Allied Morality Questioned in Bombing of German Cities

[Boris Godunov]

Not to mention that their own immoral governments likely told them to ignore it as lies and propaganda that was just trying to start a panic.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ned
Sikander, I don't think that the United States ignored the morality of bombing civilians. Look at what we did in Japan where we dropped leaflets on the intended target cities days prior to their being bombed so that they might be evacuated. Why this wasn't done in the case of Germany I don't know, but it clearly indicates a double standard. In this case double standard worked in favor the Japanese as opposed to the Germans.

One possible explanation for the double standard is that we had a partner named Britain who did not want to give the Germans prior warning.

I thought the leaflets were dropped to let the cities burn better. That's what a survivor from a tokyo fire bombing said... those leaflets burned... well.

Anyway, why should morality be even questioned in times of war? If we can afford it and still win good, but bombing those german cities sure did help win the war. Whether its moral or not whatever, but hey we won. And it seems as thats the only thing that really matters in the long run.

[Drake Tungsten]

I thought the leaflets were dropped to let the cities burn better. That's what a survivor from a tokyo fire bombing said... those leaflets burned... well.

This doesn't sound very plausible. The Japanese cities were already about as flammable as you can get, being filled with houses made of wood and paper.

[Vanguard]

Leaflets burn, of course. But incendieries burn even better. I'm sure that we felt that dropping leaflets was more "humane" than not doing so.

But let's not get all self righteous about how honorable we were. After all, if we wanted to be really humane, all we had to do was not firebomb the cities out of existance.

[Flubber]

The morality of war . . . sheesh thats a contradiction in terms if I ever heard one.


I see the problem for the commander-- Facing a fully resistant enemy with dangerous capabilities, he has to choose how to move forward. In his arsenal are firebombs among a wide variety of other weapons-- The choices

1. use all weapons at his disposal in an attempt to end the war quickly and minimize his own casualties-- this will, of course mean higher immediate civilian casualties

2. use something less than the full firepower available in an attempt to kill fewer civilians . . . knowing that this will result in more of your men dying and could result in a longer war

With many weapons commanders have to balance this all the time and consider the consequences whether we are talking firebombs, smart bombs or nukes. If the US goes to war with say Iraq, they could "win the war" in minutes with minimal casualties if they just the nuked the entire place. But millions killed to obtain the objective is just an incomprehensible thought. As well there are geopolitical considerations with the use of any WMD.

The same balancing act comes up every time a decision is made or not made to attack an industy or an emplacement in a populated region

When I look back at WWII I try to remember that it is unlike modern "conflicts"-- In WWII there was, for a time, a real fear that the allies could lose and even when the allies were winning, there was a continuing fear of the axis capabilities (both nuclear and with rocketry). It puts a different spin on matters when you ask a commander not to use all his abilities in a war he could conceivably lose.

So while I regret the loss of life in the bombing of cities in WWII I cannot judge the commanders harshly . . . They did what they did to win a desperate and horrific war and for my part, I tahnk them for the freedom that I continue to enjoy

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned
Sikander, I don't think that the United States ignored the morality of bombing civilians. Look at what we did in Japan where we dropped leaflets on the intended target cities days prior to their being bombed so that they might be evacuated. Why this wasn't done in the case of Germany I don't know, but it clearly indicates a double standard. In this case double standard worked in favor the Japanese as opposed to the Germans.

One possible explanation for the double standard is that we had a partner named Britain who did not want to give the Germans prior warning.

The US chose, of its own accord, to mass bomb Japan. Originally the US policy was high altitude daylight bombing, as espoused in its European campaign. However this prooved to be ineffectual and loss rates high. The conclusion of the US command was that carpet bombing would be more effective. The decision to change policy to carpet bombing was entirely US. This dispels your myth that the US only did things because of Britain and Russia.

The US also chose, of its own accord, to drop the atom bomb TWICE. The effects of such an action is even more morally questionable than pure carpet bombing, given the after-effects and fallout.

With regards the difference of dropping leaflets, I don't see how that makes the US any better. IF OBL had phoned up Dubya on Sept 9 2001 and said "We are going to attack New York", you think the attack would be morally better?

Trying to shift blame onto Britain for actions that were morally questionable is a nice way to make you feel better, but is not going to wash.

Britain and the US did extremely morally questionable acts. To claim that the US were better, and the impetus was British is quibbling over drops in the ocean.

[Flubber]

Trying to maintain some moral high ground seems inconsistent with winning an armed conflict against a determined and capable enemy

There are many things that would be considered "wrong" and the fact that your enemy does them does not make it "right" for you to do so but perhaps just "necessary"

Consider if I am awakened in my house by a burglar and carry a baseball bat while investigating the noise. The burglar assaults me and I swing the bat, striking his head and killing him. I am bigger and stronger than the burglar but was not certain of his capabilities and did fear for my own survival. In retrospect, Perhaps I needn't have used the bat but I could not have known that at the time.

