Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
RAF bombing of German cities
Options
-
07-11-2010 11:12pm#1Was the RAF bombing strategy adopted as WWII progressed justified?
Whilst the American airforce endured huge losses trying to bomb pinpoint targets such as armaments factories, the RAF flew at night and invariable blanket bombed areas rather than specific buildings/ factories. This often led to areas of residential buildings being hit with civilian casuaties.
PS- if this should be in WWII section can it be moved???0
Comments
-
If you are not able to hit the factories you can still hit the factories workers. Kill them and damage morale for those that were left.
Strategic bombing was used as far back was WW1 with the Zeppelin
Was it justified?
I suppose they were in a war and will do anything to help their cause. And as cold as it sounds, bombing cities does.
It's easier for us to pick and choose certain actions as unnecessary.
And for sure bombing Dresden didn't have much military importance.
You have the bombers, the ordinance, the crews. So realy the decision to taken to use them and don't hold back.
Flying at night so you bomb the cities0 -
Dresden was an atrocity.
However it pales in comparison to concentration camps, gulags, the rape of nanking and the use of nuclear bombs.0 -
The question should be, is killing civilians justified? The thing is, killing civilians was the norm until recently in human history. Sad but true. Just look at our own history.0
-
There are many common excuses/ justifications for their tactic. It saved RAF pilots lives as the cover of darkness made them less vulnerable. The civilian areas that were bombed provided the workforce for armament factories in alot of the cities. There had also been a widely held theory in the 1930's that a war could be won by aerial bombing alone thus avoiding the need for ground troops. This was a theory that Harris subscribed to. The repeat bombing on places such as Hamburg and Dresden though is still questionable I think.0
-
Dresden was an atrocity.
However it pales in comparison to concentration camps, gulags, the rape of nanking and the use of nuclear bombs.
I disagree with the contention that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocities. The bombing of Dresden and Cologne really achieved no military target, and brought the war no closer to an end. They were motivated in part by revenge and a desire to avenge the Blitz. The dropping of the A bomb however was designed to shorten the length of the Pacific war, and thus save lives. An invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been absolutely catastrophic. Millions of soldiers and civilians would have died. The dropping of the bomb averted that and thus, IMO, cannot be classified along with Dresden as an atrocity or a war crime.0 -
Advertisement
-
I disagree with the contention that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocities. The bombing of Dresden and Cologne really achieved no military target, and brought the war no closer to an end. They were motivated in part by revenge and a desire to avenge the Blitz. The dropping of the A bomb however was designed to shorten the length of the Pacific war, and thus save lives. An invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been absolutely catastrophic. Millions of soldiers and civilians would have died. The dropping of the bomb averted that and thus, IMO, cannot be classified along with Dresden as an atrocity or a war crime.
I disagree, no other atomic/nuclear bombs have been used since World War 2, thank God.
The Japanese military and Royalty knew that they had lost the War but were willing to die to the last man - that's true. An invasion of Japan would have been horrible for all sides if not impossible.
However droping two atomic bombs on civilian targets for a reaction (surrender) was wrong morally and politically.
If those two bombs had been dropped offshore at sea like 20 miles out and then give a warning to Japan to say that the next bombs will be on civilian cities - I believe that Japan would have surrendered or at least ask for peace talks. Such was the destructive power of atomic bombs, nobody at the time knew they existed or what they did so I think that they would have made such an impression at sea that Japan would realise these were killers on a terrible scale and an agreement would have been reached.0 -
I disagree with the contention that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocities. The bombing of Dresden and Cologne really achieved no military target, and brought the war no closer to an end. They were motivated in part by revenge and a desire to avenge the Blitz. The dropping of the A bomb however was designed to shorten the length of the Pacific war, and thus save lives. An invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been absolutely catastrophic. Millions of soldiers and civilians would have died. The dropping of the bomb averted that and thus, IMO, cannot be classified along with Dresden as an atrocity or a war crime.
