World War II: Were the Western Allies the "Good Guys?"

[Ultimate Paragon]

I decided to move the discussion to its own thread.

Hey if we're competing for who was the biggest dickbag during WWII, which we weren't, you can't leave out Britain's carpet firebombing of Dresden.  It's hard to feel much like the good guys after reading about it.  And I mean proper reading about it, not just a cursory glance at the Wikipedia page on it - reading first hand accounts from survivors and that sort of thing.  I have read quite a lot about it as my GCSE History teacher kind of had a thing about Dresden and spent some time covering it and went into much, much detail.  If we'd nuked the city it actually might actually have been far less horrific.

While the bombing of Dresden was a tragedy, its immorality has been greatly exaggerated.  Much as certain people claim otherwise, it was a legitimate military target, since it was a military industrial center and a major transportation hub.  It was bombed as part of a larger campaign to hamper German troop movements.

[rookie]

Yeah, it's easy to sit back years (or in this case generations) later and look at this. Look at intelligence with the benefit of hindsight, see what the true costs were rather than trying to make a decision based on projections. And it's too damn easy to sit back, again after time, and forget the grizzly business of war fighting. How it's not clean or you rarely think beyond surviving the skirmish. At least from a boots on the ground perspective.

[Katsuro]

I decided to move the discussion to its own thread.

Hey if we're competing for who was the biggest dickbag during WWII, which we weren't, you can't leave out Britain's carpet firebombing of Dresden.  It's hard to feel much like the good guys after reading about it.  And I mean proper reading about it, not just a cursory glance at the Wikipedia page on it - reading first hand accounts from survivors and that sort of thing.  I have read quite a lot about it as my GCSE History teacher kind of had a thing about Dresden and spent some time covering it and went into much, much detail.  If we'd nuked the city it actually might actually have been far less horrific.

While the bombing of Dresden was a tragedy, its immorality has been greatly exaggerated.  Much as certain people claim otherwise, it was a legitimate military target, since it was a military industrial center and a major transportation hub.  It was bombed as part of a larger campaign to hamper German troop movements.

Yeah and I'm sure that's comforting to the relatives of all the dead children who were burned alive.  If any of them were alive themselves to be comforted of course.

Also it is a documented fact that the allied carpet bombings of German cities, including Dresden, was not simply a matter of making sure all military targets were eliminated with large civilian causalities just an unavoidable and unfortunate but necessary consequence, it was done on purpose with the intent of destroying EVERYTHING, including civilians, as revenge for the German bombings in Britain.  One might argue the Germans started it, but just...don't.  International affairs of any kind should not be run on the same principles found in school playgrounds.

[Katsuro]

Yeah, it's easy to sit back years (or in this case generations) later and look at this. Look at intelligence with the benefit of hindsight, see what the true costs were rather than trying to make a decision based on projections. And it's too damn easy to sit back, again after time, and forget the grizzly business of war fighting. How it's not clean or you rarely think beyond surviving the skirmish. At least from a boots on the ground perspective.

Yes I am aware of this.  War makes people and countries do terrible shit that they have to do.  My point is simply it's difficult to feel like your side has the moral high ground whenever they are doing/have done the exact same terrible things they they condemn the enemy for doing, especially when one of those things is deliberately killing civilians not just because you can't avoid it but because you want to for revenge.

[Katsuro]

You are all also aware aren't you that even immediately after the war Dresden was something of an embarrassment to the Air Force and the government and it was something that wasn't really talked about?  So much so that the crews in question and their commanders were not issued the medals that every single other flight crew were.  This isn't just a case of looking back with modern values at a different time, even at the time Dresden was of questionable morality.

Also the thread title is rather misleading and missing the point, it's kind of straw manning a little.  As I already said I, nor I think is anyone else, claiming were weren't the "good guys" in the grand scheme of things but rather acknowledging that our side did some really bad shit too and that there are things that do rather kill the "we're goddamn heroes in shining armour saving the motherfucking day" vibe some of the allied nations like to have going.  And as I also already said, the moral high ground you stand on gets that little bit smaller whenever you do shit that is as bad if not worse than the things you demonise your enemies for doing.  I mean do I really need to explain why tit-for-tat revenge is not a morally sound concept or action to take?  I think that's an aspect some are not getting - the civilian deaths in Dresden and other cities were a deliberate part of the attack, they were not merely an unavoidable, necessary evil to get the job done.  We were trying to completely wipe Dresden and everyone in it off the map.

