The Allied Bomber Offensive

*BUMP* for Izaak...

 

Some of you might be surprised(from my previous posts) that I do not leap to the defense of the Allies for bombing civilian centers.
I refrain from judging them for doing so because they had difficult decisions to make without the luxury of knowing how things would turn out. Put another way, it was not a sure thing that the Allies would win and the future of the world was riding on their decisions.
I also don't think there is need for atonement nor hand-wringing over the actions taken to end the war.
That being said; with the benefit of 20:20 hinsight.. IMO it was a mistake. We (the Allies) lost the moral high ground with these campaigns (especially bombing Germany).
The war could have been won without terror bombing of cities (though they weren't so sure of this)

At least when it comes to bombing Japan there is one saving grace; it worked. It ended the Japanese resistance. The invasion of Japan would have been far more terrible, of this there is no doubt.

 

You say that the war would have been won without the Allied bomber offensive? Perhaps. But I disagree with your opinion of the Allied raids as "Terror bombing of cities", nor do I think the Allies lost any "moral high ground" in carrying out the attacks. However much we may dislike Sir Arthur Harris's tactics of night area bombing as being too indiscriminate for our tastes, the fact remains that Germany initiated such raids first. How much sympathy for those killed in the German cities do you think would be felt by those killed in German raids on Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, Valetta, or London? Or by the survivors of those raids? It has long been traditional in war for one side to copy the other the instant anything even resembling an atrocity (from their point of view) is committed; "reaping what one has sown" is the name usually given this process. In other words, don't start doing something in a war unless you are fully prepared to pay the price for doing so. And the USAAF daylight raids were aimed at precise military targets, although I have no doubt that many German civilians died in them, too, since the state of the art in bombin accuracy in those days left something to be desired. But they were hardly terror raids. And you viewpoint overlooks one salient point: for a long time, the bomber offensive was the only way the Western Allies had to strike directly at Germany itself. So it was inevitable and necessary that the raids took place. And the resources the Germans were obliged to deploy against the raids definitely helped the Allied war effort.

 

Izaak, a good book (I've just finished it) is "The Nuremberg Raid" by Martin Middlebrook, ISBN0-304-35342-6 published by Cassell.

Although primarily about the raid of the title, it gives a good basic understanding of the reasons for the RAFs Bomber Command going down the route it did. It also gives a good insight into the reasons for area bombing and how the RAF attempted to make this method more accurate by the use of Gee, the creation of the Pathfinder groups for target marking and the use of airborne H2S radar to mark targets. Gee was limited in it's range to targets just within Germany's border, while the radar used was only good enough to give good hits on large ground signatures (town/cities/rivers/lakes etc.).

Even with the use of radar the town being sought could easily be missed due to navigational errors (a problem which plagued night bombers of the RAF throughout the war). As an aside the use of H2S radar made the bombers more vulnerable to night fighter attack as the RAF was unaware that the Luftwaffe could detect this and home in it's fighters on it until they were in range to use their own radar. Effectively the RAF was trapped into using it's bombers by night due to the heavy casualties it sustained in daylight raids early in the war.

If you can, try to read this book as apart from giving the basic tenets behind Britains bombing campaign it as a good account of how a raid can go badly wrong through one bad decision in the first instant to one inspired guess from the opposition.

 

Thanks for the tip, Cholbert. I´ll try to find it. It has always troubled me as a shame on the Allies´honor (alas, not the only one).
I can´t remember my sources which were background for my bold statement that it was the British who began deep raids on civilian targets and that the Germans just followed, on a much smaller scale. I´ll try to find it. Whatever the source, raids like on Hamburg and Dresden cannot be excused. These raids were just criminal, whoever started. Nor can Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
The Japanese have desperately tried to stop the war for a long time, one condition being leaving the emperor on throne. No huge Tokyo raids were necessary either. Or am I wrong again?

 

Britain did start deep-penetration raids on civil targets in 1940. Dropping leaflets.

The progression of German/British raiding, IIRC, went:
British bombers trying to reach & bomb military targets.
German bombers bombing RAF fighter command airfields.
German bombers get a bit lost & bomb London.
RAF launch counter-raid on Berlin.
Luftwaffe begin 'Blitz'.