The Japanese offered to surrender before Nagasaki, so your argument is invalid.
The Japanese were given an ultimatum before Hiroshima, which promised ruin if they did not surrender. This ultimatum did not refer to any new weapons. It was lip-service, not intended to achieve their surrender.
The targets were selected to cause the most terror. They were also interested in seeing the effects of the bomb, so they selected targets which had not been attacked extensively by conventional weapons.
After Hiroshima, the Japanese offered to surrender. They wanted four conditions, none of which would have resulted in the loss of further lives. The Americans did not accept, and dropped the second, more powerful bomb a few days later.
Had the Japanese not surrendered unconditionally at this point, they had further targets planned.
I would argue that a demonstration of the power of nuclear weapons would have sufficed in achieving surrender.
America wanted to demonstrate its new power to the world, and especially to the USSR.
The bombing of Hiroshima was unnecessary. The bombing of Nagasaki was clearly entirely unnecessary, and lacks even the tenuous justifications of the first.
Since you seem to be an apologist for the American military, I would point out that the USAF dropped almost twice as many bombs on Dresden as the RAF did. They also bombed other German cities, including Cologne. I would suggest the reasons people associate the bombings with the RAF rather than the USAF to be that people aren't surprised when America does things like this, and the bombings were overshadowed by the use of atomic weapons a few months later.0 -
The Japanese offered to surrender before Nagasaki, so your argument is invalid.
The Japanese were given an ultimatum before Hiroshima, which promised ruin if they did not surrender. This ultimatum did not refer to any new weapons. It was lip-service, not intended to achieve their surrender.
The targets were selected to cause the most terror. They were also interested in seeing the effects of the bomb, so they selected targets which had not been attacked extensively by conventional weapons.
After Hiroshima, the Japanese offered to surrender. They wanted four conditions, none of which would have resulted in the loss of further lives. The Americans did not accept, and dropped the second, more powerful bomb a few days later.
Had the Japanese not surrendered unconditionally at this point, they had further targets planned.
I would argue that a demonstration of the power of nuclear weapons would have sufficed in achieving surrender.
America wanted to demonstrate its new power to the world, and especially to the USSR.
The bombing of Hiroshima was unnecessary. The bombing of Nagasaki was clearly entirely unnecessary, and lacks even the tenuous justifications of the first.
Since you seem to be an apologist for the American military, I would point out that the USAF dropped almost twice as many bombs on Dresden as the RAF did. They also bombed other German cities, including Cologne. I would suggest the reasons people associate the bombings with the RAF rather than the USAF to be that people aren't surprised when America does things like this, and the bombings were overshadowed by the use of atomic weapons a few months later.
I'm nothing of the sort, and I'm not going to debate anybody who descends to that kind of puerile slandering of others simply because they hold a different opinion than themselves. I'd expect that kind of ad hominem nonsense in AH, but not here in H&H where the standard is usually a tad higher, and the tone more civilised.0 -
Sorry for the personal remark. I'll point out that I didn't say anything slanderous, or even intentionally insulting. I was making an observation that was relevant to the context of my post. I accept that I appear to be off the mark with it, and I understand why you took offence.I'm nothing of the sort, and I'm not going to debate anybody who descends to that kind of puerile slandering of others simply because they hold a different opinion than themselves. I'd expect that kind of ad hominem nonsense in AH, but not here in H&H where the standard is usually a tad higher, and the tone more civilised.0 -
After Hiroshima, the Japanese offered to surrender. They wanted four conditions, none of which would have resulted in the loss of further lives. The Americans did not accept, and dropped the second, more powerful bomb a few days later.
Since you seem to be an apologist for the American military, I would point out that the USAF dropped almost twice as many bombs on Dresden as the RAF did. They also bombed other German cities, including Cologne. I would suggest the reasons people associate the bombings with the RAF rather than the USAF to be that people aren't surprised when America does things like this, and the bombings were overshadowed by the use of atomic weapons a few months later.
