Allied Morality Questioned in Bombing of German Cities

[GePap]

The notion that Germnay is soleyl 'reposible' for the war and thus guilty and liable to any consequences is absurd: I do not question that Germany acted more aggresively than any other actor, save Austro-Hungary (first to declare war, by July 28 on Serbia) but that aggresiveness was dictated by many factors, military expediency being one of them. After all, General warfare starts by August 4th, By then Not only Germany and Austria, but also Russia and France, were mobilized. Lets not forget the whole MONTHLONG crisis ahead of this situation.

As for the argument at hand:

Morality and values are seperate from expediency and utilatarian motives. The mass bombing of civilians is morally indefensible, period: That does not mean that you can still act in such a way if utilatarian motives also exist. In general though, i find the evidence for the expediencey of mass bombing of civilian targets to be very small, in WW2. For example, the huge decline in Japanses military output by late 1944 is probalby better explained by the mass shortages of resources for japanese industry borught about by the extremely effective allied blockade of Japan, which by late 1944 had devastated Japan's merhcant fleet and cut of the island form its primary sources of oil, rubber, ore, and ouside foodstuffs, than it is by any huge allied bombing of Japanse industry. Surbeys of the bombing campagings in Europe, by all sides, show the geenral ineffectiveness of bombing cities, not only ass far as morale issues were concerned, but also industrial output. This does not mean all bombing was useless: directed bombing at transport, oil production, powerplants and damns all had great efefct: but the mass raids on german cities, specialy "Bomber' Harris's 'terror raids' seem to have little impact. If the issue was one of cost effectiveness, the allies would have been better off concentrating their efforts at bombing Ploesti, other oil sites, railheads and other key transport sites instead of trying to kock out German factories, which they generally failed to do, as the great incrase of German war production thorugh the war, reaching a crescendo at the same time as the strategic bombing campaign itself reached its own crescendo shows. An attack such as that on Dresden was simply pointless.

So, no, allied bombing and German and Japanese suffereing does not invalidate the suffering they caused, but the effectiveness of al this mass bombing of civilians is suspect at best.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ozz


I think a DECLARATION of war and an ULTIMATION
before delaring war makes a differience don't you.

I cringe when i seen this sort of BS doublespeak smear crap.

Declaration of war and Ultimatums are not a license for genocide which could be the extreme one could justify if one said the entire German/Japanese populace were at fault. They are the means that nations engage an opponent and destroy his ability/want to wage war.

Again the intent to show ability and will to use this kind of warfare is only served in my estimation if it robs the opponent of the ability to maintain war that otherwise would stretch on and cause greater casualties.

The American civil war started the modern day warfare attempt to remove war making capability (in destroying railways factories, farms etc.). In doing so, it targeted civilian/military targets. Had it not done so the civil war would have continued resulting in many more deaths.

I see no doublespeak. Targeting non-military targets is best served when its attempt is to end the fight with a unconditional surrender and when delivered from a position of strength. Other uses causes no benefit but instead causes the victims to harden their resolve. From a very short historical perspective, both WW2 and the American Civil War used these gambits and the victors were able to cause a cessation of hostilites in what otherwise would have been a protracted affair.

However, to say the general populace had it coming is not cricket. The inevitable death of civilians is unfortunately a fact of war. IMO use of this type of tactic is best served when it results in the cessation of war ASAP and as a consequence is a very moral decision.

[Boris Godunov]

Targeting industrial facilities and railroads/communications networks is legitimate, for the intent is to cause damage to the enemy war machine. That is not the same as deliberately targeting civilians for the purpose of killing civilians.

Dresden was firebombed Feb14-15 1945. At this time, the German industrial production was already halted. Dresden was not an industrial center, it was not a strategic center, it was not a communication center, it was not a military center. It was simply a city packed with refugees.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Targeting industrial facilities and railroads/communications networks is legitimate, for the intent is to cause damage to the enemy war machine. That is not the same as deliberately targeting civilians for the purpose of killing civilians.

Dresden was firebombed Feb14-15 1945. At this time, the German industrial production was already halted. Dresden was not an industrial center, it was not a strategic center, it was not a communication center, it was not a military center. It was simply a city packed with refugees.

No arguement. In the Civil war the intent was to firstly to dismantle the war making machine of the south. In doing so tho' they also pillaged farms burnt homes etc. Death to civilians resulted and at times civilian property was the target.

The calculated effect of these actions was to dismantle the war making machine and demoralize the civilian populace thereby hoping to draw the war to a hasty close.

While not explicitly trying to kill civilians, the effect ended up the same. It simply became more obvious in WW2. Or perhaps destroying the ability to feed your general populace by way of torching farms and embargoing you consider fair game as well. To me its the same calculated effect. (and no I don't consider the embargo on Iraq an act of war or an act of attrocity ).

