Article: the American use of the atomic bombs

[Zardnaar]

Adler I'll tell you why most people here are disagreeeing with you or are getting offended with you.

You are trying to tar the western Allies with the same brush as the Nazis. Is it unfortunate, sad and tragic the German civilians paid the price for their governments agression. Yes. It wasn't a warcrime as such given the context of the time. It was regarded as a neccessary evil and sympathy for the Germans wasn't exactly high on the list of priorities after the Germans bombed the Allies 1st staring in Warsaw 1939.

Might makes right and revenge is a basic human emotion. One the Nazis managed to exploit in the 30's. Bad things did happen to Germans in the war (bombing, women being raped 1945, deportations/ethnic cleansing of civilians 1945) all of which happened as a direct consequence of the jackboot crossing the Polish border 1939. Rather than blame the Allies try blaming Hitler or even the German people who elected him. Yes he didn't get a majority but enough Germans voted for him to get into power and exploit it.

You're offending most of us here as we're either from Allied nations or from countries occupied by the Germans. Mistakes were made but the belief was to end the war just like the Germans bombing England in 1940 would either end the war or make the follow up invasion easier. You're taking alot of things out of context or using modern values to judge the actions of our granfather sin a different era in a really screwed up situation.

The difference between the "crimes" of the Allies and the Germans is the context. The Allies targeted the civilians of a hostile fanatic government during a time of war. The Germans targeted civilains after surrender treaties were signed or they occupied a country.

Do you have any examples of atrocities commited by Allied soldiers after Germany surrendered? Apart from Soviet ones as they are well known about. I'm sure there would have been the occasional German civilian assaulted, raped or murdered by a western allies but I'm sure you will find they are the exception rather than the rule. Did the western allies systimatically round up German civilians and send the to death camps or force them to do heavy labour on starvation rations. Did they shell any towns or cities after Germany surrendered (say after May 11 1945 as scattered fighting still continued).

Did the Americans/English make efforts to feed the German civilian population after the war. Berlin airlift perhaps 1947? By throwing mud to us it seems you're trying to tar the average soldier with the same brush as the Nazis.

It was a different time with different values.

 

[Bugfatty300]

You plainly ignore my points again.

This from the guy who chicken pecks my posts? Why don't you reply to all my points? I take the time to respond to all of yours. You just repeat the same tired arguments over and over with no substance or logic.

Example:

With the bombing of an uninahbited island or a military base (Truk?) an example could have been made with the same consequences.

Thus far you have yet to explain how bombing the middle of nowhere or a militarily insignificant lagoon in the middle of the pacific would have "the same consequences" as bombing Japan its self.

 

[Adler17]

@ Traitorfish:
You still have hawks on every side. That does not say much. Also the Japanese had not the time to discuss it completely in only 3 days. Thus the doves had no chance to succeed. What they did eventually. Thus a bombing of another uninhabitant place or military target in Japan with sufficient time to discuss and a warning to attack would have been at least necessary to justify the dropping of a nuke on a city.

@ Zardnaar:
It was a warcrime and thus arguing they were guilty and deserved it is the same argumentation of Nazis. WW2 was lead by Barbars on two sides. We do not need to discuss the evils the Nazis did. But does that justify the evils the Allies did? No crime is justified by another. You are really arguing like Harris. A man who made civilians as main target like the Nazis did. He was their brother in mind. You follow him. To protect civilian life was the main concern of international law since the 30 years war. We agree that ww2 was lead in a barbarous way more like the 30 years war than any war later. But again that does not make that right.
Why can't you see that the western Allies also committed war crimes and crimes against humanity? Fighting for a just cause does not make the means just.

@Bugfatty:
I never said something about bombing a small island in the middle of the Pacific. But near to the Japanese main islands. I guess there were enough locations to do such a test. And to convince them to surrender.
To your last post I meant I already answered it before. But here again:

1. The Japanese sent a message to the US shortly before Hiroshima. In this they told they are discussing an unconditional surrender. Because of a bad translation, the message was on Japanese, this was translated with a denial. Thus there were already doves working to end the war.