1. The surrender offer was conditional with the emperor remaining untouched, i.e. the japanese system of government would remain the same. There was no way that that the Americans could have accepted this given the situation on which the war was opened. By including such a term in the offer the Japanese must take responsibility for the second bomb in nagasaki.
2. The reason that the RAF is associated with bombing damage to German cities is that they carried out blanket bombing of areas at night. The USAAF attemted precision bombing of specific military targets only diverting from this slightly as they endured alot of losses. The main bombing of Dresden as has become infamous was carried out by the RAF on the night 13th Feb with follow up by USAAF the next day. The RAF bombing in this instance was more intensive and more damaging.0 -
Advertisement
-
I posted this previously on the WW2 forum - I think it's relevant to this discussion and often overlooked as many people solely focus on hiroshima/nagasaki to the neglect of the programme brought to bear on the rest of Japan.
It's a list of Japaneese cities and the percentage is the percent destroyed. The american city name is one of equal population size to give a western audience a frame of reference.
Read the city names - imagine the size and scale of this comprehensive a level of destruction.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66792172&postcount=43
Just as an FYI here is some of the information I mentioned previously. This is from a postwar book which studied the american bomb damage to Japan during ww2 - 'A Torch to the Enemy: The Fire Raid on Tokyo' by Martin Caidin. I believe this is based on american bomber command end of war reports. The first name is the equivalent sized american city (in terms of population) - the second is the name of the Japaneese city and the percentage is the percentage of the city destroyed in incendiary or explosive bombs. From what I recall the thinking at that time was every japaneese home is a potential workshop for their war effort as at that point they were being completely out produced by american industry. There was one figure I came across recently along the lines of . . . . . . during one period america produced 120 aircraft carriers while japan produced 14. That part may not be exact but if it's not exact it is close and gives an idea of the conditions at this time. Some of these figures below are staggering.
AMERICAN CITY JAPANESE COUNTERPART PER CENT DISASTER
San Diego Shimonoseki 37.6 %
Spokane Moji 23.3 %
San Antonio Yawata 21.2 %
Rochester Fukuoka 24.1 %
Nashville Sasebo 41.4 %
Waterloo Saga 44.2 %
Santa Fe Omura 33.1 %
Miami Omuta 35.9 %
Grand Rapids Kumamoto 31.2 %
Saint Joseph Oita 28.2 %
Augusta Nobeoka 25.2 %
Richmond Kagoshima 63.4 %
Greensboro Miyakonojo 26.5 %
Davenport Miyazaki 26.1 %
Utica Ube 20.7 %
no counterpart Uwajima 54.2 %
Duluth Matsuyama 64.0 %
Sacramento Kochi 55.2 %
Butte Tokuyama 48.3 %
Toledo Kure 41.9 %
Stockton Imabari 63.9 %
Macon Fukuyama 80.9 %
Knoxville Takamatsu 67.5 %
Long Beach Okayama 68.9 %
Peoria Himeji 49.4 %
Jacksonville Amagasaki 18.9 %
Baltimore Kobe 55.7 %
Chicago Osaka 35.1 %
Fort Worth Sakai 48.2 %
Lexington Akashi 50.2 %
Salt Lake City Wakayama 50.0 %
Cambridge Nishinomiya 11.9 %
Ft. Wayne Tokushima 85.2 %
Columbus Ujiyamada 41.3 %
Topeka Tsu 59.3 %
Portland Kawasaki 35.2 %
Savannah Chiba 41.0 %
Battle Creek Hiratsuka 48.4 %
Waco Numazu 42.3 %
San Jose Shimizu 42.1 %
Oklahoma City Shizuoka 66.1 %
Wheeling Chosi 44.2 %
New York Tokyo 50.8 %
Cleveland Yokohama 57.6 %
Middletown Tsuriga 65.1 %
Evansville Fukui 86.0 %
Tucson Kuwana 75.0 %
Springfield Ichinomiya 56.3 %
Des Moines Gifu 69.9 %
Corpus Christi Ogaki 39.5 %
Chattanooga Toyama 98.6 %
Los Angeles Nagoya 40.0 %
Charlotte Yokkaichi 33.6 %
Lincoln Okazaki 32.2 %
Montgomery Aomori 30.0 %
Madison Nagaoka 64.9 %
Tulsa Toyohashi 67.9 %
Hartford Hammamatsu 60.3 %
Wilkes-Barre Maebashi 64.2 %
Omaha Sendai 21.9 %
South Bend Kofu 78.6 %
Sioux Falls Isezaki 56.1 %
Kenosha Kumagaya 55.1 %
Sioux City Utsunomiya 43.7 %
Little Rock Hitachi 72.0 %
Galveston Hachioji 65.0 %
Pontiac Mito 68.9 %0 -
Agreed.The question should be, is killing civilians justified? The thing is, killing civilians was the norm until recently in human history. Sad but true. Just look at our own history.
