Sir Arthur Harris-Chief of Bomber Command-War Criminal?

Your opinion does not seem to be consistent with international law.

 

See thread "Stalin responsible for Hitler's conquests". Feel free to participate...

 

I did not start this thread, simply answered the question given. I'm not about to start a law case against anybody. Still my opinion and the reasons for it are clear.

The law and/or the convictions are not always totally same as rightness.

As somebody else already proofed the aim was ALSO to target the civilians.

As above.

So you're saying that bombing the civilians was actually an act of mercy? Hardly.

I think they were different.

Crimes against humanity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See Nuremberg trials: "Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated"

 

As I wrote before the collateral casualties are understandable, not even trying to avoid the civilians but purposefully aiming them is not.

As above and my earlier post.

Of course it doesn't, I'm not a lawyer. My previous post had a link and a reference.

 

The difference is the Germans were seeking to extreminate races and the British were seeking to end a war. The British did not keep killing Germans after the occupation. If there had been a way to actually hit the factories by bombing it would have been done, but since it was not possible and there was a need to hit the Germans it was decided that civillian losses were acceptable.

 

Indeed in individual cases there can be considerable difference between what is legal and what is just. However without the legal framework justice in general would suffer.

That's not quite right. The target was civilian moral in the defence industries via attacks on the plants and their housing. Of course the latter was going to happen even if only the plants were targeted given the CEP of heavy bombers of the time.

No that's not what I said. I simply pointed out that your assumption may be flawed. Certainly in the case of Japan the civilian casualties would have been greater.

While the US officially targeted military and industrial targets with "precision" bombing the precision was lacking and the results differed little from the British bombing. So how much real difference was there?

[/quote]
That is not very helpful. Indeed it's essentially the same as you just stating he was guilty of crimes against humanity. You need to state which specific parts apply and why. For instance murder is by defintion unlawful killing, if as has been fairly well demostrated here Harris was working within the framework of the conventions of warfare then it wasn't murder so he's not guilty.

And it has not been shown that there were deliberate attempts to kill or wound civilians. So the "purposefully aiming" part is still an open issue.

 

You're right: the difference is in the aim!
There was a tragic paradox: more precise bombing meant more collateral victims among enslaved laborers in the Nazi factories.

 

Less we forget !

On this day, 67 years ago today, a dear brother Jack Goldstein, was killed over Nuremberg.

The story of his last flight may be seen here:

Churchyard Bud

Ron

 

My thoughts are with your brother Mister Goldstein! Blue skies and fair winds!

 

My thoughts are with the 48.000+ fallen Raf airmen. A special thought for Jack Goldstein goes without saying .

 

The target was civilian moral also by killing them (the civilians), unless otherwise proven. By choosing nigth bombings it was also chosen, that the civilians were to be the main targets, since hitting any military/industrial targets was only accidental.

Logically also the bombings of Japanese cities were war crimes, although I totally agree, that the a-bombs actually limited the number of civilian casualties.

I agree that the US precision bombing was not that precise. However the day time "precision" bombings at least had some hope of hitting the targets, the night raids didn't - and that was well known and accepted.

The real difference is in the way of thinking.

As I wrote before I'm not a lawyer - and can't see why I should be one. My quote clearly stated, that murdering civilians is a war crime. There is nothing unclear in that and that law was used to Germans of that very same war.

Aiming civilians on purpose means that they are murdered. I am perfectly aware that there are plenty of people with explanations why this is not so. I do not agree with them.

Maybe it is an open issue for you. For me it isn't. For me it is totally clear that if you decide to carpet bomb a city by night knowing, that your chances of hitting anything else but the civilians are very minimal, your attemp indeed is to kill and wound the civilians.

 

This thread is becoming very boring. Two people arguing in a pub.

 

Ahhh..now the atomic bombing....three people arguing in a pub....Mines a taxi...

 

This? A rant? No it isn't?

[video=youtube;kQFKtI6gn9Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/video]

 

I'm used to a justice system based on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" that looks more like "guilty until proven innocent". In any case the targets were stated to be industrial with civilian moral being one of the vulnerabilities. In no way does that mean that the death of civilians was intended although it pretty clearly indicates that it was acceptable.

Nope. If I'm throwing darts at a dart board and do so blind folded the dart board is still the main target even though my p(h) is quite low.

Wrong again. Even more so in this case as the Japanese distributed their industry throughout residential areas. According to current conventions they (the Japanese) would actually be the ones that were guilty of a war crime if it was intentional.

Quite the contrary. The night time raids did indeed have "some hope" of hitting the targets and indeed do so.

If you are talking about mine vs yours I'm beginning to think you are correct.

That's a bit of an oxymoron though. What you haven't shown and what is very questionable is whether or not Harris was responsible for murdering civilians.

Indeed but the case was made that their actions were indeed murder and again no Germans were convicted of acting in a fashion similar to Harris which rather implies that act was not considered murder.

You have however yet to show that civilians were aimed at on purpose. Surely they were within the target areas but that doesn't mean that they were the target. Furthermore as the war went on the allies even dropped leaflets warning the civilians of air raids. This clearly suggest that they were not the targets.

Carpet bombing a city is almost guaranteed to hit a lot more than civilians. If there are legitmate targets in the city and during WWII if it were defended the attempt was legitimate and it most definitely does not mean that the civilians were indeed the target. You may be of that opinion but an opinion that is not well supported by logic and fact isn't worth a whole lot.

 

Well "The prof" Lord Cherwell argued that overthrow the workers' houses wasn´t a by-product... later the RAF stated the bombing campaing would produce 900.000 civil victims ...(Bomber Command - Max Hastings) that the houses and the civil population were targets should be out of discussion ... Harris applied the guidelines their superiors had established:

The enemy was Nazi Germany, and it seemed much stronger than it actually was... It was a desperate decision.

 

A criminal is someone who breaks a law. What law did Harris break?

On the contrary, the lesson the British took from German attacks was that area bombing cities was far more effective than "precision" attacks on factories.

Here's a letter from Herschel Johnson, a US diplomat, to his secretary of state, written after the attack on Coventry:

This is from a Ministry of Aircraft briefing to the War Cabinet following Coventry:

From another War Cabinet report on the Coventry raid:

That was the British experience of German bombing. Loss of output was greater from damage to housing and utilities than from direct damage to factories.

Yes, Britain was fortunate that the Luftwaffe dropped most of their bombs in Russia. Soviet losses to bombing were around 500,000.

Before the RAF bombed Hamburg, 9,400 people worked at Blohm und Voss shipyard. The day after the firestorm, 300 people showed up for work. on 1 September, more than 1 month later, 5,000 were back at work. On 1 November, more than 3 months after the raid, the total was 7,500. In Hamburg as a whole, 634,000 people worked in military industries before the bombing. More than 2 months after, on 1 October, the total was down to 331,000.

Bombing the city itself reduced production in every factory in and around the city. In a particularly successful raid like Hamburg, the reduction was permanent. After 5 months Hamburg was back to 80% of its pre raid production levels. It never surpassed them, even thought the rest of Germany saw massive production increases.

The strategy was not to kill civilians. That would have been immensely wasteful. About 3% of the population of Hamburg was killed. If production had fallen by 3% the raids would have been a colossal failure. As it was those 3% killed translated into a drop of 50% or so of production.

You're wrong on 2 counts there. Firstly "precision" was certainly possible at night. Second, the US frequently carried out deliberate area bombing of German cities.

Yes, he did. This again was a direct result of the British experience of German bombing. (the orders for Coventry stated that "wiping out workers housing will hamper reconstruction")

Note, however, that Cherwell was arguing for attacking housing, not people:

 

This is not a court of law and I'm still not a lawyer or a prosecutor, who has to show enough evidence for a conviction. This is conversation platform, where people can express their argumented opinions. This I have done.

As I wrote before, it has been presented here (by somebody else) how bombing the civilians was (one of the) targets. Surely you have read it? When bombing residential areas for "affecting civilian moral" it is obvious, that masses of civilians are to get killed. I call this murder.

