Non Warcrime itility for Bomber Command 1942

41

I still don’t understand your point. Why exactly do you object to the Allied bombing of German cities?

I already posted that. If you can’t grasp the difference discussed in the case i linked then i do not know how to explain it. I see the Allied (well, meaning in this context mostly the British since the US planes did at least try to precision bomb) bombings as problematic since both the method and the statements from the leaders made it clear that it was there to target civilians (as its main goal). At which i do see it as being problematic.

In essence why would the method of killing civilians matter if the stated intent was all the time “killing civilians”? Which it was once you get rid off the euphemism that were used to hide that. And at least i do object to deliberate killing of civilians regardless of which side does it.

However, if someone fires a gun at you then in many situations you would have the right to shoot back. The Allied bombing of German cities could be considered self-defense in the face of an aggressive foe.

No. For example the Finnish bomber stream infiltration - i.e. using Finnish bombers to bomb the Soviet bombers (which had been bombing civilians) - was self-defense. Just because some one else commits an action doesn’t give a carte blanche to the others to do the same. Sure, it provides a justification but it doesn’t remove the potential blame.

42

Welcome aboard. Glad to see you posting.

There is no resolution to this discussion. Some people are just going to say it was wrong to target civilians. Those who understood the war aims accepted that targeting civilians was a necessary tool to break enemy morale and reduce war production.

Bombing is supposedly more inhumane than starving the entire continent with a blockade as was done in both world wars. The goal was to win the war. People had to die for that to happen and many millions of civilians on both sides died. I accept that and every day I read of the daily death count of civilians as ships are torpedoed just makes it clear this war had to be won at all costs.

Some will never agree with that though.

4 Likes
43

Spaatz and Harris both believed in bombing as a war winning weapon, which it wasn’t. Harris’ policy was to obliterate German cities, not to specifically go for industrial, communications or military targets. Dresden was obliterated, but the railway wasn’t destroyed. Harris fought hard to stop bombers being used for anything else.
Max Hastings in Armageddon gives plenty of detail, if you want one source.

1 Like