2. See above! An attack on an uninhabited island or military target near to Japan, under the eyes of the Japanese command would had to be done before attacking a city.

Adler

 

[Zardnaar]

@ Traitorfish:
You still have hawks on every side. That does not say much. Also the Japanese had not the time to discuss it completely in only 3 days. Thus the doves had no chance to succeed. What they did eventually. Thus a bombing of another uninhabitant place or military target in Japan with sufficient time to discuss and a warning to attack would have been at least necessary to justify the dropping of a nuke on a city.

@ Zardnaar:
It was a warcrime and thus arguing they were guilty and deserved it is the same argumentation of Nazis. WW2 was lead by Barbars on two sides. We do not need to discuss the evils the Nazis did. But does that justify the evils the Allies did? No crime is justified by another. You are really arguing like Harris. A man who made civilians as main target like the Nazis did. He was their brother in mind. You follow him. To protect civilian life was the main concern of international law since the 30 years war. We agree that ww2 was lead in a barbarous way more like the 30 years war than any war later. But again that does not make that right.
Why can't you see that the western Allies also committed war crimes and crimes against humanity? Fighting for a just cause does not make the means just.

@Bugfatty:
I never said something about bombing a small island in the middle of the Pacific. But near to the Japanese main islands. I guess there were enough locations to do such a test. And to convince them to surrender.
To your last post I meant I already answered it before. But here again:

1. The Japanese sent a message to the US shortly before Hiroshima. In this they told they are discussing an unconditional surrender. Because of a bad translation, the message was on Japanese, this was translated with a denial. Thus there were already doves working to end the war.

2. See above! An attack on an uninhabited island or military target near to Japan, under the eyes of the Japanese command would had to be done before attacking a city.

Adler

The bombing campaign also gutted the Luftwaffe. Your logic doesn't make much sense. What should the Allies have done? Waited until 1944 before they developed bombers with the fuel range to hit the oilfields or let the Germans deploy all of the Luftwaffe vs the Russians. By saying lets not duscuss the crimes of the Germans you are conveniently overlooking one of the reasons bombs were used to the extent they were. Its cause and effect.

Germans bombed allies, allies bombed them back. The Allies just had the industrial capacity to bomb them back. I also don't really see any viable alternatives the Allies could have done. Germany still probably would have lost the war without the bombing but thats a maybe. Perhaps you want the Nazis to win the war? Without the bombing the Allies wouldn't have had air supremacy in the west so D-Day may not have happened or been postponed or even defeated which means all of Germany would have been occupied by the Russians which would have involved street battles a'la Berlin through virtually all major German cities since the Germans wouldn't surrender. All of Germany being occupied by the USSR instead of some of it what a great prospect.

Its not nice but that was the reality of the situation. With a government as odious as the Nazis the ends do justify the means. Option B is worse. Their was no realistic alternative like bombing the German fuel refinerys or pipeline given the limits of the technology and the knowledge the Allies had. One reason the Allies eventually made it through to bomb Ploesti was the Luftwaffe couldn't stop them. The reason the Luftwaffe couldn't stop them was a result of the bombing campaign.

In WW2 5 German civilains weren't really worth the price of 1 Allied serviceman. A war Germany started and prosecuted in violation of conventional morality at the time. The Germans reaped the seeds their government sowed. No one forced you to invade Poland. No one forced you to bomb Warsaw, Belgium, Holand, France, England. No one forced you to commit the Holocaust. The Germans set the situatio to get bombed, provided the incentive to do it and by their conduct made any concept of mercy farcical at best.

 

[Adler17]

In WW2 5 German civilains weren't really worth the price of 1 Allied serviceman.

And you wonder why someone says you're arguing like a Nazi?

