alonovo.com (beta 2.0)

The Ethics of Killing Civilians 2009-08-27

Reviewer: Reader

"Among the Dead Cities" is a meticulous examination of RAF area-bombing of German cities in World War II. The author is a philosopher, but most of his book is history, retelling the story of the air campaign against Germany. His basic finding is that area-bombing, even though it slaughtered hundreds of thousands of German civilians, failed to break German morale or contribute much to Allied victory. In contrast, USAAF precision bombing of factories, railroads and oil facilities helped bring about the collapse of German war production in late 1944/1945. Under the circumstances, area-bombing was morally unjustifiable. It's an ironclad case, calmly made.

I liked the book, but its analysis seemed misdirected. The author doesn't judge the RAF campaign in terms of moral theories like utilitarianism or Kantianism. Instead, he measures it against the standards of post-World War II legal instruments like the Geneva Conventions and the protocols thereto, which clearly outlaw attacks on civilians. This doesn't mean the book is bad; on the contrary, it is excellent. But it does make the argument easy.

I expected something different from a philosophy professor. Readers looking for philosophy should try Michael Walzer's "Just and Unjust Wars," which presents an entire moral theory of warfare.

Disturbing 2009-02-25

Reviewer: J. Ellingson

After reading this, I come away feeling that the writer feels that bombing places like London, Coventry, or Pearl Harbor is no big deal,
but Berlin, Dresden, Hiroshima, Tokyo and the like are too pretty to bomb. He also seems to feel that atrocities committed against French, Russian, Belgium, Polish, Chinese and Phillipine civilians are not that serious. Here is an example: Germans subjected Russia to "cruel" treatment and Russia "unleashed a season of terror on their defeated enemies, in the form of a revenge orgy of brutality and rape"
Balanced? Not in the least.

A Good Idea Marred. 2008-09-11

Reviewer: Arvad

This is a very good effort marred by bad scholarship. Incorrect dates, pertinent information overlooked or possibly not even known, mistaken technical and historical data. Overall a disappointing book.

The author tries, without actually succeeding, to question the logic in attacking the very people that you want to assist you. If the point of the bombing was to persuade the people of Germany to overthrow their government and make peace, then dropping death and destruction on them along with "Unconditional Surrender", with all THAT implies, is surely a very strange way to go about it.

If, on the other hand, the purpose was not to have them come to terms with the allies, then a very ugly possibility arises and impugns the humanity and virtue of those who are historicaly and daily honored among the allied nations.

The good news is that people are finally trying to take a more balanced look at the major events of the twentieth century.

War is HELL & Hindsight Proves Just That Fact... 2008-08-18

Reviewer: GRH "Ex WHA Jet"

One needs no further proof that we live in a free and democratic society than the fact that books such as this one are readily available.
That the victorious would be criticized for their actions decades later would never have happened had the AXIS powers prevailed in World War 2.
It is startling to note that Germany itself was virtually wiped off the face of the planet; were the actions of the Allied powers justified? No. But consider that just a few years later, the same foe that defeated Germany would save the nation; witness the Berlin Airlift. Again, one doubts that the NAZIS nor Imperial Japan would have shown any such humanity to the nations they would have been in control of had they won the war.

Victor's guilt 2008-07-27

Reviewer: L. Boyd

Another posturing academic who believes that American and British citizen-soldiers should have been willing to take more casualties in order to spare the peoples of Germany and Japan unnecessary suffering. These flavor of books tend to suffer from the fact that the authors are too timid to state exactly how many more Allied deaths they believe would have been acceptable in order to achieve victory under their more "moral" code of war.