[TheContrarian]

Also it is a documented fact that the allied carpet bombings of German cities, including Dresden, was not simply a matter of making sure all military targets were eliminated with large civilian causalities just an unavoidable and unfortunate but necessary consequence, it was done on purpose with the intent of destroying EVERYTHING, including civilians

Who was working the armaments factories and growing the food to feed the German war machine?  Hint: it's not the fucking soldiers.

Not a justification, just a definition of how total war actually works.  The line between military and civilian gets increasingly blurry and eventually disappears.

If you obliterate everything in a city, that city contributes nothing to your military's ability to fight.  If you destroy the factories but deliberately spare the workforce, those people will be in the Volkssturm and hiding behind a pile of rubble with a Panzerfaust when you roll your ground forces into their city.

From a purely military standpoint it makes no sense to leave them standing.

[Even Then]

As I said before, the US also levelled Tokyo with napalm, and that had around the death toll of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Why, for example, is that not the thing that proves the Americans weren't "the good guys"?

Because no one, as far as I know, is looking at that and going "well, they did it to save casualties, which means it was a heroic act!". You know. Like people are doing with the bombings. It's a lesser evil. Nowhere does that term imply that the greater evil is not also an evil. But nuking an entire city is an evil act, no matter the purpose.

I believe I've made my views on the matter clear, and I'm not interested in discussing the matter further. I won't be checking this thread anymore. (And just in case any fool feels like saying something to the effect of "well, who made you the supreme judge of good and evil?"; never said I was.)

[ironbite]

There are no go....actually you know what?  I'll let Hawkeye explain for me.

Hawkeye: War isn't Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse.
Father Mulcahy: How do you figure, Hawkeye?
Hawkeye: Easy, Father. Tell me, who goes to Hell?
Father Mulcahy: Sinners, I believe.
Hawkeye: Exactly. There are no innocent bystanders in Hell. War is chock full of them - little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for some of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander.

So there you have my opinion on war.  Bunch of innocent bystanders caught up in something they don't understand affected by decisions by people who only see those innocent bystanders as numbers to reduce to 0.

Ironbite-ain't that a kicker?

[Eiki-mun]

Before anyone can answer the definition posed by the thread title, a concise and clear definition of "good guys" must be proposed and agreed upon. Because I get the feeling what I mean by "good guys" and what you mean are different things.

[TheContrarian]

Well, if you look at "good guys" from a narrative perspective you will seldom see someone who fits the bill while being devoid of character flaws.  If you make your heroes strictly lawful good they are usually one dimensional and shit.

So don't expect a definition of "good guys" that is synonymous with "sinless" or "saintly"

[Katsuro]

Also it is a documented fact that the allied carpet bombings of German cities, including Dresden, was not simply a matter of making sure all military targets were eliminated with large civilian causalities just an unavoidable and unfortunate but necessary consequence, it was done on purpose with the intent of destroying EVERYTHING, including civilians

Who was working the armaments factories and growing the food to feed the German war machine?  Hint: it's not the fucking soldiers.

So kill them and their children in their homes?  Did every single person in Dresden work in the factories?  Even the babies and the elderly?  You'd be ok with the army walking into a house and shooting every single person there in the head because the father works in a munitions factory?  Because there isn't really much of a difference.

Not a justification, just a definition of how total war actually works.  The line between military and civilian gets increasingly blurry and eventually disappears.

Yes and total war is a morally reprehensible thing which is why ever since we have tried very hard to avoid engaging in it again.

If you destroy the factories but deliberately spare the workforce, those people will be in the Volkssturm and hiding behind a pile of rubble with a Panzerfaust when you roll your ground forces into their city.

So kill everyone on the off chance they might be a problem later down the line?  That's the same line of reasoning that lead to murdering literally everyone during any kind of raid or attack because the offspring might do the same back to you for revenge, which is something you might have noticed most of the "civilised" world had kind of mostly stopped doing by WWII.  And I hope I don't need to explain the moral and logical issues with such reasoning, I really fucking hope I don't.  And again, do you think the babies and toddlers were joining the Volkssturm?  But fuck them right, if they're dead they can't grow up to work in munitions factories so kill 'em all I say.

Plus, how many fucking times do I need to say this, THESE ARE THING WE WERE AND STILL DO CONDEMN THE GERMANS FOR DOING.  That's kind of the issue, you don't get to say someone is evil for doing something when you are doing the same shit even if said thing is militarily the ""sensible" thing to do.  Pick the moral high ground or get dirty and admit you're getting dirty, you don't get to have it both ways.  That's what's known as wanting to having your cake and eat it.