Also to make it clear: I don't want to have the Nazis won ww2! On the other hand I am critizising the Allies for their bombing runs. They attacked the civilian quaters and not the industrials. These attacks were war crimes and crimes against humanity. German warcrimes still do not justify warcrimes of the other side.
The Area bombing directive was an order to commit a warcrime. Nothing can justify that terror bombigs. They intended to lower the morale. But indeed the opposite happened. Indeed it was more suited to prolong the war than to stop it. Also you're wrong about the bombers. If you can bomb a German city you can also target the industrial targets there and not the civilian population.
Also to make it clear Germany did not use terror bombing as policy from the beginning. There were instances (so not Warsaw and Rotterdam as both were defended (both were also warned; the first attack on Warsaw was abandoned because of a Polish signal an ambassador came. He didn't come so the bombardment took place. It was a defended city; Rotterdam was an accident as only half of the bombers got the news of the surrendering, also Rotterdam was defended and sieged), yes, warcrimes, but not as a whole policy. Indeed in the beginning both sides tried to avoid these bombings. and even in the hottest time of the BoB both sides still attacked mainly industrial targets. The British bombing campaing brought a level of escalation. The new orders abandoned the attacks on industrial target but the civilians were now the main target. So why were not the oil refineries attacked unti lthe very end? No, it was a useless campaign, a war crime and crime against humanity. Some even argue to redefine the genocide to fit on that kind of warfare.

Adler

 

[Zardnaar]

And you wonder why someone says you're arguing like a Nazi?

Also to make it clear: I don't want to have the Nazis won ww2! On the other hand I am critizising the Allies for their bombing runs. They attacked the civilian quaters and not the industrials. These attacks were war crimes and crimes against humanity. German warcrimes still do not justify warcrimes of the other side.
The Area bombing directive was an order to commit a warcrime. Nothing can justify that terror bombigs. They intended to lower the morale. But indeed the opposite happened. Indeed it was more suited to prolong the war than to stop it. Also you're wrong about the bombers. If you can bomb a German city you can also target the industrial targets there and not the civilian population.
Also to make it clear Germany did not use terror bombing as policy from the beginning. There were instances (so not Warsaw and Rotterdam as both were defended (both were also warned; the first attack on Warsaw was abandoned because of a Polish signal an ambassador came. He didn't come so the bombardment took place. It was a defended city; Rotterdam was an accident as only half of the bombers got the news of the surrendering, also Rotterdam was defended and sieged), yes, warcrimes, but not as a whole policy. Indeed in the beginning both sides tried to avoid these bombings. and even in the hottest time of the BoB both sides still attacked mainly industrial targets. The British bombing campaing brought a level of escalation. The new orders abandoned the attacks on industrial target but the civilians were now the main target. So why were not the oil refineries attacked unti lthe very end? No, it was a useless campaign, a war crime and crime against humanity. Some even argue to redefine the genocide to fit on that kind of warfare.

Adler

The bombers didn't have the range and the allies captured airfields that allowed them to strike them. Charge of genocide is rubbish as the intent was to end the war not wipe the Germans out as a race. THats the main difference between the western Allies. They fought to end the war using whatever means they had. The Germans fought for conquest and genocide. I still see a country named Germany on the map. Poland didn't even exist 1939-45.

I wouldn't call the bombing a good deed and I would even call it evil. A neccessary and justified evil to end the war. What was the point of German warcrimes again? Didn't realise the Jews and Polish civilians were that big of a threat after they surrendered. German civilians made weapons, became soldiers, and generally supported the Nazi regime.

Bad luck boom, kaboom, bombski. What is the viable alternative Adler. Should the Allies just left Germany alone until 1944/45. They didn't have the technology to target industrialsites specifically and I would assume alot of factorys were located in built up areas. The civilians kept the Nazi war machine running. Germany could have surrendered anytime and should have after 1943 or so. Blame yourselves. I don't get upset the Luftwaffe bombed England. How many German POWs were shot once they made it back to internment camps compared to Allied soldiers shot by the Germans? Once again it was the Germna conduct of the war that resulted in the bombing raids.

 

[scy12]

And you wonder why someone says you're arguing like a Nazi?

Also to make it clear: I don't want to have the Nazis won ww2!

