Was the RCAF's role in the bombing campaign of German cities justified during WWII?

[SUB]Hello World War 2 Forum,

I have to write an essay on this topic:

Was the RCAF's (Royal Canadian Air Force) role in the bombing campaign of Germany justified during World War 2?

While doing research on whether or not it was justified, I decided to visit this forum again (after 1 year of absence) and hear what you all had to say on this.

This is what I have been thinking so far:

On one hand, Germany did bomb Britain's cities intentionally during 'The Blitz' and killed tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians, and destroyed many homes, streets, and historical buildings. Later on in the war, the Germans did use the V1 and V2 rocket systems, which were unguided and could have hit anything. On the other hand however, the Germans never did bombard Canadian cities, nor did they show any sign of aggression directly towards them as far as I know. However, I do know that German U- Boats did prowl the St. Lawrence River, which is in Canada. While they were there, they sank a few ships, and could have possibly killed a few people who were on the ships.

I'm sure that Germany realized that if they were going to wage a war with Britain, that they would expect to fight Britain's ex colonies such as Canada, Australia, NewZealand, etc.

And even though after the Battle of Britain ended and the allied Air Forces began bombing German cities, my research says that their intentions were to destroy factories and other targets with militaristic value, not innocent civilians and their homes. But such is what happened during the war, and millions of civilians were killed in between 1939 and 1945. I also understand that aerospace technology, even though it must have made leaps and bounds during the war, was not as advanced and as precise as what is currently available today.

Please make a contribution to this thread as I would like and appreciate to hear your opinions on this matter. Also, please let me know if anything I have said is inaccurate or wrong.

Thank you very much,

Screaming_Eagle:ac_p51b:


[/SUB]

 

Until 1968, Canadian passports stated "British subject" on the cover, so not really "ex" colonies. There was an obligation to come to the aid of Mother England. CBC has online footage of thousands of Canadians at recruit stations. The same can be said for Australia and NZ.

Besides the RCAF 6 Group of Bomber Command, thousands of Canadian airmen flew on secondment in RAF squadrons.

One can look at the events of WWII with eyes from the 21st century but it is much harder to judge.

Good luck with your essay.

 

Thank you for the information alieneyes,

I agree that it is harder to judge now than back in the time. I was not there, so I could not experience anything, and thus without any research I would end up writing it from a 21st century view. That is why I am trying to gather as much information before I start writing.
My textbook says that Canada was expected to come to Britain's aid whenever it went into war. However, it also says that Canadians were hesitant to sign up for various reasons. In the end though, 1.1 million Canadians contributed to the cause and 43,000 young men lost their lives.

 

If they had bombed Toronto into rubble but not any other province, should the people in Winnipeg or Halifax consider that an attack on them?
Many people (excluding Quebec) did not distinguish between "Canada" and "Britain", we were all "British Empire"


What side of the question do you wish to write?
I can give you answers for and against both arguments.

 

Hi freebird,

Thanks for your response. I would prefer to write on the 'yes it was justified' side because both you and alieneyes have said that Canadians were loyal to the cause and that there was no distinction between 'Canadian' and 'Briton', it was just 'British Empire'.

However, it would be nice to know that arguments on the 'no' side as well.

Thank you for your help,

Screaming Eagle

 

From my own point of view, a case could be made against the massive effort of the bombing campaign simply because it was arguably ineffective at reducing German production. The German's production of tanks & aircraft peaked in 1944 (by a huge margin too) despite the most intense year of bombing. Had the British Empire used production in 1941-42 to build up their air forces instead of giving the lion's share to Bomber Command, they might have had a far better performance at Gazala, Singapore etc.


However, if favor of the bombing campaign, it did tie up a large portion of the German Luftwaffe & manpower (to man AA defences, firefighters etc), which otherwise could have been used in attacking the Soviets.

The British & Canadians knew that they had to prevent the Soviets from being defeated if Hitler was to be stopped, and they really had zero chance of making a major land contribution in 41-42, besides a small effort in Libya/Egypt. With only 3 - 5 German divisions in Africa in the first 15 months following Barbarossa it wouldn't make much of a dent in the German war effort in the Soviet Union. The best option was to tie up as many German troops & aircraft in the west as possible, to help the Soviets hang on during the first year or two.

Also the RCAF was part of the Allied war effort, and as such couldn't be questioning every decision by the war cabinet. Some military leaders & polititians didn't agree with Churchill's plan to intervene in Greece, strategies in the Far East etc, but once the choice is made it has to be done in unison, otherwise squabbling will break out over every move or plan.

You can argue that the RCAF (and the RAF) squadrons were never directly instructed to kill civilians, nor were the pilots & aircrew given these instructions. They were given targets to attack, and tried to destroy as much of the military support infrastructure as possible. Sadly, most of the production facilities, railyards, ports were near civilian areas.

 

I'm not going to be drawn into the whole 'morality of area bombing' debate yet again - it's been argued on here ad infinitum.

But comments above are correct - not just Canadians, but also Australians, New Zealanders, Rhodesians, South Africans, Jamaicans and others fought in the RAF as part of the war effort of the British Empire. The reasons behind the creation of 6 Group were quite complex ; the upper echelons of the RAF were against the idea which originated in Ottowa where political chiefs saw the Group as a symbol of an emerging, independent Canada.

A very good source of information about 6 Group is the excellent book 'Reap The Whirlwind' by Spencer Dunmore and William Carter, first published in Canada in 1991.

