I would respectfully disagree. I called out WW2 because it’s more approachable and known that some obscure colonial outpost.

War by its nature breaks the norms of morality and civilized behavior. When Lincoln called for Americans to embrace the “better angels of our nature”, he did so knowing that war is where you break the glass and do whatever is necessary to prevail.

With respect to civilian victims of war, that’s just reality.

Post US Civil War military doctrine is that the whole of a mobilized society is part of the war effort. That’s why Sherman burned everything in his March to the sea. That’s why the meat grinder of WW1 continued until German society collapsed. That’s why open bombardment of cities was the WW2 norm. The era of field armies duking it out for king and country died with Napoleon.

We can argue about definition or scope of genocide is. But I think at the end of the day the tragedy of Haiti from 1493 on speaks for itself, and looking for good guys and bad guys is a waste of time. I’m naive, but I think Lincoln’s appeal is more relevant than ever, and doing the hard work of settling differences without warfare is how we all improve.

> Acts of war, like military bombings, are obviously not on the same level as genocide. There's a very crucial difference.

What's the difference when the target is the civilian population, as was the case with the bombings of Japan (and many of the cities in the European theatre of the war as well)? Other than the fact bombing cities from a B-29 flying high is more impersonal for the perpetrators.

Actually, when conducting the firebomb missions, the B-29s flew at low level. Their after action reports clearly mentioned the smell of smoke etc. It was far from impersonal.

" In January 1945, General Curtis LeMay arrived in the Mariana Islands to take over the problem-plagued B-29 command. For two months, his crews flew similar high-altitude missions over Japan with little more success. His job on the line, General LeMay decided on a risky new strategy: his pilots would fly daring, dangerous bombing missions at altitudes as low as 5,000 feet, low enough to be within range of anti-aircraft weapons. Robert Rodenhouse was shocked:

"We thought they could throw the kitchen sink up there and hit us. Can you imagine flying a big four-engine bomber at 5,000 feet? Why that was just unheard of, absolutely unheard of. And like my crew says, I think those generals lost their marbles. They weren't thinking straight."

The low-altitude bombing runs turned out to be highly successful. The planes carried much larger bomb loads. Crews flew at night to avoid enemy fighters. And flight personnel were kept to a minimum. Most of the gunners were removed to make room for still more bombs -- incendiary bombs."

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pacific...

I think this doesn't detract from my main point.

I was just addressing your comment that it was impersonal for the B-29 pilots. They knew exactly what was occurring below them.

Unless they strapped themselves to the bomb, Doctor Strangelove style, I can't see how they "knew exactly". Bombing is by definition impersonal.