I have relatives that suffered under the Nazis and i am a Greek , so it is clear where i stand. But you are a German, It sounds the most odd that you wouldn't want the Nazis to have won. I really can't understand your logic.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Presumably because Adler realizes that the Nazis were evil regardless of his nationality? To expect that he would prefer the Nazis to have won the war simply becuase he is German is very insulting. Even during the war there were anti-Nazi groups in Germany, eg the White Rose group.

I think Zardnaar has got it about right. The Western Allies bombed cities not for conquest or genocide, but to destroy the Axis war machine, and to achieve peace. That anyone was killed, let alone civilians, is horrible, but sadly justified, IMHO. What was the alternative? To stop the bombing, and for the Allies to fight with one arm tied behind their back, or to don kid gloves against the Fascist monster?

 

[Traitorfish]

@ Traitorfish:You still have hawks on every side. That does not say much. Also the Japanese had not the time to discuss it completely in only 3 days. Thus the doves had no chance to succeed. What they did eventually. Thus a bombing of another uninhabitant place or military target in Japan with sufficient time to discuss and a warning to attack would have been at least necessary to justify the dropping of a nuke on a city.

If the Japanese could not react to the obliteration of a major city in three days, what, exactly, makes you think that they would have reacted to a harmless warning shot any faster? If it took being nuked twice for Japan to surrender, then not being nuked at all wouldn't, strangely enough, be more effective.
Unless you're suggesting that we'd waited longer, or fired multiple warning shots, or something like that, but then when do we draw the line? At which point do we say "Alright, let's stop footering about and nuke then for real"? At which point have we fulfilled the obligation to give them a chance to surrender and are allowed to start nuking for real?

 

[Adler17]

Zardnaar, it was evil, but not justified. They attacked the German civilans just because they were Germans. They wanted to break the morale. That they wanted to win the war is another thing. But why didn't they attack the industrial sites? Why didn't they attack the railway stations? It was possible like the USAAF showed. Why not the refineries? That proofed very effective in the last phase of the war. Also I don't mean here attacks on a factory with a hospital nearby. Such an attack is bad luck/ collateral damages. But the intended attack on civilians was not justified. Also the justified cause does not justify all means. The German morale did not break but regardless of other possibilities and the fact of knowledge of that failure Harris let attack again and again. So he killed Germans with the same argumentation the Nazis killed the Jews: He wanted to rescue Britain (while the Nazis wanted to "rescue" the "Germanic race"). That was a war crime and a crime against humanity. Also we could discuss if it was a genocide, too.

@ scy 12: I am no Nazi. Indeed my Great grand father helped Jews to escape from Hamburg. He had contacts with the German resitance. A neighbour of him, a strong Nazi got that and only because the wives were close friends he was rescued. But he had to abandon his work and to join later even the NSDAP (although he was in the SPD and even refused to join while being pressured by his superiors as official).

@traitorfish:
3 days are hardly enough to get all infos, to discuss it and to decide it. 2 or 3 weeks are another question though. So before nuking a city the US had to give the Japanese a warning by nuking a nearby uninhabited island or a militaty target. Then to give them a few weeks time to discuss before making a last warning they would get a city bombed next time. Only then, given that other possibilities to end the war did not exist, a nuking was justified.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

Harris and Bomber command's notion that German civilian morale would snap under the pressure of concentrated bombing raids was not plucked out of thin air, but generally based on experience of British civilians under Luftwaffe attack. I was saying elsewhere on the forum that I was writing an article on Liverpool's experience - the most heavily bombed British region outside of London. Something like 4000 killed during the war doesn't sound too big, but when nearly half of these come in under a week, to a city and region almost totally unprepared, the people struggled to cope. To outside authorities it seemed like that the only reason civilian morale didn't collapse en masse was the Luftwaffe's inability to maintain the pressure. Liverpool was a crucial city in the war effort, if the Luftwaffe could achieve so much with smaller resources...

You can make an argument that its a warcrime if you like but the fact is the RAF believed that just turning up the heat that bit more might break the German people. This belief has sometimes been innacurately described as the jingoistic/xenophobic British establishment attitude that the Germans (They're not British after all are they old bean?) could never withstand the same punishment.

