The actions of combatants on both sides of the conflict in World War II, were very much influenced by their obligations of loyalty to their nation and country. Many combatants were fearful that if they did not maintain a faithful allegiance to their country and ruler, that they would end up being killed. It was really a Catch 22 type of situation for all physically and morally involved. I'm sure for many combatants on both sides, that the desired outcome was impossible to attain because of contradictory conditions and rules. However, the majority of combatants ultimately had to choose loyalty and allegiance to their countries, no matter the price. The circumstances under which it is “justifiable” to take the lives of civilians during wartime are difficult. As stated in Chapter 24 of Panorama: A World History (p.717), “total war” is using all the available resources to achieve victory. In the bombing of Dresden, air marshal Arthur Harris stated that the killings of civilians in …show more content…
During any time of war, the most effective way to win was to target the rail systems, factories and other resources via area bombings to disable the enemy. Unfortunately, civilians live in and around the intented targets and typically perish from the devastation. Although morally it is very saddening, the deaths of innocent civilians are a common result of war. If it takes saving the lives of those from our country, then I agree with taking the lives of civilians in enemy territory. In the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many civilian lives were lost, however many American lives were also lost at the attack on Pearl Harbor. According to atomicarchive.com (p.26), “The atomic bomb did not alone win the war against Japan, but it most certainly ended it, saving the thousands of Allied lives that would have been lost in any combat invasion of