- Joined
- Jan 15, 2016
- Messages
- 8,351
- Reaction score
- 4,260
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Wars were fought differently back then. You had the London Blitz and the use of the V1 and V2 rockets by Hitler. Churchill certainly did authorize firebombing of German cities and Roosevelt did the same for Tokyo Japan. Stalin leveled every German city as he went for Berlin and who knows how many civilians he killed. Both in the USSR and in Germany and later in Eastern Europe. Mussolini was a lost cause and had to be rescued by the Germans. With Tojo in charge in Japan, perhaps Hirohito was just a bystander who couldn't really challenge the military. Then you have the biological use in China by the Japanese and the experiments in China also conducted by the Japanese.
The thing is one must view WWII in the context of the way it was fought, the era in which it was fought and what was the normal rules of war. Bombing cities for the most part wasn't to kill civilians, it was to destroy manufacturing of war materials. Although Hitler thought he could destroy the English moral with the London Blitz. Placing WWII into the context of war used today isn't right in my book.
I think the choice comes down to two. Churchill who saved England and Western Europe by his bulldog stance or Stalin who finally captured Berlin and gained Eastern Europe in the process. Being biased against Stalin and communism, I'll go with Churchill.
Your point, that viewing history through modern eyes is a mistake, is a very good one. We now know that both the US and British air commanders were wrong when they said that Germany could be defeated solely by bombing. But it is understandable that both governments were attracted by the possibility.