Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "Allied bombing of Dresden: Legitimate target or war crime? | DW News" video.

@cunninguncle208akaanutlapu7 No, just because its smart doesn't make it moral. But if someone starts committing war crimes left and right and engages in total war does it; then the chains of morality goes off.
3
@ralphbernhard1757 Germany doesn't have to; that's the point. Which is the only reason they have yet to kick the US out of their territory. Personal unwillingness to militarize.
2
The US wanted to return to isolationism after WW2 and almost did if it were not for Truman. The US did not at any point intend to stay and rebuild anything until the USSR proved to have greater ambitions. You're conflating what we KNOW happens to what people thought prior to it happening.
2
@ralphbernhard1757 That was not the case at all. The US didn't even want to join WW2 to begin with; it was dragged into it kicking and screaming, though FDR did want it. FDR himself however wanted the dismantling of ALL European empires and genuinely saw the USSR as an anti-imperialist state that would help do that and thus approved of them. Truman didn't even want that, but he saw the USSR as a threat and decided to move policy to combatting them. It had nothing to do with wanting to set itself up as the sole decider of wars. Nor did it ever see itself as entering wars for the protection of the British; this is some far-off distant conspiracy nonsense here. The "unwillingness to be a pawn of the British" was a Canadian and Australian thing; not an American thing.
2
@cunninguncle208akaanutlapu7 That's why you don't start a total war. Total wars, once started, justifies massive military reprisals. Including the bombing of cities whose taxes are supporting the enemy war effort.
2
@cunninguncle208akaanutlapu7 Oh, its a war crime; but the concept of "war crimes" become accepted in total wars to begin with. That's why its called a TOTAL war. The only limitations being the really heinous ones that you can't justify as being done to end the war quicker, like genocide which if anything takes more time and resources away from the war.
2
@cunninguncle208akaanutlapu7 I-Is that a serious question? Do you not know how national moral, industrial capacity, transportation, and funding for the military through taxes work? Destroying cities is arguably the most effective way to destroy a nation's ability to wage war.
2
@ralphbernhard1757 That "effort" isn't going so well considering Russia's actions recently, tbh. And what? Are you seriously acting like European media are owned by the US? Really?
1
@ralphbernhard1757 Not true. The burning of Confederate cities in the US Civil War was crucial to ending that conflict. Same applies in Germany and Japan in WW2.
1
@ralphbernhard1757 "Factually based analysis" in reality not being a mainstream historian opinion on events. Just being a few opinions. As far as I'm aware, that is not the current consensus amongst historians.
1
@ralphbernhard1757 Oh, it seemed like you were implying that the US planned the outcome. My apologies then. Yes, whenever the British or the French attempted to "save their empire" it usually resulted in making the USSR more attractive. That went for the Dutch too. So the US often shut them down, or occasionally helped them like in Vietnam.
1