It's a mistake to judge the actions of the past by the perceptions of the present.
Should we bomb civilians? No. Was the bombing of civilians a commonplace and accepted strategy in WWII? Yes.
So who is right--our present judgment of how civilians fit into warfare or the then-judgment of how civilians fit into warfare?
That is, I think, a reasonable and important question. The article's error is to assume that it knows the answer, perhaps even not to realize that the question is there to be asked or that it haunts the whole discussion. This oversight causes the author to write with pain, confusion, and a sense of indignation and to try to convey this pain, confusion, and indignation to us. Those of us who easily agree with the author's ethical perspective will comfortably join in the drum-beating and cry-rallying. But those who recognize that different times and cultures and situations raise real and serious questions about our perception of ethics will be slower to judge the past.
I'm thankful that we live in a time when we can tread carefully in how we wage war and can work hard to avoid civilian casualties. I agree that wherever possible, civilians--even enemy civilians--should be protected from violence. Killing innocents--even enemy innocents--is wrong. But I don't assume that every time is like ours. If you want to convince me that the bombing of Tokyo (or Dresden or anywhere else) is wrong, convince me that it was wrong by the lights of the people who did it, not be the lights of people who can sit comfortably in their air conditioned offices seventy years later, tapping our opinions into softly glowing screens.
Opinion changed during the war. British bomber command started with the attitude of "don't bomb civilians". That was tricky because most major German cities had important factories and bombing was not very precise at the beginning of the war. But, still, the intent was to hit the factories and not the civilian populations.
It's only as the war progressed that some people pushed for bombing of civilians.
> If you want to convince me that the bombing of Tokyo (or Dresden or anywhere else) is wrong, convince me that it was wrong by the lights of the people who did it
Are you saying you think mass murder is okay as long as the people who did it thought it was a good idea at the time?
Should we bomb civilians? No. Was the bombing of civilians a commonplace and accepted strategy in WWII? Yes.
So who is right--our present judgment of how civilians fit into warfare or the then-judgment of how civilians fit into warfare?
That is, I think, a reasonable and important question. The article's error is to assume that it knows the answer, perhaps even not to realize that the question is there to be asked or that it haunts the whole discussion. This oversight causes the author to write with pain, confusion, and a sense of indignation and to try to convey this pain, confusion, and indignation to us. Those of us who easily agree with the author's ethical perspective will comfortably join in the drum-beating and cry-rallying. But those who recognize that different times and cultures and situations raise real and serious questions about our perception of ethics will be slower to judge the past.
I'm thankful that we live in a time when we can tread carefully in how we wage war and can work hard to avoid civilian casualties. I agree that wherever possible, civilians--even enemy civilians--should be protected from violence. Killing innocents--even enemy innocents--is wrong. But I don't assume that every time is like ours. If you want to convince me that the bombing of Tokyo (or Dresden or anywhere else) is wrong, convince me that it was wrong by the lights of the people who did it, not be the lights of people who can sit comfortably in their air conditioned offices seventy years later, tapping our opinions into softly glowing screens.