Acceptable number of Gazans for Israel to have killed in year after Oct.7th?

Heh, not so sure those are good examples. World War 2 was all around an example of what not to do, including for the "good" (or at least better) guys.

For example: Many powers thought they could bomb the other side into submission by strategic bombing of civilian populations. The net effect of this was surprisingly little. In Germany's case, it helped them lose the war. The Nazis had poor intelligence into Britain and the Luftwaffe had an incompetent leader, but at one point they had the RAF stretched to the near breaking point. By sheer mass, they could have defeated the RAF. But instead, they gave the RAF a reprieve by switching to bombing cities. The effect of this was to steel the resolve of the British people, and allow the RAF to recover and ultimately prevent a Germany invasion. Strategic bombing of civilians helped Germany lose the war by being unable to even attempt to invade Britain due to lack of air superiority in the end.

Japan was actually another example. We bombed the living hell out of their cities before the nuclear bombs. The most lethal of which came before and was much more lethal than either nuclear bomb, the firebombing of Tokyo. Neither losing up to 900,000 civilians nor the nuclear weapons made Japanese leadership consider unconditional surrender (they were looking for conditional surrender before). Rather, it was the soviet invasion of their Asian acquisitions, and the looming invasion of the Japanese mainland by the soviets, that pushed them to surrender.

So just because the result is your side won, doesn't mean everything you did was necessary, particularly when we see how it helped the losing side to lose. Is Israel really going to be able to fix its terrorism problem by slaughtering a bunch of civilians and pretending most of them were terrorists? No. If history is any guide, this could make their situation worse in the long-run.

 

The strategic bombing campaign was to destroy first their air force and air superiority and then their ability to continue to arm themselves along with cutting communications and logistics. Yep there were civilians, the workers, in those target areas which did not deter us it was up to Germany to move them and protect them.

But tell me what would have been the proportional response to Germany when should we have stopped other than total surrender?

The workforce in Japan worked in their paper and wood houses producing the materials for the war effort and yes any bombing on it would engulf it in flames, Troops were also housed and transported through to cities so they were of course targets. It was a combination of things but primarily the Emperor standing up to the military leadership that forced them into surrender and that was forced by the atomic bomb droppings.

But tell me what would have been the proportional response?

Will they stop Hamas if they destroy Hamas, it will go a long way towards that. Will they stop Hamas if they give up and allow them to come back into power..............?

It's real simple it is up to the Gaznians to surrender, to get rid of Hamas and accept they lost and that the Israel forces will be back in place for security. That is the cost of the war THEY started.

 

I was talking about the German strategic bombing of the UK, which actually was counterproductive to German efforts to invade the UK. Bombing airfields, destroying RAF fighters, destroying radar installations - yes that was helping. Switching to bombing downtown London screwed them. The allied strategic bombing of Germany wasn't counterproductive except perhaps in opportunity cost. Lot of dead pilots for little strategic gain.

Um no. The emperor was essentially treated as being above the minutia of military decision-making, unless there was a gridlock that happened in response to the soviet invasion. In their meetings near the end of the war, the atomic bombs were not a significant topic. The emperor was consulted due to the gridlock, and he agreed with ending the war. It is true that in his message to his people about the surrender, the emperor cited the technological superiority of the bombs as a reason to admit defeat. He may have been speaking for himself, but otherwise it was a lie that served both the American and Japanese interests. The historical facts, context of prior more devastating bombings, meetings, notes by Japanese diplomats, and timeline of events, all point to the soviet invasion as the cause for even considering unconditional surrender.

Hiroshima atomic bombing did not lead to Japanese surrender, historians argue nearing 70th anniversary - ABC News

"
America believed the shock and awe of the devastating power of the new bombs would force Japan into surrender, but experts say inside Japan it was viewed differently.

The Americans had already destroyed 66 Japanese cities with a massive fire bombing campaign.

In just one night, 100,000 civilians were killed in Tokyo.

Tokyo's Temple University director of Asian Studies Jeffery Kingston said the new bombs would not have had the impact the Americans would have hoped.

"If you look at it from the perspective of the Japanese military, it doesn't really make a big difference whether people are dying from fire bombing or atomic bombs ... it is [just] two additional city centres that are destroyed," he said.
"

In Japan the strategic bombings were simply not needed. Destroy their forces and blockade them. We should have been more open to conditional surrender, which would certainly have been accepted, given that the most important condition they would have asked for is the same as what they ended up having anyway (preservation of the emperor as symbolic figure). It would have been insane to perform a land invasion of Japan just based upon being unwilling to consider conditional surrender. It's fine to say the conditions may not be acceptable, but to not propose it is moronic. Japan's strategy before the soviet invasion was not to win - it was clear they could not, but rather to bleed America until their conditional surrender is accepted by the US, and to use the soviets as the arbitrator to get better surrender terms. Once the soviets invaded, and now the prospect is being invaded by Stalin who has no regard for human life - either his own people or even less the Japanese emperor, then unconditional surrender became a more attractive option.