I think the first deliberate WW2 bombing of a civilian target (assuming we follow the theory that Warsaw & Rotterdam were military targets, and refugee columns don't count) was a Farman F.222 bombing Berlin.

 

Tokyo & Japan...

The American bombing of Japan did completely ruin their industrial capacity. It worked. And the A-bomb gave them a handy 'face-saving' way to seek peace.

Many theories aboud about the willingness of the Japanese to surrender.
What must never be forgotten is that Japan was in the hands of the military. Yes, the Emperor was the god-figurehead, but in practice had no input at all on how the country was run. If you disagree, find me examples...
What we do know is that there were various horrendous schemes in place for the defence of Japan. Essentially the entire population would fight, with bamboo spears if neccessary. According to some sources, the ebtire nation would be ordered to comit suicide if all else failed. I don't know how true that is, but I can guess that any invasion of Japan would have caused far more casualties (on both sides) that the 2 A-bombs did.

 

[/quote]

No, the raid of that lonely F222(called Jules Verne) on June 8th 1940 was a response to a german bombing raid on Paris on June 3rd.
That day the Luftwaffe bombed Paris during lunch time with 300 bombers, killing 170 people.(US ambassador Bullit was among the wounded.)
That raid was as far as I know directely turned against the civilian population, as on the day before the Luftwaffe dropped leaflets announcing the raid.

 

Now there is a fact I did not know.
I love this forum!

 

I like it too. Am just afraid that there is a bit too much of me here. And my wife hates it.

Seriously: isnt´t that right that plans to conduct such a warfare were accepted by the British Govt. before the war? (If true, that would in itself be a good starting point for Nurnberg-like proceedings).

Something tells me yhat there was a deep British raid with civilians in mind (not on Berlin) already in May ´40. There was a book… I just can´t refer to it now.

Another question: why exactly did Germans bomb Paris at that time? To hasten surrender?
Btw – who says that refugee columns don´t count???

Japan: one thing is propaganda and vigorous preparations (a deterrent in itself), another is diplomatic efforts. And the efforts have been made, AFAIK. Very with serious and far reaching proposals, which amounted to essentially unconditional capitulation (I´d have to delve in my books but I think, even the highest ranking army leaders aquiescing to it). USSR has been asked to mediate, but for obvious reasons, the Soviets did nothing more than delaying a solution). Somehow, the security of Hirochito what worried the Japanese leadership the most. Maybe we just can´t understand their devotion to the Emperor.
Anyway, whatever the reasons, considerations, the enemy actions – killing civilians is a crime, as seen with my eyes. There are always other, sometimes many, other possible solutions.

 

This is a claim by some people. Does anyone know of any credible evidence to support this? I have not seen any.
"desperately tried to stop the war for a long time" is so misleading and incorrect as to be silly.
They rejected the Pottsdam Declaration in July '45. The feelers that went out to the Russians were for a negotiated settlement, not a surrender and would likely only have been a stalling tactic. They attempted to exploit the cozy situation that existed between the double dealing Russians and Japan to their mutual benefit.
The time had long passed for negotiated settlements and they knew it.
Had they been concerned about the welfare of the Japanese people rather than maintaining their grip on power they could have contacted US authorities directly..they never attempted to do so.

 

Yes, sometimes I think that I spend too much time on here also...

Well, if they do, then undoubtedly the Germans were the first to deliberately target civilians. It is a very handy (though rather odious) method of increasing chaos on your opponant's supply & communications routes.
However, in the 'strategic bombing of cities' refugee columns are not an apparent factor. Berlin was never bombed because Stukas shot up French refugees.
That was all I meant by my statement.

 

Of course, not because of the Stukas´ attacks on refugees. Do you know, Ricky when the strategy was conceived? I believe it was before WW2.
Can anybody help me with some evidence about Japanese peace feelers in 1944 and after?

 

The strategy was first carried out by Germany in WW1, with bomber & Zeppelin raids on London, plus seaplane raids on seaside towns.
While not very large-scale, they were a worry, and basically laid the foundation for the fear that, in future, wars would be decided by vast fleets of bombers pulverising the civilian population. It has been said that bombers were the 'nukes' of the 1930s, in terms of wartime fears.

The British government were so convinced that the Germans would bomb civilians (especially after such examples as Guernica & Warsaw) that they stackpiled coffins & death certificates in huge numbers. They estimated that 600,000 civilians would die per year.