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov Ogie's post was comparing the situation, and thereby it was relevant. Surely if you believe OBL has no justification for targeting civilians to achieve a political end, then neither does anyone else.

Targeting civilians is wrong, plain and simple. I fail to see how it is "PC" to say murdering civilians is a bad thing.

Of course, those who can't argue often fall back on the lame "PC" bogeyman.

Since when did OBL become a legalimate government.

The PC crap is playing the OBL card. Just trying to get
a knee jerk reaction (ie TROLL). I see YOU failed to notice it.

Targeting civilians is wrong? How about a factory, who
do you think is in there turning out shells. Civilians.

And for those of you who think carpet bombing was
ineffective, the British AFTER having recieved it, knew
exactly what the effects were, having first hand experience.

There ARE no civilians, never have been. You should
read up on your history. Name one war where the
civilian population was NOT massacred.

Rome, Cathage, The Crusades?, Napolean, WW1
(Turkey).

Grow up.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ozz,

My attempt to invoke OBL was not to be PC in anyway. My real point is that I agree civilian casualties have always existed in every war.

My real point is that if this gambit allowed the war to end quicker then it might indeed have been the right and moral thing to do as otherwise civilian casualties might have mounted in higher numbers than the casualties incurred.

Where you and I disagree is that there is a civilian. Just because they are members of an enemy state does not mean they are legit targets in most instances.

OBL, is not a nation, but he also claims no civilians and as such all is fair game. This is what I and if I read the papers rightly is what most others take as exception to his view of the world. I likewise promise that this is the last time I will invoke OBL's hideous name. (We'll move onto the PAL's ).

My overall point is simply this. Using this as a means to close a war out (with unconditional surrender as your goal else the conflagration can start in another generation) is perhaps the only legit way to use these tactics as the overall casualties of ongoing conflict will likely outweigh the casualties inflcited. The PAL's (is that better ) attempt to use these from a stance of weakness only results in petty death and serves no greater purpose but instead galvanizes the enemies will thereby ensuring ongoing deaths.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Vanguard


This was just the rationalization. The real reason for bombing cities in WW2 was the fact that high altitude bombers couldn't hit anything smaller than a city.

High altitude bombing over Europe was far more accurate than bombing over Japan, due to wind velocity at altitude.

And the commanders of the Allied air forces wanted high altitude bombers because ground support missions made it seem like they were mere assistants to the ground generals.

CAS missions are completly different from level bombing missions, and CAS in WW2 was of very limited effect due to technological limitations on air-ground coordination. Tactical interdiction missions against targets of opportunity in the rear were very effective, when allied aircraft were in range. Prior to the Normandy landings and after, this type of mission dominated in France. Against targets like Schweinfurt, Bremerhaven and Ploesti, there was no alternative to level bombing, as tactical/CAS aircraft didn't have the range.

Since they had a built in reason to believe in the effectiveness of strategic bombing anyway, the air force chiefs willingly believed their own unconfirmable claims of the effectiveness of their efforts. When they were, in fact, achieving very little of strategic importance.

The strategic and tactical air combat functions of the US Army Air Corps/Army Air Forces in WW2 and the US Air Force since the Key West Agreement have been separate, right up to the top, and those functions are still independent four star commands. The strat guys rose to prominance with the advent of nuclear weapons. The effectiveness of strategic air has been debated incessantly, and the "little importance" school relied on one core fact - the increase in total German war production until very late in the war. To support their point of view, they have studiously avoided recognition of how much higher the production levels would have been without strategic bombing, and the manpower, equipment, and materiel drain required for air defense against strategic bombing. How much longer would it have taken the allies on either front to break through into Germany if the Germans had been able to transfer 3,000 FlaK 36/37, 1500-2000 FW-190 and Me-109K aircraft, and 200,000 luftwaffe air defense personnel into army control?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ozz
Since when did OBL become a legalimate government.

I don't know what "legalimate" means, but are you saying that whether or not one is a government gives one all the rights to target civilians?

The PC crap is playing the OBL card. Just trying to get
a knee jerk reaction (ie TROLL). I see YOU failed to notice it.

Nah, I think it was a cheap attempt on your part to score points in a failing argument. Nice backtrack attempt, though. Oh, and grow up.

Targeting civilians is wrong? How about a factory, who
do you think is in there turning out shells. Civilians.

You don't seem to be comprehending the moral difference between targeting industrial facilities that happened to be manned by civilians in order to hamper the enemy's war effort and targeting civilians for the sole purpose of killing civilians. There is a huge moral difference.

And for those of you who think carpet bombing was
ineffective, the British AFTER having recieved it, knew
exactly what the effects were, having first hand experience.

