Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4 reviews for:
Among the Dead Cities: Is the Targeting of Civilians in War Ever Justified?
A.C. Grayling
3.76 AVERAGE
4 reviews for:
Among the Dead Cities: Is the Targeting of Civilians in War Ever Justified?
A.C. Grayling
3.76 AVERAGE
Thought-provoking and troubling - Mr. Grayling makes a convincing case that the nighttime area - bombing of German cities in Germany by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) Bomber Command, which was explicitly aimed at their civilian populations, was immoral by the standards of pre- and post-war treaties and of the Nuremberg trials; he bases his case on the arguments that these bombings were not necessary or even critical in defeating Nazi Germany, unlike the daylight bombing raids by the U.S. Army Air Force (USAAF) targeted at specific factories, railyards, and other strategic targets, and that they were also not proportional to any advantage the Allies hoped they would achieve. He does an excellent job of thoroughly analyzing arguments for and against his thesis.
He extends the same argument to the USAAF's mass bombings of Japanese cities, both the firebombings of Tokyo and others and the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but with much less rigorous analysis. I believe this assertion needs to be questioned at least as intensively as the part of his case focused on the bombings of German cities, though, both because of the differences in both the workings of Japanese war industries, which were much more decentralized into cottage industries throughout residential areas than was true in Germany, and because of the differences in the psychologies and attitudes of these two Axis powers. Specifically he states that both city-bombing campaigns took place mostly or completely after the defeats of the targeted countries had become somewhere between very likely and inevitable. However, he is silent regarding the documented fact that the Japanese government was grimly determined to keep fighting no matter how many cities were bombed, even after the expected Allied invasion of the home islands, to the extent that they were preparing small children to attack American soldiers with pointed sticks. Even after Hiroshima they initially refused to surrender, and all evidence is that without the atomic bombs they would have kept fighting until their entire nation was forcibly overrun. That invasion and conquest on land would have caused the deaths of several hundred thousand American servicemen and probably several million Japanese soldiers and civilians. In light of that, I would argue that the atomic bombs were both necessary and proportional, and were the least of the available evils.
He extends the same argument to the USAAF's mass bombings of Japanese cities, both the firebombings of Tokyo and others and the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but with much less rigorous analysis. I believe this assertion needs to be questioned at least as intensively as the part of his case focused on the bombings of German cities, though, both because of the differences in both the workings of Japanese war industries, which were much more decentralized into cottage industries throughout residential areas than was true in Germany, and because of the differences in the psychologies and attitudes of these two Axis powers. Specifically he states that both city-bombing campaigns took place mostly or completely after the defeats of the targeted countries had become somewhere between very likely and inevitable. However, he is silent regarding the documented fact that the Japanese government was grimly determined to keep fighting no matter how many cities were bombed, even after the expected Allied invasion of the home islands, to the extent that they were preparing small children to attack American soldiers with pointed sticks. Even after Hiroshima they initially refused to surrender, and all evidence is that without the atomic bombs they would have kept fighting until their entire nation was forcibly overrun. That invasion and conquest on land would have caused the deaths of several hundred thousand American servicemen and probably several million Japanese soldiers and civilians. In light of that, I would argue that the atomic bombs were both necessary and proportional, and were the least of the available evils.
A superb book that I wish I had read 6 weeks ago before I started teacher Religion and Peace to those Year 12s of mine. A clear analysis of the historical, statistical and philosophical issues raised by area bombing, Grayling writes with some objectivity but great passion in reaching his conclusion. Some of this I knew already, but the aggregation of information was masterly and – sixty years on – one can only agree with his conclusions. The implications are, of course, clear for our age, but obviously ignored by the powers that be.
challenging
dark
informative
slow-paced
Kind of a weird book, both as a text and an object.
As an object; the copy I got from the public library had no publishing details. No colophon page telling me the year of publication, edition number, publisher address, isbn, copyright notice... Added to that were a good few spelling errors, editing errors (one present tense had an accompanying vestigial past participle). Most strangely of all, the wrong year was given for the Dresden bombing, several times, corrected in biro by a previous reader! As the central piece of evidence for the argument, this was very strange.
And then there's the text. It opens in better terms, and is very interesting. Then it slowly narrows its scope, making many arguments in repetition. It sets the scene for the final judgment chapter very early on, then spends a long time preempting potential counter arguments and nullifying them. Although I agree with the author, these preemptive arguments seem weakly made.
Like I said, a strange book, despite being a necessary topic for discussion.
As an object; the copy I got from the public library had no publishing details. No colophon page telling me the year of publication, edition number, publisher address, isbn, copyright notice... Added to that were a good few spelling errors, editing errors (one present tense had an accompanying vestigial past participle). Most strangely of all, the wrong year was given for the Dresden bombing, several times, corrected in biro by a previous reader! As the central piece of evidence for the argument, this was very strange.
And then there's the text. It opens in better terms, and is very interesting. Then it slowly narrows its scope, making many arguments in repetition. It sets the scene for the final judgment chapter very early on, then spends a long time preempting potential counter arguments and nullifying them. Although I agree with the author, these preemptive arguments seem weakly made.
Like I said, a strange book, despite being a necessary topic for discussion.