----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Jacobs
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 7:57 PM
Subject: The deadly "Yes, But . . . ." (Rummel)


From: Rudy Rummel <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 05:25:24 -1000
To: H-NET List on the History and Theory of Genocide
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The deadly "Yes, But . . . ."

This message  was originally submitted  by [log in to unmask] to  the
H-GENOCIDE list at H-NET.MSU.EDU. If you simply forward  it back to the
list, using a mail command that generates "Resent-" fields (ask your local
user support or consult the documentation of your mail program if in doubt),
it will be distributed and the explanations you  are now reading will be
removed  automatically. If on the other hand you edit the contributions you
receive into a digest, you will have to remove this  paragraph manually.
Finally, you should be  able to contact the author  of this  message by
using  the normal  "reply" function  of your  mail program. ----------------
Message requiring your approval (104 lines) ------------------
The deadly "Yes, But . . . ."

This is in reference to questions or problems posted about indiscriminate
American (and also applicable to Japanese, German, British, Italian [e.g.,
Ethiopia] and Soviet) bombing/shelling during WWII, particularly the "yes,
but . . . ," justifications.
In what follows, I don't want to get into the nature and sorry history of
strategic bombing for the United State and Great Britain. I do want to
mention, however, that the United States began its strategic bombing
campaign by legal (according to international law) daylight "precision
bombing" of military targets in or around urban areas. In Europe, its loss
of bombers became such that it adopted the British strategy of nighttime,
indiscriminate urban bombing. For Japan, precision bombing was the rule
until General Curtis LeMay took over the 20th and 21st bomber Commands, and
initiated the indiscriminate conventional and firebombing of Japanese
cities. If I recall his words correctly, he thought the Japanese deserved
it. The best sources? Kennett, Lee, A HISTORY OF STRATEGIC BOMBING (1982),
and particularly the UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY (EUROPEAN
THEATER), and UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY (PACIFIC THEATER).
1. Was the indiscriminate bombing/shelling of urban areas democide (mass
murder), that is, the intentional killing-the targeting--of unarmed
civilians with deadly weapons? I don't see how this can be denied. Bombs
were dropped (I'll limit this to bombing for clarity, although the argument
is applicable to shelling, as well) intentionally on unarmed civilians in
their homes or at work. These people died not because they lived near
military targets or were caught in the crossfire of battle, but because of
their nationality and the urban area in which they lived.
2. Was this illegal at the time? If one considers the various conventions
trying to limit war and agreed to by the international community as
establishing a legal code, then the Hague Convention of 1923 (Articles 22,
23) made indiscriminate urban bombing illegal. This view is confirmed by the
speech of the British Prime Minister before the House of Commons in 1938 in
which he said that any such bombing was an "undoubted violation of
international law. " Shortly after, the League of Nations unanimously passed
a resolution affirming that such bombing was illegal.

3. Was this illegality known before the fact by the perpetrators? Yes, by
the statements of the British Prime Minister, and as shown by Anglo-American
protests to Japan over its bombing in China.

4. Is it fair to call it democide, since this concept/idea did not exist at
the time? Genocide scholars do this all the time for "genocides" that
occurred before the word was invented, and sensitivity to such murders had
become general. Democide should be no different.

5. So, such bombing was democide, illegal, a war crime, and now punishable
under the ICC. Still, many, and some on this list, will justify such
democide. It saved many allied lives by ending the war sooner; it helped
destroy enemy morale; the urban areas contained military-transportation
junction yards, or factories producing military goods; or in many homes
civilians were doing military piece work on small machines; and so on. No
one on this list has posted revenge or hatred as justifications, but having
lived through the war, I know these were paramount for many people, and as
far as bombing the Japanese was concerned, for some it was racial.

6. Issue: Does one want to be able to justify democide? This is a ethical
question, not empirical/factual. Even if one adopts a situational ethic and
says that in some circumstances a utilitarian calculus applies, that is an
ethical choice (I accept Hume's guillotine that facts cannot logically
justify ethical axioms). To help clarify the ethics involved, consider this
question: can one ever ethically justify committing genocide? In other
words, is genocide ever right? I answer no. Absolutely. Then, if this is
ethically true of genocide, isn't it also ethnically true of democide, a
component of which is genocide? (Keep in mind that for some genocide
scholars genocide = democide.)

7. To clarify this further, can murder in civil society ever be justified?
Not justifiable homicide or murder in the third degree, but, say, walking up
to a stranger and inserting an axe into their head? I answer no, and I think
in most civil societies, the law and courts agree. Then if this be so, how
can one justify purposely killing an unarmed civilian, which is equivalent
to such a random murder? One can't, I argue, if one accepts as I do that
THOU SHALL NOT COMMIT DEMOCIDE is deontological, and not utilitarian. For
this reason, I do not argue with the justifications often given for
strategic bombing of urban areas, or the Atomic Bombing. No justification is
warranted, no more than it would be for the murder of a stranger walking
down the street, or the genocidal murder of Jews, Armenians, Hutu, Tutsi,
Greeks, Christians, Muslims, Blacks, and so on.