Also your argument that the Luftwaffe mostly didn't try to attack civilians is a simple case of selective use of evidence. If you look at sizeable night raids such as that on London on the 29th December when they dropped so many incendaries on the city that the night was nicknamed "The 2nd Great Fire of London" you realise that the Luftwaffe wasn't beyond attacking civilians either. The raids on Liverpool were virtually all during the night, and the high proportion of houses and non industrial, military or civilian buildings hit during WW2 is testament to the idea that if the Germans didn't deliberately target civilians during these raids they certainly made no more than a cursory attempt to hit "proper" targets instead. But I guess its ok to launch night raids that you know full well will mostly hit housing or hospitals if you make the right noises about trying to hit docks and factories.

That's before we get started on the indiscriminate use of innacurate missiles during the latter part of the war.

 

[Adler17]

Of course technology had to be recognized as well. If the bombers were not able to make such surgeon like attacks you have to accept the civilian losses as collateral damages. Tragical but accidentally.
German bombings were mostly targetting industrial target. Unfortunately in these days many civilian houses were very next to the factories. That's why many collateral damages happened.
But we shouldn't discuss this early phase. We should discuss the change of winter 1941/1942. There the command gave the order to attack civilians directly. To bomb to weaken the morale. If it was because of anti German ressentiments might be another thing, but nevertheless it was a warcrime. Even the holiest cause is not making all means just. And that is not seen here by some.
And the V2 attacks were on the same level. But, although it sounds contradictable, also justifiable as reprisal for British bombings.

Adler

 

[Zardnaar]

Of course technology had to be recognized as well. If the bombers were not able to make such surgeon like attacks you have to accept the civilian losses as collateral damages. Tragical but accidentally.
German bombings were mostly targetting industrial target. Unfortunately in these days many civilian houses were very next to the factories. That's why many collateral damages happened.
But we shouldn't discuss this early phase. We should discuss the change of winter 1941/1942. There the command gave the order to attack civilians directly. To bomb to weaken the morale. If it was because of anti German ressentiments might be another thing, but nevertheless it was a warcrime. Even the holiest cause is not making all means just. And that is not seen here by some.
And the V2 attacks were on the same level. But, although it sounds contradictable, also justifiable as reprisal for British bombings.

Adler

No one here is really getting upset the Germans used V weapons. In 1940 and 44 The Luftwaffe and V weapons were really the only way the Germans could strike at England. No one here is claiming the Germans were trying to wipe the British out. The Wehrmacht couldn't really swim to England.

In 41-44 the bombers were the only way for the western allies to strike at the Germans directly although there was fighting in the midle east and Italy. By 1944 The oilfields were withen range to to captured airfields and increasing range of the bombers. A side effect of the bombing campaign was the destruction of the Luftwaffe and upgraded bombers from experience. The bombers were also used to soften up France. If the Allies didn't use bombers until later in the war like Adler is suggesting there is an excellent chance they wouldn't have been able to bomb the oilfields or refinerys like they did. Defences may have been to strong or the long range bombers required and developed from the bombing campaign may not have been developed. Also the large fleet of bombers would have been unavailable to soften up France for D-Day.

Could Germany have won the war if the Allies didn't bomb them? Who knows but most what if stories think its unlikely. Most estimates I have read conclude the bombing shortened the war by 6 months to 1 year but made the Western allies job alot easier during D-D and afterwards. German factories and resources were crippled i the later stages of the war. Production did rise due to slave labour but how much higher would it have been without the bombing???? Without the bombing it is likely the Soviets would have run over more of Europe than they already did and western allies casualties would have been higher. In an extreme situation D-Day may have failed as the Luftwaffe would have been available to attack the beachhead. More fuel would have been available for the Battle of the Bulge etc.

 

[C~G]

I have been following this discussion from sidelines and don't really want to interfere.

Just want to comment that the idea of "civilians morale" is very obscure.