My personal view is that in certain circumstances it is justifiable. If the bombings were of significant strategic importance then they are justified.
If it is just killing civilians for the sake of it, it is not.0 -
Didnt Arthur Harris himself admit that the only reason he wasnt tried for war crimes was that the allies won the war.
I think that speaks for itself really!0 -
who what when wrote: »Didnt Arthur Harris himself admit that the only reason he wasnt tried for war crimes was that the allies won the war.
I think you mean the American Curtis le May? Pacific campaign?who what when wrote: »I think that speaks for itself really!
I think Harris was quite unrepentant about his methods. As for war crimes, I don't think any Germans were prosecuted for mass bombing of civilians targets? Arguably the Germans initiated the practice of unrestricted bombing with attacks like Rotterdam, and the Blitz against British cities? So its understandable that the British would strike back, albeit with the improved technology available to them.
From my own point of view, I think it was more morally correct and of greater military value to target military, industrial and transport targets.0 -
I think the allies convinced themselves that the Dresden bombing was the right thing to do. Had it not been for the Russians, I don't think that it would have taken place.
There's a lot of information on this site, one small part quoted below.
http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/dresden.htm[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]The Russian Request for Allied Bombing of Communications in the Dresden Area:[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]17. The Allied-Russian interchanges that had begun in the closing months of 1944 and had become, with the passing of time, more frequent and more specific, culminated in the ARGONAUT Conferences of January-February 1945. On 4 February, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, and Marshal Stalin, together with their foreign secretaries and military advisors, assembled at Yalta to present definitive and specific plans, and requests, for bringing the war against Germany to a victorious conclusion, by the summer of 1945, if possible (Other considerations involved in the ARGONAUT deliberations are not pertinent or relevant here). At this meeting, Marshal Stalin asked Army General Antonov, Deputy Chief of the Russian General Staff, to outline to the Conference the situation existing on the Eastern Front and to describe Russia’s plans for subsequent operations. At the conclusion of his extended presentation, General Antonov made three specific requests for Allied assistance to the Russians: 27[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Our wishes are:[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]18. It was the specific Russian request for bombing communications, coupled with the emphasis on forcing troops to shift from west to east through communications centers, that led to the Allied bombings of Dresden. The structure of the Berlin-Leipzig-Dresden railway complex, as outlined in paragraph 8 above, required that Dresden, as well as Berlin and Leipzig, be bombed. Therefore Allied air authorities concluded that the bombing of Dresden would have to be undertaken (1) in order to implement strategic objectives, of mutual importance to the Allies and the Russians, and now agreed upon at the highest levels of governmental authority, and (2) to respond to the specific Russian request presented to the Allies by General Antonov to “paralyze the junctions of Berlin and Leipzig.”[/FONT]
a. To speed up the advance of the Allied troops on the Western Front, for which the present situation is very favorable: (1) To defeat the Germans on the Eastern Front. (2) To defeat the German groupings which have advanced into the Ardennes. (3) The weakening of the German forces in the West in connection with the shifting of their reserves to the East (It is desirable to begin the advance during the first half of February).