In the comfort of our armchairs, it is easy to second guess the decision makers of years ago. We can regret the use of nukes and the firebombings but I cannot with conviction assert that those actions were any more morally wrong than any other act of war.

[GePap]

If morality is to be ignored, and simple military expediency is to be seen as a basic in war, then I must say that Allied (and Axis) commanders were derelict in their duties over and over. Long before the coming of the nuke, all combatants had far more effective weapons at their hands than conventional explosives, no? Obviously German generals were derelict in their duties to bring all force to bear on a determined enemy to minimize their own losses by not making more effective use of Tabun, and Somun, and then, if time permitted, Sarin agents on the Eastern front, or against allied beachheads. I mean, the Germans could certainly have created havoc on D-day had they had stockiplies of Somun and Tabun ready to use on the beaches. That they failed to do so must then be seen as a terrible act on their part- a derrilection of ones duties as a war fighter, since hell, war is terrible, and all gloves are off, NO?

And what about Japanese commanders, making little use of their experimental data on bio-warfare (We all know all those chinese gave their lives in the name of military expediency) on the allies? Or what about widespread Birtish test on the use of anthrax? Should not Britian have rushed an anthrax program, as to be able to effectively deliver such weapons against the Germans? Would it not have saved countless lives, the use biological agents?

So I say we all join to condem the lax and irresponsible military men of WW2, who were foolish enough to think there to be some morality in war, and thus failed to make use of all the great potential of chemical and biological weapons would have had to make the war much shorter (and obviously, the less time a war takes, the less people die. Had the Germans gasses london early on, maybe the number of British dead would have been lower, since there would have been no V2 campaign, right?)

[Flubber]

gepap-- interesting post but if it was aimed at me, I must say that I was not advocating totally unrestricted warfare (seee my first post where I expounded on balance) and also that such an approach would not have been the most militarily expedient

I noted that there are other considerations with any use of a weapon of mass destuction (biological, chemical, nuclear). The first such consideration is that they may be used against you as well. I fear that such weapons went unused not for any moral reason but for the simple fact that no commander wanted to force his troops and possibly his populations to face such weapons themselves. I see it as an earlier version of the MADD principle that prevented the use of nukes in Korea and Vietnam and also was part of the US's restricted war approach in Vietnam-- i.e don't escalate the stakes

In my previous post I talked about the fact that there is always a balance in the choice of weapons used-- the basic precept of any "balance" is that you are not willing to use ALL available measures.

My comment on the impossibility of ANY moral highground comes from the nature of war itself. Even the "least" objectionable of weapons will tear flesh, impale, explode, decapitate, and mutilate people (who may be good people) that happen to wear a different uniform. Why would it be more moral to send a steel jacketed bullet through a man's brain than to send his nervous system into a life ending paralysys through the use of gas ? Is it any more moral to shoot a man charging at you than to drop a bomb on a sleeping command and control centre?

I simply find it difficult to say that any of these wartime killings, of any type can be morally good. The most I can see is that it may be necessary in the circumstances

[Kontiki]

I think a crucial difference lies in the intentional targeting of non-combatants. You're certainly right that the mode of death by a soldier is rather moot. And you're also right that civilians will always be victims in a war. But while it is sometimes hard to distinguish between a soldier and a civilian in the heat of a ground battle, sending out thousands of planes to puposely kill as many civilians as possible is a different scenario.

[GePap]

Flubber:

I agree wit you that one method of death is no better than another. Which is not the point of my post. The point is that there can be limits in war, taboos, lines not to be crossed. There have always been lines in war: even in the most primitive times there was a code of conduct, harsh and nothing like our own, but a code nonetheless. The issue then is not on of greatr morality, but one of codes, of trying to keep certain values aboeve the fray.

It would certainly have been militarily expedient for the combatants to have used bio-chemical agents during the war, specially for the Germans, who had superior chemical agents while facing overwheming enemies (regardless of the relative morality of the sides). How believable a slippery slope of use would have been is difficult to say: if side X used chemical agents against troops, but not cities, then side Z may have the incentive to retaliate against enemy troops with chemical agenst, but maintain the taboo of hitting urban centers with them. Though eprhaps the single breaking of the taboo would have been enough.

Wars, specially modern ones, have purposes, have aims: they are not simply violence, they are directed violence. As such, what violence you use should be based on what your aims are. I would make the point that the reality of the strategic bombing campaing, as far as the bombing of purely civilian targets (with no direct military-industrial connection) is concerned, reveals the fact that Allied aims in ww2 were nowhere as 'pure' as they are painted today. The horrific nature of the enmy makes our self-santification easy, but the allies were certainly not saints during the war. I think the issue would go away simply if the alied peoples would admit to themselves that while they were fighting evil regimes, they were ahrdly great ones (if even good ones) themselves.