Hitting civilian targets shouldn't be considered as only from point of view lowering the fighting morale. In fact the morale to fight can stay quite high nevertheless.

The point of the bombing example (which well might fit to the definition of this "morale") is to make everyday life much more difficult. It takes quite a toll both mentally and also physically (you have to make lot of work to maintain silence during bombing, lack of sleep, confusion etc.) when enemy is bombing the neighbourhood.

So bombing civilian targets isn't only about breaking the will but more like breaking the structures of society by psychological warfare and disrupting the way society is balanced. It's more like strategy similar to that of scorched earth to cause massive disturbance in all levels of the community rather than just idea which concentrates into that people just don't want to fight anymore after succesful bombings.

Probably you all acknowledge this already but just wanted to add something to discussion.

However in the case of atomic bombings the goal was to stop the war and completely cause fatal fall of japanese fighting morale. I think they differ in also that way from bombings of example what allies did in Europe for long time. It had to be quick, massive and uncontrollable effect which left no choice or options to choose from in order to have maximum impact towards the goal that japanese would submit without hesitation.

 

[privatehudson]

The British perception at the time of 1940-41 was that the Germans (after the initial period of the BoB) were more than happy to direct their efforts against civilians. You say that collateral damage was different to deliberate intention, but is it really different to those suffering the raids? Do you think that the people of Liverpool, having had tens of thousands of houses damaged or destroyed would take any solace from the notion that the Luftwaffe were trying to hit the nearby docks? Do you think that the Luftwaffe and the Nazi regime didn't recognise that damage to houses, roads and a city's power system didn't have in its own subtle way as much damage to a city as blowing up a warehouse? You don't launch a massive incendary raid with any other intention than to set off massive fires throughout a city, and that is no more targetting the docks or infastructure of London than the Allies were trying to hit the Dresden factories. Mostly targetting industrial targets my foot.

The allied perception was that the Germans had targetted civilians, not that the Germans simply accidently missed. Having had that experience they were fully justified in seeing if concentrated pressure might break the German morale and undermine life in Germany. We should not ignore this early period at all, the experiences of the British during that time helped shape the future campaigns of Bomber command, and helped to ensure that the civilians of Coventry, London and Liverpool (to name a few) would shed no tears for their counterparts in Hamburg, Dresden or Berlin. The view of many in this city was simply "good, now they'll know what its like to be on the recieving end".

But its difficult to tell what you think is justified or not since in one page you manage to denounce the use of reprisal attacks when its done by the allies, but approve it when its done by the Germans. Targetting civilians is either justifiable or not, you can't have it both ways.

 

[privatehudson]

C-G makes a very good point, but I think for the sake of ease those issues are usually lumped under morale. Certainly when I said Liverpool was percieved as being close to collapse it wasn't civilian morale that caused this statement as it remained high and defiant. It was rather that the infrastructure of the city was thought to have collapsed, and local efforts to keep the city going were believed to be failing.

 

[Adler17]

@Zardnaar:

I did never say anything about stopping the bomb war completely. But instead of attacking civilian quaters the command should have attacked refineries, traffic points, industrial targets. That did not happen since 1941/1942. Indeed there hits on factories were more like collateral damages. And that I attack.

@ C~G:
To break the morale is a valid aim. But to do that by bombing civilians is not. And even if there was no alternative that had to be abandoned at the point it was showing that it was useless. The morale wasn't broken. Indeed all chances of a revolution against the browns were destroyed. You can't do much while you are in bomb shelters. At this point the Allies had to abandon it finally. They didn't.
The nuking of a city had to be the ultima ratio. Even if war was lasting a month loger the other possibilities had to be taken. Japan could have surrendered, too when the bomb was used in the way I already explained. Thus it was a warcrime.