Regular gaza citizens have no such power. Israel cannot destroy Hamas by giving people more reasons to be terrorists. Had Israel treated Hamas like they would have a cartel that infiltrated their own cities - i.e. criminals to arrest and kill if they resist, then there would be no criticism compared to apparent ethnic cleansing.

 

They strictly did it for a terrorist reason no doubt and was a MAJOR strategic mistake on both Goering and Hitler. If they had just gone a few more weeks against the RAF they would have knocked them out. One of those if not for this singular decision or stroke luck occurrences throughout the war where the entire outcome hinged on that one point. Not only did they lose the strategic initiative they strengthened the resolve of the entire country. Didn't Sun Zu warn about that?

The allied bombing before D-Day which was primarily aimed at gaining air superiority was certainly effective and in fact there was no Axis air presence at all except those two guys who take off in the movie The Longest Day for one of the greatest shots ever filmed in a war movie....just kidding there were a few more but the Luftwaffe was entirely ineffective the Allies ruled the air without which.

After it became full blown strategic warfare against the entire countries operation and existence. WW2 was a war of materials and supply, the first where the hardware was just as important as the manpower. Long distance communications were crucial, rail and road logistics. That meant taking out those centers and those centers were primarily around cities. Were the allies fully aware of the effect on the moral of those German citizens, of course. But that it would also not have much effect as long as Hitler was in power. And so too with the Japanese. We knew the sacrifice the Japanese citizen would make for the Emperor. Heck by the time of the atom bombs there only the two cities left to bomb yet we saw how the Japanese STILL fought on. With the bombs we were just able to do with those two missions what would have taken a million lives otherwise.

He was until the two bombs were dropped

Of course it did. How many B17's the B-29's did it take to bomb those cities and totally wipe them out compared to the previous 66? What were the allied loses in doing so compared to the previous 66? 334 B-29's flew the Tokyo firestorm raid so imagine that on just ONE plane on 334 different targets with no losses. The emperor saw the futility and he told the military it was over despite their protestations.

That was laid to rest on Dec. 8, 1941. Conditional would have meant the Japanese military remain along with the Emperor and monarchy remain. Japan brought on its total unconditional surrender and aren't you glad there was one and that previous Emperor/monarchy/Military did not survive at all? And we did so without the cost of a full blown evasion?

Yes they do have the power to join with the IDF and destroy Hamas. The fact is THEY elected them and THEY still support them. Start the insurgency. Aid the IDF in riding the forces which are causing your deaths. Yes freedom has its cost just as we found when rid ourselves of an oppressive government.

 

Hamas: We're Not Budging

No ceasefire.

They refuse to release any hostages in exchange for a ceasefire.

'Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar feels he currently has the upper hand.'

 

The emperor, being a bit insulated from the details of the war, was indeed alarmed by the bomb. But this was likely out of ignorance. The military leadership knew better. They had their own nuclear program. Though it hadn't produced a bomb, it was far enough for them to know that it was extremely difficult to produce weapons grade uranium. So the military leadership, who was making most of the decisions throughout the war, said that America cannot destroy Japan with nuclear weapons because they could only produce one or "a few, at most." Their higher estimate was correct, we had 3. Further, their response to the initial bomb was to investigate whether it was actually a nuclear weapon, not to surrender. But any arguments to dissuade the emperor that the bomb was no big deal didn't matter because of the soviet invasion.... The Soviets had executed their emperor, had ruthlessly sought revenge on the Nazis, unflinchingly endured atrocious casualties, and were steamrolling through Japan's Asian acquisitions. If not for that, the military leadership could easily have asked for more time to continue to try to get more favorable terms from the Americans. But given the more horrifying prospect of the soviets, who they had previously hoped would help them get favorable terms, pushed enough people to acquiesce to full surrender.

The prior sticking point was really them not wanting to be occupied. The emperor was left in place. They were about to be occupied by the soviets on their more poorly defended north had they not surrendered when they did.

 

They believed that before the second bomb which was not U-235, much harder to refine, based was dropped and even that was very slim knowledge on their part. AGAIN only ONE plane wiped out each of those cities with NO LOSSES on the Allies side. Do the math. They knew they would not get more favorable terms even as they held off the Soviets with the huge army they had amassed in Manchuria where the military wanted to continue the fight and that would require the US to invade the mainland and the horrific loses that would have been suffered. Had we not dropped the bombs they would have fought the two front war until those massive losses finally defeated them.

Yes they Emperor was left in a token position to help keep the peace and the military was removed and prosecuted.