For myself, I do feel that the efforts of all the 'Empire' countries, especially in the bombing campaign, have tended to be overlooked. So many of those young men died a very long way from home.

 

Thank you for your help,

I will definitely look into that book that was suggested to me.

Freebird, those are great points and I will definitely use them in my assignment.

Thank you very much,

Screaming Eagle

 

Since the RCAF was really part of the RAF they really can't be separated. Any justification would have to be equally shared. Well, war is war and it's not pretty. Therefore I propose we look at two different questions. First question: Did the bombing achieve its stated objective which was to bring the Germans to their knees? The answer to that is obviously, NO. Second question: Did the bombing materially help the Allies win the war against Germany? This question is a little harder to answer. Certainly, as Freebird wrote, it helped in the sense that a whole lot of air assets had to be assigned to counter the British effort. For example, it's been noted many times that all the 88mm guns stationed in Germany could have been used very productively on the East Front against the hordes of Soviet tanks. Also the men and airplanes used to counter the British air offensive might have been decisive elsewhere. Certainly, German industry was damaged in the campaign, but the effects varied from raid to raid. Air planners before and during the war didn't understand how quickly damage could be repaired and mitigated. So, a lot of the damage was tranistory, resulting in a slowdown of production but little total cessation of that production. There was also the case for collateral damage. An example would be that a bombed chemical plant in Berlin would have repercussions in several industries.

Another point that needs to be brought up is the bombing's effects on morale, both in the UK and Germany. In the beginning, the only way the Brits had to hit back was in the air. Their ground forces were too weak and the RN was inpractical to use. I'm sure bombing Germany gave the British people some satisfaction after being bombed themselves. The effects on German morale were probably mixed. In the beginning there was dismay, but German propaganda quickly used the bombing to harden German resistance. This resistance stayed strong even in the face of war-weariness. If there was any lesson from the airwar in WW2 it was that indiscriminate bombing is counterproductive in destroying an enemy's morale.

Against all of this, one has to weigh the cost and the cost was high, both in blood and treasure. Each bomber had a crew of roughly 8 men and when one of these went down all eight were lost even if they parachuted to safety. Not to mention the fact that much of the bombing, especially in the first two years was wildly inaccurate. Accuracy improved during the war but the problems of inaccurate bombs was always there.

In my opinion, with 20/20 hindsight, I would say that the bombing WAS profitable for the Allied cause, but only "just". Certainly, it didn't have the effect that the USAAF's bombing had toward the end of the war and to this day it is controversial. This may not be what you were looking for, if not, I apologize.

 

Hi harolds,

Thank you very much for your input, I do appreciate it! I agree with what you have written. I might point out the fact that many Canadian flyers were in British squadrons, and that the RAF and RCAF cannot really be separated from each other like you have said.

I also agree that the Brits could only really hit back from the air after Dunkirk and during the campaigns in Africa.

Thanks once again.

 

GIVEN THE HUGE NUMBER AND INFLUENCE OF SCOTS AND SCOTLAND ON CANADA I DOUBT IF MANY R.C.A.F. MEMBERS of Caledonian ancestry IN WW 2 thought they were just fighting for ''Mother England''!
Also, the ''Canadian cities were not bombed line'' is a total red herring that has no vaidity because it simply never arose as an issue among Canadians who flocked to suporrt ''Mother Great Britain'' in 1939.

 

The same could be said about Quebec. They nonetheless joined in, regarless their ancestors, and fought for our liberty. Whether their ancestors were Scots, English or French (or any other nationality), we are grateful to the Canadians for their commitment. One RCAF airman is buried only meters away from my home and his ancestors were from Finland.

 

I must thank all of you who provided me with information about this controversial topic. I finished my assignment and I feel that I did a really good job on it! So thanks very much all of you!

Duns Scotus,

I agree that there many Scottish people in Canada at the time of WWII, and I am sure that it was one of the many reasons why hundreds of thousands of young Canadians joined up to fight the Nazi Regime. I would also like to point out the fact that a huge number of Canadians were also from Germany itself (especially in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba), yet the men who joined to fight were probably thinking more about the once young nation that they were brought up in- Canada. I feel that most Canadians fought for Canada and to protect their families, even if they chance of them being endangered was low.

Skipper basically summed up what I said, so thanks very much for that! Thanks for posting the information about the RCAF airman. I am filled with pride when I hear stories like that.

 

My answer to this is the same one I gave on the same subject in an earlier thread posted in March 2010. It was:

"I find it interesting that the only country in Europe where the issue of the morality of Allied bombing arises (and it constantly does) concerns only the bombing of Germany.
My father was an RCAF Navigator who was attached to RAF Squadrons on his two tours of duty in 1943 & 44. When I look at the 90 bombing operations he flew on, only 40 of them were to targets in Germany. The other 50 were into France, Holland & Belgium. Those Nazi-occupied countries he bombed 50 times lost tens of thousands of their own civilians to Allied bombing but instead of their citizens regarding those airmen as murderers they treated them as heros, often risking their own lives to protect them and help them escape. To this day they meticulously maintain thousands of small memorials to the airmen killed in and over their countries because they died helping them defeat a common and brutal enemy. It seems the morality issue of Allied bombing depends mostly on which side of the German border you lived at the time. To the Germans they were terror-fliers, to the French, Dutch, Belgians, Danish, British, Canadians, Americans and many others they were and still are heros."

Regards
Dave Wallace ​