@ PH:
The first attack on civilians in the BoB occured by three lonely bombers, who missed their target and bombed the city of London. Then the British bombed Berlin and the whole thing escalated. However the main targets of both parties were at this point industrial or military ones. This was abandoned with the new strategy of targetting civilians by the British.
I also here never said that the bombings of Berlin or Coventry were okay though but as the general target were industries these exceptions are out of the discussion here about the British new strategy and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
About Dresden we already discussed long and I only say here you're wrong as again the civilians were targetted and the factories worked the next day.
The attacks on civilians are not justifiable. If the British attacked civilians however Germany had the right to do the same to stop the attacks. That is called reprisal. You don't keep the rules so I don't, too, until you come back to the rules. In so far the attacks with V2 were justified because of the British bombings on civilians.
If you argue, the morale was not broken in Liverpool but the infra structure nearly collapsed and this was known by the Bomber Command an attack on German civilians here is then even nearing the genocide crime as then the Germans as people should have been eradicated as much as possible!

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

The first attack on civilians in the BoB occured by three lonely bombers, who missed their target and bombed the city of London. Then the British bombed Berlin and the whole thing escalated. However the main targets of both parties were at this point industrial or military ones. This was abandoned with the new strategy of targetting civilians by the British.

You're totally missing my point Adler, which was that the perception was that the Germans already did start targetting civilians, and in a very real sense this was true. All the British believed they were doing was responding in kind in the only realistic way they could between 1941-44.

About Dresden we already discussed long and I only say here you're wrong as again the civilians were targetted and the factories worked the next day.

Did I say civilians were not targetted at Dresden? I believe I was saying that trying to firebomb a city is still targetting civilians, whether you succeed on the scale of Dresden, or on the scale of the night of the 29th December. If you're going to go around arguing that retaliation or reprisal is justified then the deliberate targetting of civilians on that night was more than enough justification for Bomber command to reply in kind.

The attacks on civilians are not justifiable. If the British attacked civilians however Germany had the right to do the same to stop the attacks. That is called reprisal. You don't keep the rules so I don't, too, until you come back to the rules. In so far the attacks with V2 were justified because of the British bombings on civilians.

That's an interesting argument since you also say that the Germans "not playing by the rules" (holocaust, slave labour etc) does not justify the British trying to stop them with bombing campaigns. Please don't try pointing out that the bombing campaigns obviously didn't stop the Germans from doing those things either, because the missile attacks didn't stop the RAF either but they still continued.

If you argue, the morale was not broken in Liverpool but the infra structure nearly collapsed and this was known by the Bomber Command an attack on German civilians here is then even nearing the genocide crime as then the Germans as people should have been eradicated as much as possible!

Not true, Liverpool's population was around a million at the time, 4000 is less than 1% of that figure. It wasn't population loss that caused the problems that the city faced but damage to its houses, infrastructure, daily life etc caused by the random and untargetted nature of the bombing. Although you can argue that Bomber Command would know that to increase the pressure on German cities would certainly increase the death toll its hard to argue that they initially believed it was going to be much higher. The first 1000 bomber raid for example is believed to have killed around 500 people - actually less than the worst night Liverpool suffered.

Co-incidentally the infrastructure in Liverpool probably wasn't about to collapse, with support from outside the region and lessons learnt from the first few nights the city was almost certainly going to be ok. The perception of outsiders however was a different matter entirely.

Besides, the British were not going to eradicate the German population or anything like that, just bomb them until the war ended. The killing of the German population by aerial bombing stopped at the end of the war, the only time the industrialised slaughter of the death camps was going to end was when the camps were captured, all the Jews and "undesirables" were dead or Himmler suddenly had the brainwave that they might be a hinderance to him negotiating peace with the allies (and even then the murder of inmates and death marches didn't stop).

 

[Stolen Rutters]

@Zardnaar:

I did never say anything about stopping the bomb war completely. But instead of attacking civilian quaters the command should have attacked refineries, traffic points, industrial targets. That did not happen since 1941/1942. Indeed there hits on factories were more like collateral damages. And that I attack.