b. By air action on communications hinder the enemy from carrying out the shifting of his troops to the East from the Western Front, from Norway, and from Italy (In particular, to paralyze the junctions of Berlin and Leipzig).
c. Not permit the enemy to remove his forces from Italy.[/FONT]0 -
The dropping of the A bomb however was designed to shorten the length of the Pacific war, and thus save lives. An invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been absolutely catastrophic. Millions of soldiers and civilians would have died. The dropping of the bomb averted that and thus, IMO, cannot be classified along with Dresden as an atrocity or a war crime.
Precisely the justification the Germans used for their harsh treatment of civilians during their invasion of Belgium in World War One. We're just passing through; speed is of the essence; the quicker we win the fewer people die; any irregular Belgian "resister" who troubles us in any way causes mass execution of his fellow citizens.
"War is cruelty and you cannot refine it."
William Tecumseh Sherman0 -
Max Hastings' book on Bomber Command is perhaps the best third-party account of the RAF Bomber Offensive in World War Two.
The memoirs of Arthur Harris are perhaps the most revealing as he seems to delight in pointing out what an overweening prick he was. He certainly had no scruples about killing as many civilians as possible and was utterly contemptuous of those on his own side who doubted the efficacy of such an approach. Even Churchill found Harris hard to take at times.
What Hastings shows is that most of the really destructive raids, in terms of loss of human life, took place in the last few months of the war when Germany was on her knees. No air defences worth talking about. Every inch of her territory within range of Bomber Command. Little fuel for such fighters as remained. Yet it was in the last few months of the war that the "rubble was rearranged" in several German cities of which Dresden is only the most famous.
In this, Bomber Command was merely doing what invading soldiers have been doing since the dawn of man: putting the vanquished populace to the sword. Like the Greeks did in Troy; like the Normans did after Hastings; like Cromwell did (well at least to the garrison) at Drogheda; like the Emperor's forces did to MAgdeburg in the 30 years war, as the Japanese did in Nanking in the 1930s.
You've built up your forces, you've been in a tough fight, you've prevailed. Now it's time to rub it in.
Plus ca change.........0 -
"The Strategic Bomber is the cause to all my setbacks" - Albert Speer.
The strategic bombing campaign in North-west Europe is filled with accusation and counter-accusation, Dresden is always brought up. Harris is portrayed as satan himself and the Americans are seen as masters of "pinpoint bombing". Its amazing how Bomber Command is the one thats seen as the perpetrator of the atrocities whilst the "mighty 8th" gets off comparatively lightly.
The reason the RAF chose night bombing was due to the appalling losses suffered by its bomber crews on daylight raids at the start of the war. Read the preface to "bomber Command" by Max Hastings to see what happened to Bomber Command when it tried daylight raids. He chronicles a raid on Wilhelmshaven by 37 Squadron and the losses they took. Given the technology of the time there was no way that accurate bombing could take place. Even if they marked a target such as a factory, at best they would do well to get bombs within a kilometre of the target!! So area bombing became the weapon of choice for Bomber Command. There was no other realistic way of attacking German Industry and infrastructure at night using the Technology at the time.
The concept of "pinpoint bombing" by the Americans is a bit of a fallacy. Sure enough, they did try to attack specific targets but the collatoral damage to the areas around the towns attacked more than ensured their results were just as indiscriminate as Bomber Command, but because of their declared intentions, people tend not to judge them as harshly as Bomber Command.
I'm not going to defend Bomber Commands actions by saying that the "Germans started it first". That was not the reason behind Bomber Commands actions. Since the early 20's Bomber Command was seen as the main attack weapon of the RAF. Sir Hugh Trenchard set up the RAF with Strategic Bombing as its core concept. Its not like it wasnt going to use the weapon it had built for so long, was it?