But they were not aiming only the board as a target. The aim was the hole wall - not only the small board.

As before: targetting the hole city without even trying to avoid the civilians is a war crime. I agree with you with your last sentence.

Ok then, they did have "some" hope, but still it was mainly the civilians by far, who got the vast majority of the bombs. The concept of night raids intentionally accepted this.

Actually I was not, but think you are still right...

Maybe he was not the only one, but he definitely actively supported it. Therfore he was (also) responsible.

Indeed the Germans were not convicted for civilian bombings. Maybe it was because they were already convicted for other types of crimes or maybe they were not prosecuted, because they could have defended themselves by accusing the allies for the very same thing. Obviously this was not what the allied wanted...

I think I have done it already - and not only me. If the target area is the hole city then the civilians ARE the target.

This is interesting! When (from which date onwards) were the warning leaflets dropped? Were they dropped before EVERY city bombing? If the civilians were warned, then those particular bombings were not war crimes IMHO.

True, but they still hit MAINLY the civilians. As I wrote before bombing the HOLE city automatically means, that the civilians will be the main targets, whether one accepts it or not.

This indeed is my opinion which has been (well) supported by logic. It is obvious that you cannot see it. For me it isn't worth a whole lot...

 

Crimes against humanity.

As far as I have understood the Germans lost the BoB, because they chanced their bombing targets from the RAF airfields and radar stations to cities. The moral of the British people was not crushed by residential bombings. Have I misunderstood something?

I think bombings of German cities were reasoned by losses of the British civilians - not soviet.

The Germans learned from the bombings of their cities. New factories were founded on new, rural and hidden locations. The old, destroyed ones were often not repaired - at least not totally. Therefore comparing the figures before and after do not give the hole picture. After all the German production increased during the hole war - the last months not included.

Sure it was possible, but the "precision" was even less so than at day light - meaning it was not very precise at all

True. My (obviously not accurate enough) comment meant, that the US tried more to be precise.

 

Indeed but words have generally accepted meanings and your opinions seam to require redefineing a number of words. In general I don't see the purpose of boards such as these being to state opinions. I see them as being for reasoned discourse. If I wanted to listen to uninformed opinions I could always listen to talk radio.

I have yet to see anything that indicates that the intent of the bombings was to kill civilians. That was viewed as unavoidable and acceptable in goinog after legitimate targets. You may call it "murder" but the common defintion of "murder" is extra legal killing. Since the evidence points to this not being the case said evidence points to your opinion being flawed.

There is no evidence of this and indeed there is considerable evidence to the contrary.

Not by the conventions of the time.

Since you are usilng a flawed defintion of murder your assumption is fallacious as are your conclusions.

Very few in the LW were convicted of any warcrims from what I recall (not an expert so may be wrong in this regard). The principle of retaliation in kind would have been one defence of the allies in this case but in reality by the conventions of the time is was legal so there was little hope of a conviction in any case.

In most, indeed all cases I'm aware of, specfic industries, logistics networks, or military facilities were listed as the actual target. The civilians were not.

Here's an article on the leaflet drop and raido warnings just prior to the atomic bombs:
WW2: America Warned Hiroshima and Nagasaki Citizens • Damn Interesting
This link mentions the radio warning starting in 1944 America's warning to the people of Hiroshima, August 1, 1945

I'd like to see some evidence that this is the case. Remembering the accounts I've read I suspect the bombs mostly hit roads, buildings and vacant lots.

No it does not. If the bombs are likely to be scattered over the whole city it means civilians are indeed likely to be hit but it doesn't mean that they are the main target. To use the dart analogy again when you trying to get a maximum score you aim for the tripple 20 sector. Now when you have my skill level you will miss it a lot more than you hit it but that doesn't mean the entire board is the target.

The main flaw has been in your assumptions rather than your logic but flawed assumptions even with decent logic don't lead to well supported conclusions. You made up your mind what the answer was and can't seem to accept that the support for it just isn't there.