The Firebombing of Coventry

[Sodacider]

In World War II, Coventry was firebombed during the Battle of Britain and completely destroyed. Countless civilians died in the bombing at the hands of Nazi Germany.

Britain knew it was coming, but didn't warn the city. Had it warned Coventry and Coventry prepared itself, Germany would have known that their code had been broken by the Allies.

Was this morally ok?

I want real responses. Alot of you will have a gut instinct to say 'yeah, it was a necessary act' because of how we glorify World War II as a moral war. But, if something similar happened today, some of the same people who said that was ok would be crying 'bloody murderer.'

[D_Dragoon]

Looking at it from a strategic viewpoint it was neccesary, "many died to save the rest". If the Nazis had found out about their stolen code who knows what the outcome could have been.

HOWEVER

Was this morally ok? To answer your question of morality not it was not okay.

[Ford Mustang]

I agree. While I think it was done because it needed to be done, I definitely don't think it was at all moral. The innocent people who died in Coventry may have died to save the lives of countless more British citizens.

[Max33]

Was it moraly OK ? Hmmmm.....

Of course it's not moraly OK.

When one human being kills another its not moraly OK.

When a government allows the death of innocents it's not moraly OK.

And just in case you didnt know , WAR's not moraly OK.
It might be nessecairy but NEVER OK.



Moraly OK?
Kind of a thoughtless question.

[Sodacider]

Originally posted by Max33
Was it moraly OK ? Hmmmm.....

Of course it's not moraly OK.

When one human being kills another its not moraly OK.

When a government allows the death of innocents it's not moraly OK.

And just in case you didnt know , WAR's not moraly OK.
It might be nessecairy but NEVER OK.



Moraly OK?
Kind of a thoughtless question.

die.

[MidniteArrow]

Yes, it was incredibly morally OK. Knowing the German code provided the allied forces with a distinct advantage. This advantage could have been used to save some of the lives at Coventry - however the advantage would have been lost. So the decision as they saw it was, save Coventry, or use this advantage where we can in stealth to provide repetetive benefit to the allied forces. The former would have saved lives, as would the latter. I would definitely say that the latter case would most likely save more lives than the former. As such, it is the moral course. It's not like the allied forces sacraficed lives - they merely chose which lives would be put in harms way, and it seems to me like they chose to sacrafice the fewest lives possible (from their point of view). Neither course would have put no lives at risk, and again, the course taken put the lesser (in their thinking) lives at risk. I'm not sure how this is immoral.

[Max33]

Originally posted by Sodacider


die.


My Grandfather was in World war 2.He's also the most inteligent man (literally) that I ever met.
When I was ten I wanted to ask him about the war_he said sure.My first question was Did you ever kill anybody?" His response "Thats a question you dont ask and I dont answer"

That was the first and sast time we spoke on the subject.

Countless civilians lost their lives?

Many individuals lost their lives.

I'm sure their families and loved ones know the number.

[mattgame]

War is wrong. I think what everyone forgets is that we are all going to die one day. So all this power we seek by the destruction and manipulation of others is in the end fruitless. Morally it was dead wrong. I don't understand the logic behind doing anything pertaining to war. Yet that is the nature of man. It may cost some people their lives but I must win, I must be powerful because I will be here forever to enjoy it. Instead of making this place comfortable to live in we make it a nail biting hell where our lives don't mean shat. This is proof of that philosophy. My step-father was in WW2. He doesn't talk much about it either.

[Sodacider]

I think anyone would agree that an aggressive, non-defensive war is wrong, but I certainly think there are alot of very just wars. If your acting in your defense, a la World War II (in question here), it's not really an option to sit back and say 'war is wrong.'

[Sodacider]

update on this: 600 killed, 4300 homes destroyed, 30,000 incendiaries dropped, along with landmines and oil bombs.

[mattgame]

Originally posted by Sodacider
I think anyone would agree that an aggressive, non-defensive war is wrong, but I certainly think there are alot of very just wars. If your acting in your defense, a la World War II (in question here), it's not really an option to sit back and say 'war is wrong.'

I reiterate war is wrong and any acts of war is wrong. When is it just? This act that this thread is about wasn't just. These actions are all a result of someones aggression. Someone who wants to rule the world. It's all ridiculous because when we die we take nothing with us so what's the point? War is about power, power that will one day be destroyed. However, countries, nations go to great lengths to obtain this power.

[MidniteArrow]

You can say that war is wrong, but there must be some sort of justification. Under what morality is war absolutely wrong?

[Sodacider]

Originally posted by t_howell


I reiterate war is wrong and any acts of war is wrong. When is it just? This act that this thread is about wasn't just. These actions are all a result of someones aggression. Someone who wants to rule the world. It's all ridiculous because when we die we take nothing with us so what's the point? War is about power, power that will one day be destroyed. However, countries, nations go to great lengths to obtain this power.

so what I don't really get is how you seem to be saying the british and americans are immoral in world war II since it was a war of aggression. Only, they weren't the aggressors? explain your logic.

[speedbuggy76]

Originally posted by Sodacider
update on this: 600 killed, 4300 homes destroyed, 30,000 incendiaries dropped, along with landmines and oil bombs.

Please tell me you're not talking about the war in Iraq. Cuz if you are, you forgot one important figure that many who are anti-Iraq war seem to miss:

24,000,000 + FREED

Freed from a dictator who was the scum of the Earth, a rapist, murderer, and all-around ass-hole!

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

EDIT: Sorry, if you are not even talking about the war in Iraq, I just became angry at some people's act of turning a blind eye to what has been accomplished by our soldiers.

[Sodacider]

Originally posted by speedbuggy76


Please tell me you're not talking about the war in Iraq. Cuz if you are, you forgot one important figure that many who are anti-Iraq war seem to miss:

24,000,000 + FREED

Freed from a dictator who was the scum of the Earth, a rapist, murderer, and all-around ass-hole!

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

EDIT: Sorry, if you are not even talking about the war in Iraq, I just became angry at some people's act of turning a blind eye to what has been accomplished by our soldiers.

READ THE THREAD.

[speedbuggy76]

Originally posted by Sodacider


READ THE THREAD.

As I said in the Edit, sorry if you are not talking about the war in Iraq, but since you said "Update", I thought that it was some new information. Also, the thread is not just about Coventry, no matter what it started as. It may have started there but has now moved to the morality of war. I don't know why you have become so angry at me, I didn't realize you were talking about Coventry, I was tired (should've noticed the death count), but you just jumped all over me, man. Sorry.

:cheers: