Were the Allied bombings of civilian targets during WW2 a war crime?

[Ancient Grudge]

This is absolutely disgusting! I see no diference between author of this post and some neo-nazi fools who are denying holocaust or other atrocities. Although we were invaded by both Germans and Russians, I would NEVER advocate killing of their civilians in order to take revenge on them. It's like if some murderer killed your brother and your revenge would be killing of his family.

That might be disgusting but its the truth, the Germans unleashed the horrors on the world so they should of expected retaliation.
And yes if my sibling was killed i would want the murderers family to suffer, its human nature.

While criminal by todays standards in the 40's I don't think it was a crime as the German civilians directly or indirectly supported the war effort. Also by the time the Allied bombing campaign got into full swing numerous European cities had been bombed by the Germans 1st.

The Nazis got what they deserved.
The Germans got what they deserved.

In some ways it was a good thing as such tactics have never been repeated on that scale and German militarism has been a non issue for the last 60 odd years.

Completely agree.

 

[carlosMM]

And yes if my sibling was killed i would want the murderers family to suffer, its human nature.

an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth...... I thought we had developed beyond that Isn't that what people always brag about? Having left he OT behind?

 

[Verbose]

The logic seems to be:
'They got bombed, which proves it was necessary. They wouldn't have been bombed if it wasn't necessary in the first place, right?'

The question isn't if it was necessary to defeat Nazism, but what means were justified to use in the process.

 

[Winner]

That might be disgusting but its the truth, the Germans unleashed the horrors on the world so they should of expected retaliation.
And yes if my sibling was killed i would want the murderers family to suffer, its human nature.

So you would kill people who have nothing to do with the murder of your sibling.

That's completely beyond my understanding

 

[Panzerking]

I don't think it is right to judge these events using the standards and liberalism of today. There has never been a war of the same magnitude since 1945. None of the Allies have ever been threatened in the same way since. After France fell the UK stood alone for a long time as Europe was conquered and the US was attacked and under threat from a huge expansionist Japanese Empire. The governments of Britain and America knew that if this war was not won then freedom, democracy and basic human morality was over. It is worth remembering that, with so many troops and resources involved, had the D-Day operation failed then Great Britain would have been totally unprotected and open to attack from Nazi Germany and the USA would exist in a world of Nazi German-Domination. The stakes were high and at the time it was viewed that anything that made the Allies stronger and their enemies weaker was acceptable. Now the war has been won it is very easy to question the methods employed and criticise the ferocity of the fighting.

 

[Winner]

I don't think it is right to judge these events using the standards and liberalism of today. There has never been a war of the same magnitude since 1945. None of the Allies have ever been threatened in the same way since. After France fell the UK stood alone for a long time as Europe was conquered and the US was attacked and under threat from a huge expansionist Japanese Empire. The governments of Britain and America knew that if this war was not won then freedom, democracy and basic human morality was over. It is worth remembering that, with so many troops and resources involved, had the D-Day operation failed then Great Britain would have been totally unprotected and open to attack from Nazi Germany and the USA would exist in a world of Nazi German-Domination. The stakes were high and at the time it was viewed that anything that made the Allies stronger and their enemies weaker was acceptable. Now the war has been won it is very easy to question the methods employed and criticise the ferocity of the fighting.

So the allies decided not to wait so long and buried the basic morality themselves.

WW2 ended 60 years ago, so now is the right time to face its legacy. We must admit, that the "good guys" also did pretty terrible things.

 

[Panzerking]

So the allies decided not to wait so long and buried the basic morality themselves.

WW2 ended 60 years ago, so now is the right time to face its legacy. We must admit, that the "good guys" also did pretty terrible things.

They most definitely did but as I said they were under immense pressure to win and the alternative was unthinkable. Very easy for us to sit around in peacetime and judge those fighting for what we take for granted. This particular conflict showed the horrors of war and IMO is a major factor in why there has been realtive peace among the major powers of the world since.

 

[Verbose]

I don't think it is right to judge these events using the standards and liberalism of today.

There have been plenty of treaties since the 19th c. regulating warfare. If anything we are more tolerant of the destructiveness of warfare today than they were back then. (Two world wars.)

The bombing campaigns that resulted in Dresden etc. were problematic according to the treatises and standards of the day. They can be judged according to these. (I'm no friend of anacronistically meeting out blame under ordinary circumstances.)

It still boils down to a question if Nazism was an ill that had to be cured by any means avilable, no matter how radical.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

What do you think about this topic? IMO according to todays standards, intentional bombing of civilian targets in order to kill enemy civilians to disrupt morale of the enemy is called terrorism.

These air raids killed more than 500,000 (real number is higher) people in German cities, with no effect on enemy morale.

In your opinion - was that justifiable?

EDIT: The same bombing took place also in Japan, including two nuclear attacks. The rough numbers are about 100,000 japanese civilians dead after conventional air raid on Tokyo, 275,000 dead after atomic bombing. I don't know the overall number of Japanese civilian casaulties caused by American air strikes.

As far as I'm concerned, war is war. You can't fight a war half-assed and expect results. In fact, going out of one's way to avoid civilian targets only threatens the lives of your own soldiers. I believe it's a waste of time and resources to bombard civilian targets (it's the military ones that can wage war, after all), but sometimes desperate times call for desperate actions. I only consider civilian death during war a war crime when it's done for the expressed purpose of killing them, rather than for the war effort itself.

As far as the air raids of WW2 go, how do you know that they had no effect on German morale? Did you ask the people of Dresden how they felt before and after those bombings? Truthfully, I can't imagine that it did have much effect, because by the time they happened, German morale was already pretty low (they were losing). Your own statements betray that point. Obviously, the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshim and Nagasaki DID have an effect on morale. The Japanese were still ready to fight on, although they had almost no military force left, but the destruction of two of their cities convinced them to stop.

 

[Winner]

As far as I'm concerned, war is war. You can't fight a war half-assed and expect results. In fact, going out of one's way to avoid civilian targets only threatens the lives of your own soldiers. I believe it's a waste of time and resources to bombard civilian targets (it's the military ones that can wage war, after all), but sometimes desperate times call for desperate actions. I only consider civilian death during war a war crime when it's done for the expressed purpose of killing them, rather than for the war effort itself.

So do I, in this context.

As far as the air raids of WW2 go, how do you know that they had
no effect on German morale?

Well, actually they had - Germans were than much more willing to fight. They wanted "revenge" for this killing.

Did you ask the people of Dresden how they felt before and after those bombings?

That is pretty irrelevant, because in the times of Dresden raid, was was almost over. There was no need to break their morale.

Truthfully, I can't imagine that it did have much effect, because by the time they happened, German morale was already pretty low (they were losing).

I wouldn't say that. Germans kept fighting to the bitter end, even in encircled Berlin, without any chance, they fought (but I admit that was because they feared Russians much more than Allies).

Your own statements betray that point. Obviously, the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshim and Nagasaki DID have an effect on morale. The Japanese were still ready to fight on, although they had almost no military force left, but the destruction of two of their cities convinced them to stop.

This thread is supposed to be rather about the conventional raids. Nuclear bomb was a weapon nobody was prepared for, so it's obvious it caused a great shock. My question regarding nuclear bomb is - was it really necessary to drop a-bombs on densely populated cities, causing so much suffering and death?

 

[Panzerking]

That is pretty irrelevant, because in the times of Dresden raid, was was almost over. There was no need to break their morale.

Classic. How did the Allies know the war was nearly over????

They didn't, sure they had experienced some victorious battles but no-one could know it was almost over. This is what I meant by judging these events years after in peacetime.

 

[Winner]

That is pretty irrelevant, because in the times of Dresden raid, was was almost over. There was no need to break their morale.

Classic. How did the Allies know the war was nearly over????

Maybe because the frontlines collapsed and the Allied/Soviet troops were advancing into Germany almost unopposed?

 

[Terje]

had the D-Day operation failed then Great Britain would have been totally unprotected and open to attack from Nazi Germany and the USA would exist in a world of Nazi German-Domination.

Uh, wasn't the Nazis being driven back in the east at the time of D-Day?


As for the topic, my opinion is that all killing of civilians is a war crime, no matter if the "civilians are aiding the war effort". If you look at a civilians role during war from several different perspectives, there's always a perspective where the civilian can be said to aid the war effort, no matter how indirectly.

Also, the commiting of a war crime must be percieved as a single event. If you burn 600,000 men, women, and children to death, it's a war crime, no matter what their government has done previous to the bombing. It must be seen as a separate event, because if you don't, you can always twist events into looking like they weren't war crimes, and then the concept no longer has any meaning, except as a tool for propagendists.

 

[Winner]

Also, the commiting of a war crime must be percieved as a single event. If you burn 600,000 men, women, and children to death, it's a war crime, no matter what their government has done previous to the bombing. It must be seen as a separate event, because if you don't, you can always twist events into looking like they weren't war crimes, and then the concept no longer has any meaning, except as a tool for propagendists.

That's exactly what I mean.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Maybe because the frontlines collapsed and the Allied/Soviet troops were advancing into Germany almost unopposed?

You're joking surely, the advance by the Soviets into Nazi Germany can hardly be called unopposed.

And yes i would actually, they bred the one that would of killed my sibling, socialised him, so yeah they have everythign to do with it.

 

[Longasc]

This is quite old! Even the arguments are the same.

I would simply dig up Hiroshima and Dresden Bombing threads.
A lot of persons posted their opinions, and I still think lowly of many posters.

They really need to experience some atomic bombs or level bombing, as a lot of these arseholes are again posting in this thread.

 

[Zardnaar]

This is quite old! Even the arguments are the same.

I would simply dig up Hiroshima and Dresden Bombing threads.
A lot of persons posted their opinions, and I still think lowly of many posters.

They really need to experience some atomic bombs or level bombing, as a lot of these arseholes are again posting in this thread.

I'm not an arsehole though right? The bombing sucked and I hope it never happens again (espicially with nukes) and I can understand how Addler and Longasc are angry at the way some posters respond- including me probably. A good arguement could be made the war could have been won without the bombing. However it I think it is beyond a doubt that:

1. The bombing shortened the war. Although German production rose they had massive shortages of fuel and other materials as they couldn't transport the reliably. How many lives were saved if the war had lasted another 6 months? The Holocaust could have been completed. In effect the German civilians died so that allied soldiers and occupied Europeans could live.

2. If Hitler had the capacity to carpet bomb Allied cities would he? The evidence suggests so- the Blitz 1940, Stalingrad 42, Warsaw 39 etc etc. These cities were also bombed before the allied bombing campaign was in full swing.

3. While an eye for an eye tooth for a tooth is a primitive idea how would any wartime leader be able to face his nation and say "They bombed us but we won't bomb them back because we're the nice guys". What was a realistic alternative?
While its easy to blame Hitler in 43 it was clear that Germany was either going to lose the war or pay a huge price- Stalingrad, Kursk, 1000 bomber raids. If they had surrendered then they would have avoided most of the bombing. Also the German population and Army for the most part supported Hitler up until the end. It may not be fair to blame the Germans as we don't know how hard(impossable?) it would have been to remove the Nazis from power and in war the population tends to rally around the flag no matter who is in charge. However its not really fair we judge the Allied bombing campaign by 2005 standards and technology. The didn't have the precision bombing technology to target railroads or refinerys etc and in alot of cases hitting the correct city was a challenge.

Even at the time I think they knew it was wrong- Bomber Harris for example had numerous falling outs with the higher ups. I don't think they had any realistic alternative- why not bomb back if they bomb you 1st? In war however the 1st casualty is truth the 2nd is probably morality.

If any posters can contradict my 3 ponts in a signifigant way I may reconsider. The Allies weren't angels by any stretch of the imagination but alot of the anti bombing arguements are also the same ones people like David Irving and other holocaust deniers/neo nazi groups use as well- Germany suffered, Churchill was evil etc.

 

[Longasc]

If you think you are an *******, you probably are.

And as you are an *******, you again start covering everything with **** and call this a discussion.

Feel free to look into the mirror if you want to talk with an arse.

Of course you were among the arseholes I mentioned, what did you think?

 

[eyrei]

Moderator Action: Longasc. 3 days for flaming. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Verbose]

1. The bombing shortened the war. [...] How many lives were saved if the war had lasted another 6 months? The Holocaust could have been completed. In effect the German civilians died so that allied soldiers and occupied Europeans could live.

2. If Hitler had the capacity to carpet bomb Allied cities would he? The evidence suggests so- the Blitz 1940, Stalingrad 42, Warsaw 39 etc etc. These cities were also bombed before the allied bombing campaign was in full swing.

3. While an eye for an eye tooth for a tooth is a primitive idea how would any wartime leader be able to face his nation and say "They bombed us but we won't bomb them back because we're the nice guys". What was a realistic alternative?

1. There were plenty of military targets to bomb in Germany. Harris 1000 bomb raids could have been used for other things than deep-frying civilians and for all we know, that might have shortened the war even more. He certainly had to fight other commanders who wanted the RAF to chuck high explosives at other stuff. And considering that his concept of breaking German civilian moral by bombing wasn't successful, well maybe his tactics even prolonged the war?

2. So Hitler wasn't worse than the Allies where bomb warfare is concerned? That's overwhelmingly likely, but hardly of an argument in defense of things like Dresden. No one would have disputed that it was a war crime if a Luftwaffe fleet of heavy bombers had incinerated Newcastle.

3. The realistic alternative was to use the bombers to hit other kinds of targets of course — military, industrial etc. As for the propaganda value of the raids, government controlled what the public was told. Not using the 1000 bombers at all might be hard to explain to them in the long run, but using them for other things than against civilians would hardly have needed an explanation in the first place.

Nothing forced the Allies to adopt the doctrine of carpet bombing urban population centres. They chose to do so. Which is partly why this is so problematic. There never was sufficient reason for it. Harris' ideas could perhaps have been justified if they had led to spectacular success, but they were failures.