orca
A point that many miss is that Mr Churchill could point to the offensive as proof that we were pulling our weight when Russia and the USA were making incredible sacrifices.
The United States was making large sacrifices because were fighting in two theaters (Atlantic/Europe, and Pacific).
The Soviet Union was taking the greatest beating from the Germans. They were sneak-attacked, and then you had SS units exterminating everybody in mass-graves. Then you have Stalin himself who mobilized the whole population to fight, and had his snipers shoot any soldiers who attempted to retreat
(in battle it is sometimes necessary to retreat, and then regroup)
I also believe that both during the war and to the present day a high proportion of people have struggled with certain fundementals of the campaign.
Of course, it was aimed almost squarely at civilians. Sure, there was a desire to gut German industry, but there was definitely a desire to basically pound the snot out of civilians.
"The aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive and the part which Bomber Command is required by agreed British-US strategy to play in it, should be unambiguously and publicly stated. That aim is the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers and the disruption of civilised community life throughout Germany.
It should be emphasised that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories."
-- Air Marshall Arthur T. Harris
Technically the whole claim of "de-housing the working population" was basically a pretext to engage in all-out attacks against the civilian population whether they be worker or not. Winston Churchill effectively admitted to it whether he intended to or not.
"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror though under other pretexts should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of allied bombing. I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives rather than the mere acts of terror and mass destruction, however impressive."
It was, however, when viewed as the only offensive weapon we had at the time, arguably, necessary.
One could argue that at first at least, but for that to hold water, Bomber Command would have had to have started switching to specific targets once improved navigation and targeting systems were developed. That generally didn't seem to be the case; instead most of these things were simply employed to make area-bombing attacks more devastating.
We deliberately targeted civilians.
Which is a war-crime under the Hague conventions which existed at the time.
500N
I see Le May was mentioned. His strategy of fire bombing Japanese cities was the equivalent of Dresden.
Actually, there were some significant differences
DRESDEN
- Weather was clear on the night of 2/13/45 and the early morning hours of 2/14/45 and target area was clearly seen.
- There were industrial sites located on the outskirts of town
- There was a railway marshaling yard, it was outside the target area
- There was a railway bridge of which destroying could have been halted traffic for months
- The industrial sites were not on the bomber-crew's maps
- The railway marshaling yard was outside the RAF target-area
- The railway bridge was outside the target area of the RAF, and probably the USAAF
- Dresden was targeted for incendiary attack from the get-go.
- The RAF aiming point was a large stadium which was known to have large amounts of wood in it's construction and it was believed (correctly) that it would burn well.
- The USAAF was sent to attack the center of the city (though evidently some crews were told they were to attack the railway yards)*
- The B-17's were were carrying an unusually high load of incendiaries (40%) which was typically used by the RAF for fire-bombing (The USAAF generally used a much higher percentage of HE); the bombs were set to land 250-feet apart, effectively resulting in a scattering, rather than a salvo release (which would be consistent with hitting a specific target).
Tokyo
- Initial attacks against Tokyo (and other cities in Japan) were done from high-altitude using the Norden bombsight.
- There was generally a stiff jet-stream over Japan resulting in aircraft achieving either extremely high ground-speeds (faster than the bombsight could keep up), or extremely slow ground-speeds
- Weather was frequently cloudy over Japan making it hard to spot targets
- High altitudes typically employed by B-29's effectively reduced the effectiveness of the Norden bombsight as it was not particularly effective above 20,000 feet.
- Tokyo was known to have a large, decentralized industrial base which would have made traditional bombing difficult (though there were some large factories IIRC)
- Flying at low-altitude at night was effective because the AAA fuses set for those altitudes, and the Japanese didn't have many night-fighters
- Incendiaries were used because the city was largely constructed out of wood, paper and so forth, and burned very easily.
Load Toad
I swear to god that that I saw a book in Page One a while back about the German raids during WW1 and the experiments they carried out making various incendiary devices eventually developing the thermite / magnesium firebomb - that was the same type later used by the British during WW2.
So incendiary attacks predated WW2 by a long-shot.
Chugalug2
The RAF first tried to use it in the way that you would insist upon, used by day to attack pinpoint military targets. It was suicidal, mainly because the modern monoplane cannon equipped fighter also existed. In one raid alone all 11 aircraft were shot down. The solution, as our own fighters lacked the range to escort our bombers to strategic enemy targets, was to fly at night.
Actually there were people in the United States and probably Great Britain that felt that fighters were useful. The problem was
- There was a commonly held attitude that a fighter with sufficient range to escort a bomber would cease to be a fighter. This was clearly wrong, and knowledge of the day existed to show it. It was called the Breguet Range Equation. The greater the fuel fraction, the greater range provided specific fuel consumption, L/D ratio, and thrust/weight ratio remain the same. One could also carry drop-tanks to further augment range. Drop-tanks can also be carried to augment-range
- There were some people who simply felt the bomber would always get through and could defend itself without any trouble. There were a few who realized otherwise. They were either too low of a rank to influence things in a direct fashion, or got themselves into trouble (Billy Mitchell for example got demoted for rocking the boat too much, then court-martialled when he shot his mouth off after an airship crashed).
The RAF had other problems however in that their bombsights weren't as good as ours and even if they had a fighter-escort they couldn't have put the bombs as effectively on target. Eventually, they would develop SABS, which was similar to our Norden bombsight, but by this point there was no desire to bomb accurately and maximizing civilian deaths was the primary objective.
In many ways that has been our salvation, that "MAD" kept the peace through the Cold War for fear of the effects of a Hot one!
I would hardly consider MAD to be peace. What MAD did was maintain a balance of terror. I don't even know how many people went to bed praying to whatever god they believed in for the Russians not to nuke us.
Molemot
Germany's military commander Ludendorff made its purpose clear: 'The moral intimidation of the British nation and the crippling of the will to fight'.
Which is a warcrime under the 1907 Hague Conventions. I'm surprised nobody moved to try him for war-crimes and get him hanged?
orca
I honestly believe the problem has always been one of honesty. Attacking civilians because you can't accurately target anything more meaningful, or targeting civilians knowingly as part of taking on a target set within a city is, quite simply, attacking civilians. We shouldn't try to skirt the issue with handy catch alls like 'Total War'.
Agreed, just admit what was done
We appear to disagree only on one fundemental point. The combined bomber offensive did not kill civilians as a by product of attack on military targets. They were the target. Let's be big enough to say so.
Especially since nobody's going to be tried for it.
R.C.
* According to a B-17 pilot, they were told they were to attack the railway yards; according to the 1st Bombardment Division Commander they were to bomb the center of the city (wikipedia).