mind you, just innappropriate here.