| Yes, Dresden was much more devastating, a point made by Kurt Vonnegut in "Slaughterhouse Five". Both Germany and Japan took the gloves off early in involving civilian populations, and the Allies early decided that they would necessarily lose without a tit- for- tat strategy. This is not unusual in international law, which is by treaty: there is no court to haul the offender into, so once someone crosses the line, all signatories feel free to use their judgment. In conditions of Total War, the distinction between military and non- military targets begins to dissolve, anyway, since any industrial area which contributes significantly to the war effort is of strategic importance. Furthermore, the certainty of collateral damage in a full scale assault mutes qualms about targeting civilians, if the presumption is that there will be a net conservation of life all around, as I pointed out. In fact, Dresden was more morally ambiguous than the atomic bombings. It had virtually no strategic importance, and it was difficult to calculate an expected gain....... |