Dresden was a terrible bombing raid for sure but the war was not won at that stage. Whilst it was apparent that Germany was beaten, it still took 100,000 soviets to take Berlin, two months after the raid. And whilst critics rail about the destruction of all the lovely libraries and architecture of the city, please remember that there were over 120 Industrial Units in that city helping the war effort as defined by the German High Command. The Allies bombed Dresden with comparable numbers of bombers and tonnage as other targets in early 1945. They didnt make special considerations for the city on that particular night and indeed it was bombed twice following the February raids. most aircrew taking part just saw it as another target. there were no special arrangements for it.
The Dresden Commission has cited that 25,000 died during the raids. Nowhere near the 300,000 that the Germans initially claimed were killed. Because of these numbers cited, you could make the point that Dresden was possibly Josef Goebbels most enduring legacy.
Bomber Command did their part like every other part of the Allied war machine. They got short shrift at the end of the war because of the destruction they caused and the fact that the British government felt embarrassed at the weapon they had helped build and then unleashed upon the 3rd Reich. To this day Bomber Command was the only branch of the British Army not to receive a campaign medal for its veterans, and over 55,000 young men died trying to defeat Nazi Germany. One last thing, the Germans themselves were capable of area bombing themselves but the one difference was that the Luftwaffe was a Tactical rather than Strategic bombing force so the results were less in terms of casualties. They lacked the weapons, not the will.
anyways my 2 cents, for what its worth.0 -
Prefab Sprouter wrote: »The strategic bombing campaign in North-west Europe is filled with accusation and counter-accusation,
Good post. I agree with your statement of the facts in hand, but I just want to add to this one....Prefab Sprouter wrote:
Given the technology of the time there was no way that accurate bombing could take place. ..........So area bombing became the weapon of choice for Bomber Command. There was no other realistic way of attacking German Industry and infrastructure at night using the Technology at the time.
How effective was it? German industrial output continued to increaseright up to the end of 1944. Then it collapsed and the bombers had a free reign.
The cynicism of the bomber strategy was breathtaking. But then, that's war. "You can't refine it", as Sherman said.
Harris knew that blowing up a factory was small potatoes. The Germans could rebuild it very quickly. What was needed was a complete paralysis of all the surrounding infrastructure: overwhelm the city's fire crews, destroy the roads and railways and metropolitan transport networks; put the population out of its homes (dehousing, it was called). Kill as many of them as possible in the process. Create mayhem and terror, in other words.
Admittedly, this was a topic of doctrinal military debate in the 1920s and 1930s led by the likes of Douhet in Italy, Mitchell in America and various people in Britain. They totally overestimated the power of military aircraft at the time. They believed "The bomber would always get through". They thought you could destroy a country's infrastructure in a few nights. They were wrong.0 -
Thanks Snickers and a point well made. You couldnt destroy an entire infrastructure in a short time, it was flawed thinking based on flawed concepts, as you said, of the Bomber always getting through. but when they got it right, as at Hamburg in 1943 and again in 1945, the results were devestating. But they were just two raids of many.0
-
Advertisement
-
Prefab Sprouter wrote: »Thanks Snickers and a point well made. You couldnt destroy an entire infrastructure in a short time, it was flawed thinking based on flawed concepts, as you said, of the Bomber always getting through. but when they got it right, as at Hamburg in 1943 and again in 1945, the results were devestating. But they were just two raids of many.
Keith Lowes book -'Inferno, The Fiery Destruction of Hamburg, 1943' has good detail on how this opinion of Bombers deciding wars developed after WWI. It was believed that not only could bombers ruin a countries infrastucture, but a total war could be won by bombing the enemy into submission. The justification of this would be saving lives of the perpetrators army. The book also has eyewitness accounts from allied and German sides, both army and civilian.