@ C~G:
To break the morale is a valid aim. But to do that by bombing civilians is not. And even if there was no alternative that had to be abandoned at the point it was showing that it was useless. The morale wasn't broken. Indeed all chances of a revolution against the browns were destroyed. You can't do much while you are in bomb shelters. At this point the Allies had to abandon it finally. They didn't.
The nuking of a city had to be the ultima ratio. Even if war was lasting a month loger the other possibilities had to be taken. Japan could have surrendered, too when the bomb was used in the way I already explained. Thus it was a warcrime.

@ PH:
The first attack on civilians in the BoB occured by three lonely bombers, who missed their target and bombed the city of London. Then the British bombed Berlin and the whole thing escalated. However the main targets of both parties were at this point industrial or military ones. This was abandoned with the new strategy of targetting civilians by the British.
I also here never said that the bombings of Berlin or Coventry were okay though but as the general target were industries these exceptions are out of the discussion here about the British new strategy and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
About Dresden we already discussed long and I only say here you're wrong as again the civilians were targetted and the factories worked the next day.
The attacks on civilians are not justifiable. If the British attacked civilians however Germany had the right to do the same to stop the attacks. That is called reprisal. You don't keep the rules so I don't, too, until you come back to the rules. In so far the attacks with V2 were justified because of the British bombings on civilians.
If you argue, the morale was not broken in Liverpool but the infra structure nearly collapsed and this was known by the Bomber Command an attack on German civilians here is then even nearing the genocide crime as then the Germans as people should have been eradicated as much as possible!

Adler

I think I just figured something out. I looked up what ultima ratio meant and something clicked! In english, ratio is a measure of proportionality, so I missed entirely what you are trying to say. (For those of you following along, "ultima ratio" means "last resort", not "ultimate ratio", implying the complete opposite "unavoidable choice".)

Adler,
When you are evaluating your chances for victory in war, you have to weigh a lot of really undesirable choices. What ultimate decision you make at any given point is defined by your principles and by circumstances that inform those principles.

I just realized that none of your statements about what should be done or should not be done are weighed from the context of whether you are winning, but rather whether people are being hurt by your actions and whether they are able to fight back. Essentially, "What would Martin Luther King, Jr. do?" If you don't do as he would have done, you are judged a war criminal.

I think only Neville Chamberlain (sp), out of the allied leaders, tried to follow this philosophy. When Hitler didn't see the light and refused to stop his aggression and back out of Poland, Chamberlain was replaced by a more hawkish leadership, one that intended to fight back and win the war.

These are the people who weighed the decision to drop the bomb, not Chamberlain, not Martin Luther King. The entirety of my arguments in this thread have centered around the statement "I understand why they made this decision, and I partly agree with their principles. Therefore I actually think the decision was understandable given the context."

Today, you are right. A nuke is ultima ratio. Way too many negatives come from this weapon that it's effectively not even an option, even if the people who possess these weapons try to leave it on the table (like N. Korea) so they can use it as a bargaining chip. In 1945, this was not so. It was more like the "unavoidable choice", the one thing that would answer their prayers and finally end the Pacific war alot less painfully than all the other options they had available.

My last $0.02,
SR

 

[Adler17]

Ultima ratio is Latin and as Latin scholar and law student I made perhaps the mistake not to explain it the first time. It means indeed the last mean to use. However the question is indeed in how far there were other possibilities available. It was not completely known back then what terrible weapon it was. However it was assumed that the whole city would be destroyed. So they knew about the destruction, at least the first one (fallout excluded perhaps). Thus they had to use it still as the last mean to end the war. Even if that meant a delay of surrender by a month or so. Not doing so was ignoring the rules of warfare and thus a warcrime and crime against humanity. BTW John Bolton, ambassador by the UN, used this argument, that a careful reading of the International Penal Court would also classify Dresden and Hiroshima as war crimes and crimes against humanity. Thus he refused to sign that treaty! But that's another topic to discuss.

@PH: The holocaust did not start before the Wannseekonferenz in 1942, to a time where the new strategy was ordered, too. When they couldn't know about that. Also the bombings were never intended as reprisal in that kind. And to bomb German civilians and their living areas and supply is also damn near to a genocide.

However there is much spoken here. And all arguments are told. I suggest to stop here.

Adler