Also, you saying you're not justifying it (which is kind of bollocks because there' not a hint of acknowledgment of the ickiness of the MORALITY of it, so it sure as hell comes across like justification) you're just saying it makes sense militarily is kind of irreverent anyway because I'm not arguing military strategy I'm arguing MORALITY (which as I said before even at the time this was considered morally questionable).  If you ignore morality and care soley about strategy then literally anything becomes permissible - every genocide, every child soldier the whole fucking lot.  And again THAT'S THE OTHER POINT.  Something being military sound does not make it morally sound.  Being the good guy is not about who wins or who has the more effective tactics it's about MORALITY.   Otherwise we could solve, for example, the ISIS problem by literally nuking every last square inch of every Muslim country and executing every single Muslim in every other country.  But that would be morally reprehensible.  But it would work (ignoring the practicality of it) - ISIS would be gone and there'd be no one left who would be likely to fall into their ideology.  But it would be immoral and that's the goddamn point.  If you want a more practical example, albeit a fictional one, saying it makes more sense, and would be more effective, if characters like Batman and Superman just killed every bad guy that came their way is missing the point entirely.  There is a reason they don't.

Short version: don't give me shite about how it makes sense from a military standpoint, because it's irrelevant.  It has nothing to do with the point which is the MORALITY of it, ain't nobody question it from a tactical standpoint.  Lots of things make sense militarily speaking but we don't do them.  The semi-straw manned question of the thread is not "Did the Allies Use Militarily Sound, Sensible and Effective Tactics and Actions"  the question is " Were the Western Allies the good guys".  And for the record the answer is, "Mostly yes, overall, all things considered.  But we weren't angels like some people want to make out.   We did some bad guy style stuff along the way to wiping up one of the biggest shits the modern world has ever seen."

Edit: That "biggest shits" is Hitler and his cronies btw, in case anyone didn't get it.

[Katsuro]

Well, if you look at "good guys" from a narrative perspective you will seldom see someone who fits the bill while being devoid of character flaws.  If you make your heroes strictly lawful good they are usually one dimensional and shit.

So don't expect a definition of "good guys" that is synonymous with "sinless" or "saintly"

Of course nobody is flawless, everyone makes mistakes and has a "dark side" if you will.  But there's a difference between mistakes and committing deliberate awful acts and then being hypocrite about it and acting like you're perfect.  And winning sides, the Allies being no exception to this, like to pretend like they're perfect.

[TheContrarian]

Also it is a documented fact that the allied carpet bombings of German cities, including Dresden, was not simply a matter of making sure all military targets were eliminated with large civilian causalities just an unavoidable and unfortunate but necessary consequence, it was done on purpose with the intent of destroying EVERYTHING, including civilians

Who was working the armaments factories and growing the food to feed the German war machine?  Hint: it's not the fucking soldiers.

So kill them and their children in their homes?  Did every single person in Dresden work in the factories?  Even the babies and the elderly?  You'd be ok with the army walking into a house and shooting every single person there in the head because the father works in a munitions factory?  Because there isn't really much of a difference.

In the absence of more discerning weaponry, sure.  As for whether i'd be OK with it, you did quote the very next thing I wrote, so, errr, no?

Not a justification, just a definition of how total war actually works.  The line between military and civilian gets increasingly blurry and eventually disappears.

Yes and total war is a morally reprehensible thing which is why ever since we have tried very hard to avoid engaging in it again.

Which was obviously very helpful at the time.  There's an abundance of quotes on the interwebs about hindsight, you should look up a few.

If you destroy the factories but deliberately spare the workforce, those people will be in the Volkssturm and hiding behind a pile of rubble with a Panzerfaust when you roll your ground forces into their city.

So kill everyone on the off chance they might be a problem later down the line?  That's the same line of reasoning that lead to murdering literally everyone during any kind of raid or attack because the offspring might do the same back to you for revenge, which is something you might have noticed most of the "civilised" world had kind of mostly stopped doing by WWII.  And I hope I don't need to explain the moral and logical issues with such reasoning, I really fucking hope I don't.  And again, do you think the babies and toddlers were joining the Volkssturm?  But fuck them right, if they're dead they can't grow up to work in munitions factories so kill 'em all I say.

Plus, how many fucking times do I need to say this, THESE ARE THING WE WERE AND STILL DO CONDEMN THE GERMANS FOR DOING.  That's kind of the issue, you don't get to say someone is evil for doing something when you are doing the same shit even if said thing is militarily the ""sensible" thing to do.  Pick the moral high ground or get dirty and admit you're getting dirty, you don't get to have it both ways.  That's what's known as wanting to having your cake and eat it.

