They are not a west european country. They don't surrender and accept the shame of defeat to avoid mass casualty. Their plan was to sacrifice as many civilians as possible to prevent an invsion of the mainland. So long as it meant they could resist invasion in a meaningful way they would resist. Millions more would habe died and Japan would be split in two like korea.
Especially since their Surai honor would have meant they use Katanas?
Don't try to justify civilian death, strategic bombing was considered even by the RAF and UAAF a war crime in 1942, with some made up thing based in a fantasy understanding of the enemy.
Can you back up that claim about strategic bombing being a war crime? Also, do you understand that a war crime only applies between signatories of a treaty and that a nation that is not part of that a sovreign nation has no obligation to follow any authority or rule outside of itself else it wouldn't be a sovreign nation?
Civilian deaths are justified when war is justified. There is no such thing as a clean war or a "genteleman's war" as the brits call it. The idea of rules in war is a western european invention. Outside of that war historically meant murder, rape and pillaging by the victor. Are you familiar with the nanjing massacare by the Japnese? That's their idea of war, ripping out babies with a bayonet from pregnant women and making people beg for death as they force them to rape their own family members and hunt them like animals. The very fact that you think actions can be unjust or just after you started waging war shows you are only looking at it from a western/modern perspective. This is why afghanistan and vietnam were lost by the US. As a democracy the people's naive opinion of war was the ultimate cause of defeat. Even genocide is a modern post worldwar2 invention. Trough most of human history if the other guys won there is a chance they will kill all your people if they don't keep them for raping and enslavement. That is why when your guys get a chance they won't even consider the concept of rules only victory. War itself is a horrible and unjustifiable thing, it does not suddenly become just and fair because a you are killing a conscripted child with a uniform. Soldiers are human and civilians are participants in war by the mere fact that their economic output us being used to support the military by way of taxation. What is justifiable is avoiding war to begin with and changing your own governmenr even at the cost of a civil war so that it never becomes the agressor in war (coughiraq*cough).
The fact is you need one side to declare war before the other and regardless of who wins it is that first side that is responsible for the entire unjust and cruel outcome of a war. And as a sovreign nation, the people are responsible for the government they pay taxes to and tolerate when it declares war first on another country.
There are a couple of interal memos of RAF bomber command, some from Churchil hinslef, some from the USAAF and soke from Roosevelt.
Civilian deaths are never justified in war, they are, unfortunately, inevitable so. What the strategic bombing did was explicitly targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. Which is a war crime. That it was never tried, not even for the Blitz, was because the Allies did it themselves. Same for unrestricted u-boat warefare by the way.
Genocides are no post WW2 invention, plenty of examples throughout history, e.g. the one on the Armenians by the Ottoman Empire or the one on the Native Americans.
One last thing regarding strategic bombing of civilians and cities. It was clear to everyone that it sinoly doesn't work, morale isn't reduced, industrial output of Nazi Germany didn't drop. And still it was carried out. Partially as a revenge thing, partially to appease Stalin for the lack of Western Front in Europe. But mostly because people like Harris pushed and lobbied like crazy for it. Never mind that long range bombers would have been better used by coastal command for u-boat hunting and patrol duty.
Worth noting, the Nazis never had a clear majority during the last free election. They got one in a totally unfree election. Punishing a whole population for that, including children, elderly and other non-combatants, is wrong. Regardles of which side is doing it.
See, you noted two things there I agree with. One is that in reality if your goal isn't genocide, targeting civilians does not help your efforts before or after victory. Second is that UN security concil members after WW2 and "war crimes" being a thing commit war crimes without accountability, these days it only applies to weak countries. Who will prosecute the victor? Anothe nation by means of another war?
When I said genocide is a modern invention I meant it being a specially clasiffied crime. Of course it happened plenty? Natives in the americas and australia can tell you so as well but it was just war at the time. As recently as the 1800s it was not a crime to go hunting for indians without provocation.
> Punishing a whole population for that, including children, elderly and other non-combatants, is wrong. Regardles of which side is doing it.
Again, I find myself explaining that right and wrong are out of the window at that point. You have such views because in the west it is rare to be afraid that you as a civilian and your family will be killed by the other side. When your whole country is in the fear and terror of war, killing civilians becomes very popular. The US has not fought a single war of self-defense since WW2 so I see why this sentiment is popular. Nuking japan did have popular support and was a celebrated thing afterwards as well by the majority.
Your hindsight judgement is irrelevant and for future wars you should understand that when it is a war of self defense and survival there are no rules similar to how when a person is fighting for their lives they will not and cannot be expected to follow any rules.
In general, I agree with you that killing unarmed people is wrong, even as collateral damage. My point on this thread is that such opinions of morality are vain and even damaging against the ultimate goal of victory and survival in war. The unclean way I would put it is: polishing turd won't make it clean.