On a nerds point the reason that they got through German defence at Hamburg in 1943 was due to a technical advance that saw them confuse German warning system radars. The Germans quickly found ways around this which probably prevented Hamburgs fate being repeated more than it was. The reason I mention this is in relation to the justification that the RAF use (that mass bombing would shorten the war) that is often questioned. If the fate of Hamburg could have been repeated on other cities, particularly Berlin, I think that the Germans would have had no option but surrender. Given that Auschwitz only began its most vicious cycle during 1943 with other camps such as Treblinka and Sobibor being similar, the lives that could have been saved if this had been possible would be significant.
I think this should be considered by people who are critiscising the RAF for possibly overdoing the bombing on German cities. In other words if the RAF had been able to inflict greater damage it would have been worth it with this reasoning.0 -
Good point Jonnie. The advance you refer to was called "Window", millions of strips of aluminium dropped from Aircraft which completely screwed the German Radar System, thereby providing a "window" for Bomber Command to fly through.jonniebgood1 wrote: »
On a nerds point the reason that they got through German defence at Hamburg in 1943 was due to a technical advance that saw them confuse German warning system radars.0 -
i posted on a Hiroshima thread i think about when is a civilian not a civilian.
If someone is in a factory producing bombs, they are a clear target. what about when they go home? What about the factories producing parts for weapons and their employees? or the farms producing food for those employees and the military?
In total war, are there any civilians?
Dresden was horrific, but we have the benefit of full technicolour 20:20 hindsight by which to judge it.0 -
I agree Fred. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. In 1941 Bomber Command was held up as a prime example of "Britain taking it to the Hun". Yet by wars end, they were largely ignored by the establishment, seen as a bit of an embarrassment. An absolute disgrace to the memory of all those bomber aircrew who gave their lives over Europe.0
-
Prefab Sprouter wrote: »Good point Jonnie. The advance you refer to was called "Window", millions of strips of aluminium dropped from Aircraft which completely screwed the German Radar System, thereby providing a "window" for Bomber Command to fly through.
A technology which both sides had discovered and had each been reluctant to use for fear that it would only alert the opposition to its existence.
Martin Middlebrook, a supposedly "amateur" but nevertheless very meticulous historian wrote a good book about the Hamburg raid in which he pointed out that there were a combination of factors which helped everything "go right" for the Allies on that raid. It included the use of Window, which confused the radar defences and also the climatic conditions which helped in the production of a firestorm, which effectively turned the city into a furnace.
The reason the Allies didn't do it again was that they couldn't. The German night fighter defences were too strong. If ever everything went right for THEM, as it did nearly a year after the Hamburg raids when the Allies attacked Nuremberg, the losses would be unsustainable for the bombers. (Middlebrook's book on Nuremberg is also very good)
There's something decidedly queasy about justifying massive civilian casualties by saying more people would be killed in the long term if we don't wipe out these people now. It's not even terrorism, it's a stage more cynical even than that.
Terrorism is "kill one, frighten one thousand". This seems to be "Accept fifty thousand deaths up front as a discount on the five million that will be inflicted if we carry on."
Grotesque.0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »
Terrorism is "kill one, frighten one thousand". This seems to be "Accept fifty thousand deaths up front as a discount on the five million that will be inflicted if we carry on."
Grotesque.
most choices in war are between 'bad' and 'worse'.
it may be grotesque, yet we make similar - in smaller scale - choices every day in civil society: we believe in vaccinations - we believe the good they do in protecting the vast majority who take them outdoes the harm done to the tiny minority who take them in good faith and who will die or suffer severe complications as a result. we know that some people will die as a result of having a vaccination programme yet we continue. grotesque?
we believe in arming the police - or at least part of the police - because we believe that occasionally its acceptable to take one or two lives (and occasionally innocent ones) to prevent the loss of four or five. grotesque?
we have accepted, by and large, that people die - and we have made the leap from just accepting that to being prepared to trade the death of innocents for a result that we believe to be 'worth it'. if we can do that in a peaceful society unraveged by disease or overwhelming violence, imagine how easy that decision would be if your capital city had burned for 3 months with the loss of thousands of lives?
l0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Was the RAF bombing strategy adopted as WWII progressed justified?