Of course it can be effective, depending on the timing of the war and the nature of the bombings. Dresden had absolutely no positive effects for the Allies. In fact, it hardened German attitudes and later hampered Allies efforts to promote good ties. Many ultra nationalists pointed to Dresden as justification for the rightness of the Nazi cause and used it as propaganda agains the Allied occupiers.

There ARE no civilians, never have been. You should
read up on your history. Name one war where the
civilian population was NOT massacred.

Rome, Cathage, The Crusades?, Napolean, WW1
(Turkey).

Which proves what? Does the fact that something morally wrong has always happened in war make that thing suddenly right? If there are no civilians, then why was the Nanjing such a bad thing? Couldn't it be rationalized away as the IJA carrying out military operations that held strategic importance for them? I'm pretty sickened by such an attitude of rationalizing such horrific acts.

At any rate, you've failed to provide any adequate justification of why a civilian populace deserves to be massacred. Even soldiers don't deserve to die.

Grow up.

Into what you are, a rationalizer of atrocities? No thanks.

How on earth is it immature for me to think it wrong to target civilians in war and not believe that civilians deserve to be killed because of what their government does? I think you're getting a little confused over what maturity means...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The effectiveness of strategic air has been debated incessantly, and the "little importance" school relied on one core fact - the increase in total German war production until very late in the war. To support their point of view, they have studiously avoided recognition of how much higher the production levels would have been without strategic bombing, and the manpower, equipment, and materiel drain required for air defense against strategic bombing. How much longer would it have taken the allies on either front to break through into Germany if the Germans had been able to transfer 3,000 FlaK 36/37, 1500-2000 FW-190 and Me-109K aircraft, and 200,000 luftwaffe air defense personnel into army control?

Certainly strategic bombing was more effective against some targets than others. Destroying rail centers was probably one of the most worthwhile efforts of the bombing campaign. Strategic bombing definitely had an effect on the shipping war too. U-boat production may not have been stopped, but it clearly was hindered. Other notable effects of the bombing campaign was the hinderance of the V weapon program, the nuclear weapons development program and the jet aircraft development program. The bombing camopaign forced a lot of production to be dispersed to small shops within the cities. The shifting to small unit production badly hurt quality control. Weapons produced in 1944 and 1945 were often of poor quality becuase of the disruptions in production.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Even Churchill expressed horror at the results of Dresden. Incinerating 200,000+ civilians was morally wrong. You can't defend Dresden as anything but terror--it was not a strategic city, military target or industrial center. It was an old world city packed with refuges, that's all.

Questioning Allied bombing is just, because, as DanS points out, it is leading us to take far greater care in targeting. Slaughtering civilians is not acceptable if one is going to claim a moral high ground in a war, which indeed we were in WW2. How could we say that we are fighting to protect the world from totalitarian regimes that commit murder and then go out and commit murder to stop them? What would the difference be, then?

No one is saying the actions of the Nazis or the IJA weren't horrible and worse by comparison. But that does not excuse murdering innocent civilians for the sake of terrorizing the populace.



A dispicable notion. Tell me what the thousands of women and children of Dresden did to deserve being incinerated by firebombs.

Boris, I agree with this.

I still say, despite what SD says, the impetus for the mass slaughter of German civilians was from the UK. They had a definite plan to destroy German cities. This is why I object, and strongly so, that the UK was not above mentioned in the "apology" to the German people as if the US was the sole malefactor here. We of course were participants in the slaughter. But we were not alone. And most importantly, we were not its leaders.

[Dauphin]

For sure, Britain was the main proponent of the carpet bombing of Germany, my point to you was that the US did partake, in a big way and without hesitation when asked. Even though the US was mostly complicit in Europe it was explicit in Japan.

Your statement that I was replying to was "the UK owes Germany an apology, not the US." This is patently false. Both do if anyone does.

[SpencerH]

Gee, how did I know what side Boris would be on? Its just a pity we didnt have a nuke in time to drop it on Berlin.

[monkspider]

While of course the Axis committed a great deal of horrible, horrible attrocities, it by no means justifies any attrocities that the Allies may have committed. The attitude that evil is always a justfication for responding with more evil has always been one of the root causes of man's troubles since the dawn of civilization.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Gee, how did I know what side Boris would be on? Its just a pity we didnt have a nuke in time to drop it on Berlin.

Of course I would be on the side that doesn't advocate committing atrocities against civilians. I'm surprised you would be on the opposite side, though. That's the real pity.

[SpencerH]

So the Germans didnt drop any bombs on civilians? Maybe those attacks were not atrocities? Hows about the millions of civilians the Germans killed without planes? Germany should still glow in the dark.