Also, you saying you're not justifying it (which is kind of bollocks because there' not a hint of acknowledgment of the ickiness of the MORALITY of it, so it sure as hell comes across like justification) you're just saying it makes sense militarily is kind of irreverent anyway because I'm not arguing military strategy I'm arguing MORALITY (which as I said before even at the time this was considered morally questionable).  If you ignore morality and care soley about strategy then literally anything becomes permissible - every genocide, every child soldier the whole fucking lot.  And again THAT'S THE OTHER POINT.  Something being military sound does not make it morally sound.  Being the good guy is not about who wins or who has the more effective tactics it's about MORALITY.   Otherwise we could solve, for example, the ISIS problem by literally nuking every last square inch of every Muslim country and executing every single Muslim in every other country.  But that would be morally reprehensible.  But it would work (ignoring the practicality of it) - ISIS would be gone and there'd be no one left who would be likely to fall into their ideology.  But it would be immoral and that's the goddamn point.  If you want a more practical example, albeit a fictional one, saying it makes more sense, and would be more effective, if characters like Batman and Superman just killed every bad guy that came their way is missing the point entirely.  There is a reason they don't.

Short version: don't give me shite about how it makes sense from a military standpoint, because it's irrelevant.  It has nothing to do with the point which is the MORALITY of it, ain't nobody question it from a tactical standpoint.  Lots of things make sense militarily speaking but we don't do them.  The semi-straw manned question of the thread is not "Did the Allies Use Militarily Sound, Sensible and Effective Tactics and Actions"  the question is " Were the Western Allies the good guys".  And for the record the answer is, "Mostly yes, overall, all things considered.  But we weren't angels like some people want to make out.   We did some bad guy style stuff along the way to wiping up one of the biggest shits the modern world has ever seen."

Edit: That "biggest shits" is Hitler and his cronies btw, in case anyone didn't get it.

Which is exactly why I don't condemn zee germans for the blitz, or the destruction of Rotterdam (or Guernica for that matter) or whatever.  In a war on that scale fought by opponents who feared for their very survival and were desperate for any measure that would give them an edge no matter how shit, it was a practical inevitability that both sides got into it.

In fact, you can thank nuclear proliferation for putting an end to war on that sort of scale.  Not since Douglas MacArthur put the shits up congress by suggesting a bit of nuclear war against the chinese during the Korean war have we actually seen two proper industrial powers go at it properly...and with good fucking reason. 

But getting back to ze Germans, the tit-for-tat terror bombings they shared with Britain are an irrelevance when you consider the EVERYTHING ELSE.

For all the British Empire's faults, we didn't really do anything that didn't have a valid military reason behind it.  I mean, if I had been in charge of liberated bits of France and Belgium in 1944 i'd have made the locals dress in period costume and cavalry charge my captured german flak cannons and machine guns just for the lulz, but thankfully our actual commanders were more tactful than that

[Eiki-mun]

Well, if you look at "good guys" from a narrative perspective you will seldom see someone who fits the bill while being devoid of character flaws.  If you make your heroes strictly lawful good they are usually one dimensional and shit.

So don't expect a definition of "good guys" that is synonymous with "sinless" or "saintly"

Indeed! Fortunately, the definition I have in mind doesn't contain those words at all. Here's what I propose:

A nation can claim to be morally righteous in World War II, in general, if it satisfies at least two conditions:

A. Said nation did not attempt to specifically target civilians.
B. Said nation made all reasonable attempts to minimize civilian casualties on both sides.

When I get home, I'll demonstrate how the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans and the firebombing of Dresden both violate these principles. Until then, work beckons.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Yeah, it's easy to sit back years (or in this case generations) later and look at this. Look at intelligence with the benefit of hindsight, see what the true costs were rather than trying to make a decision based on projections. And it's too damn easy to sit back, again after time, and forget the grizzly business of war fighting. How it's not clean or you rarely think beyond surviving the skirmish. At least from a boots on the ground perspective.

Yes I am aware of this.  War makes people and countries do terrible shit that they have to do.  My point is simply it's difficult to feel like your side has the moral high ground whenever they are doing/have done the exact same terrible things they they condemn the enemy for doing, especially when one of those things is deliberately killing civilians not just because you can't avoid it but because you want to for revenge.

Why did they have to take revenge?