The RAF managed to stay a seperate service by preaching loudly that wars could be won & lost by strategic bombing, which could include targetting factory workers, which is probably where the view arises that the RAF formulated this policy before WW2. Obviously, having preached it, they were destined to go down that road...

I do not know when & by whom the policy was first formulated.

By the way - what is your opinion on the view that, in a 'total war' such as WW2, nobody is a mere 'innocent civilian', as everybody is working towards the war effort in some way. Even children, for they will be the soldiers of the future.

 

Last things first!
I think, it could be something coming from Sir Harris´s mouth.
I abhor the very concept of solving problems by war. So, each problem that wars cause is an unhappy consequence of it.

Your question is not the easiest to answer, to say this mildly. During centuries, war in Europe became increasingly "civilized" or professionalized. What it was that it became barbarous again is a theme for a good book.
If you, however hard you try, become forced to defend your country, however severe the situation and however barbarous the enemy …..you know, what I tried to say.
But I will not continue preaching nonsense. There are too many variables. As a principle, I would say – no. Certainly not the children or the civilians in general. Even if I felt, the large part of the population were backing the regime, I would still tend to think about those, who were forced to back the regime and f. ex. work in the weapons plants overtime. You know that in USSR from 1939 there was a 7-day working week and abstension could mean death, and mere coming late to work could mean Gulag.
It´s easy to be very moral sitting in front of the computer. No propaganda, no pressures…
Therefore, I can only say what I think is wrong in principle. The actual situation could shatter the construction.
But being a delegate to an international conference on principles of warfare, apart from attempting to prevent any wars, I would fight for, in case of war, to ban any attacks on civilians.

I have read Douhet, but long ago. (Btw the Americans have still the propensity to think that air war can be conclusive – see Serbia).
I also remember vaguely the descriptions of German raids on London with Zeppelins and large bomber planes – AFAIR it were Gothas, weren´t it? Anyways, I don´t think one is exonerated just because one does the same horrors as your enemy. And in Britain´s case one might contend if it was necessary to start bombing civilian areas. One thing is certain: quite apart from the advantages and the BBQs is Germany (excuse the expression, please) it´s called for retribution and many Londoners have lost homes or lives due to it.
Such a question !

 

Well, as to European warfare becoming 'more civilized'...

This was mostly the doing of the church, who tried to protect the various 'non-combatants' from the usual slaughter/rape/pillage effects of a military campaign. It was (eventually) quite successful, and was helped by the beginnings of the very clear division of 'civilians' & 'military' (quite a blurry line for much of history up until the late Medieval). Obviously, it did not count when fighting 'heathens' / 'heretics' etc :roll: , but the ethic caught on.

However, after the Industrial Revolution (and particularly noticeable in the American Civil War), industrial production became a very important part of warfare. The side that produces more tanks / guns / whatever tends to win. Who produces these tanks / guns / whatever? Factory workers. Civilians.
Once more, the boundry between those who are fighting you and those who are not blurs. One is a more 'strategic' fighter, but hey. They are still hard to class as 'non-combatants' - even if they are forced/coerced into working.

I should point out that these are not my personal vews, but is the line of reasoning used to justify bombing urban areas.
Playing 'Devil's Advocate' can be fun...

 

Agreed.

 

This is something i have also pointed out on occasion - a weapon made by someone who is forced to make it can be just as lethal as one made by someone happy to do so (although the forced labour of the Nazi death camps shows thsi is not always the case as sabotage become possible).

 

This is one of the very grey areas of total war - the whole of the population is at war, from the conscripted troops to the workers in munitions and support industries. The moral question is, I suppose, is why is it acceptable to kill the soldier who fire the gun but not the worker who puts it in his hand?
To be honest I cannot condemn the Allied bombing campaign - it was an unpleasant business which I suspect few took much pleasure in, but it had to be done, especialy at a time when Britain and then the USA were not engageing the Germans in a large scale land theatre stategic bombing was the only major contribution the Western Allies could make to the defeat of Germany

 

My only doubt about the allied bombing campaign was whether the results justified the resources it took to achieve them.

As for moral question I tend to subscribe to the theory do unto other before they do unto you. War is about killing people and concept of non combatant was always a doubious one.