Whilst the American airforce endured huge losses trying to bomb pinpoint targets such as armaments factories, the RAF flew at night and invariable blanket bombed areas rather than specific buildings/ factories. This often led to areas of residential buildings being hit with civilian casuaties.
PS- if this should be in WWII section can it be moved???
IMO it was Harris himself. He advocated the bombing of cities widespread and this included the houses of workers and other residents. He believed they were combatants. 'Makers of the rifle is the user' and so on. On account I'd be inclined to agree, on the other, it's a despicable policy.0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »
There's something decidedly queasy about justifying massive civilian casualties by saying more people would be killed in the long term if we don't wipe out these people now. It's not even terrorism, it's a stage more cynical even than that.
Terrorism is "kill one, frighten one thousand". This seems to be "Accept fifty thousand deaths up front as a discount on the five million that will be inflicted if we carry on."
Grotesque.
I do not think there is anything queasy about this justification. It is simply reality that if you kill 50,000 enemy to save a higher figure of your own, you do it. 1 life equates to 1 life so your example is certainly not grotesque. I would say 'accurate' or 'logical' would have been a better recapitulation of your opinion.
For grotesque, a good example would be the american response to 9/11. USA is attacked, over 2,000 die. Response sees Iraq attacked, approx 1,400,000 (estimated) dead.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »I do not think there is anything queasy about this justification. It is simply reality that if you kill 50,000 enemy to save a higher figure of your own, you do it. 1 life equates to 1 life so your example is certainly not grotesque. I would say 'accurate' or 'logical' would have been a better recapitulation of your opinion.
For grotesque, a good example would be the american response to 9/11. USA is attacked, over 2,000 die. Response sees Iraq attacked, approx 1,400,000 (estimated) dead.
There's a scene in Saving Private Ryan where Captain Miller (Tom Hanks) ponders this very point. He reckons that every man who was killed under his command died achieving an objetive that saved the lives of at least 10 others. He says "And that's how you rationalise it. That's how you distinguish between the mission and the man" (or words to that effect)
But the impression you get is that he doesn't really believe it. That he's trying to hold on to this formula as justification for the fact that so many men have died under his command.
It's the same with this "Kill 5,000 civilians now so we don't have to kill 50,000 later" What if you miscalculate the strength of opposition? What if you end up having to do both, because the opposition didn't capitulate after the first onslaught? Does your initial slaughter of civilians only become an atrocity then?
The Germans in 1914 went through Belgium, well like Attilla the Hun. Their reasoning was that their strategy was to end the war in the west quickly before it could get going. For a variety of reasons, they failed to do this. And they had to endure the slaughter of the Western Front for the next four years.
Were the atrocities in Belgium, therefore, only atrocities because the declared aim was not achieved? Had the Japanese continued to resist after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would they be described as atrocities only at that point because they failed to state their stated objectives?
If massacre and slaughter achieve their goals are they henceforward no longer massacre or slaughter?
One to ponder.0 -
Advertisement
-
Although not directly relevant to the European campaign, there is a line in the superb documentary The Fog OF War where Robert McNamara says " any military leader if he is honest with himself has to say that he has killed people unnecessarily" be they his own troops, enemy troops or civilians. As much as Harris seems to have been a total bastard, I have never read anything to suggest that he was interested in killing German civilians, purely for the sake of killing German civilians. Of course that is not a pardon on any charges of war crimes, but the brutal reality is that The Allies won - had they not Harris would surely have been a War criminal as would Le May and McNamara in the Pacific theatre. Out of curiosity does anyone know if there were any voices raised at the time to say that the ends did not justify the means?0
Advertisement