[Vanguard]

Trying to maintain some moral high ground seems inconsistent with winning an armed conflict against a determined and capable enemy

It is a difficult choice. But if you do give up the moral high ground in order to defeat a difficult enemy, then what you are is.... immoral. By definition. And if you act immorally you have to live with people asking what right you have to dictate morality to others.

In the long run it can be worse to give up the moral high ground than it is to defeat the enemy without resorting to immoral tactics. It can really annoying having to justify yourself, for one thing.

On a terminological note, "Carpet bombing" is using large number of heavy bombers to "carpet" an area of ground with high explosive bombs, somewhat like a modern cluster bomb (but with 500 lb bombs). Generally it is used against troops and is not, by itself, immoral.

Firebombing, on the other hand, consists of dropping large numbers of incendieries as well as a few high explosive bombs to break up the roofs and destroy water mains in a wooden city. The idea is to start an unstoppable firestorm, killing almost anyone in the fire area by asphyxiation if not from the fire itself. It is hard to see how this doesn't violate the rules of war as well as any commonsense idea of morality.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


The US chose, of its own accord, to mass bomb Japan. Originally the US policy was high altitude daylight bombing, as espoused in its European campaign. However this prooved to be ineffectual and loss rates high. The conclusion of the US command was that carpet bombing would be more effective. The decision to change policy to carpet bombing was entirely US. This dispels your myth that the US only did things because of Britain and Russia.

The US also chose, of its own accord, to drop the atom bomb TWICE. The effects of such an action is even more morally questionable than pure carpet bombing, given the after-effects and fallout.

With regards the difference of dropping leaflets, I don't see how that makes the US any better. IF OBL had phoned up Dubya on Sept 9 2001 and said "We are going to attack New York", you think the attack would be morally better?

Trying to shift blame onto Britain for actions that were morally questionable is a nice way to make you feel better, but is not going to wash.

Britain and the US did extremely morally questionable acts. To claim that the US were better, and the impetus was British is quibbling over drops in the ocean.

Sagacious Dolphin, I was thinking that the United States may have developed "scruples" concerning the carpet bombing of enemy cities without prior warning after news of Dresden hit the United States and caused public outrage.

What you think?

But with respect to the atom bomb, I think there is no real question that its use would force the Japanese to surrender quickly. This was simply not the case with the conventional carpet/firebombing of cities either in Germany or Japan. Conventional carpet bombing seemed to strengthened rather than diminished of the enemy's will to fight even if it marginally it reduced his ability to fight.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Flubber:

I agree wit you that one method of death is no better than another. Which is not the point of my post. The point is that there can be limits in war, taboos, lines not to be crossed. There have always been lines in war: even in the most primitive times there was a code of conduct, harsh and nothing like our own, but a code nonetheless. The issue then is not on of greatr morality, but one of codes, of trying to keep certain values aboeve the fray.

It would certainly have been militarily expedient for the combatants to have used bio-chemical agents during the war, specially for the Germans, who had superior chemical agents while facing overwheming enemies (regardless of the relative morality of the sides). How believable a slippery slope of use would have been is difficult to say: if side X used chemical agents against troops, but not cities, then side Z may have the incentive to retaliate against enemy troops with chemical agenst, but maintain the taboo of hitting urban centers with them. Though eprhaps the single breaking of the taboo would have been enough.

Wars, specially modern ones, have purposes, have aims: they are not simply violence, they are directed violence. As such, what violence you use should be based on what your aims are. I would make the point that the reality of the strategic bombing campaing, as far as the bombing of purely civilian targets (with no direct military-industrial connection) is concerned, reveals the fact that Allied aims in ww2 were nowhere as 'pure' as they are painted today. The horrific nature of the enmy makes our self-santification easy, but the allies were certainly not saints during the war. I think the issue would go away simply if the alied peoples would admit to themselves that while they were fighting evil regimes, they were ahrdly great ones (if even good ones) themselves.

Here! Here! Excellent post, GePap.

I predict there will come a day when both the US and Britain will apologize to Germany for firebombing Cologne, Hamburg and Dresden, and the US to Japan for the use nuclear weapons on civilians. We could have, after all, used the bomb on Tokyo harbor instead of Hiroshima.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned



Sagacious Dolphin, I was thinking that the United States may have developed "scruples" concerning the carpet bombing of enemy cities without prior warning after news of Dresden hit the United States and caused public outrage.

That's not what you said, you said it was Britain who forced the double standard.

What you think?

Dresden probably did make a reassessment of methods, but the switch from altitude bombing to strategic bombing of Japan occured after Dresden. This means that moral standards over such actions had not changed very much. The leaflets seem (to me at least) to be an effort to make the home US population feel better, rather than to save Japanese from slaughter.