However, I remember Sir Shawcross was asked about the bombings of Germany and the massive civilian losses. His argument, which I felt then was very compelling and I still do, was based on individual responsibility.
As an individual you are responsible for what your government does. Even if you live under a dictatorship you cannot shirk that responsibility. Either you decide to live under the dictatorship, or you fight it, or you leave the country. You cannot expect members of another nation to protect you from the fallout of a war that the leaders of your country started, whether you condoned it or not.
Now, that does not mean that the Laws of War should be broken. Civilians must be protected as well as possible from military actions, but as we all know, in a real war there will always be civilian casualties (I dislike the term “collateral damage”).
PS: I found an older interview (1976) with Lord Shawcross. At the end of the interview he does address this question. In this interview he is talking of collective responsibility. I think he had allowed his views to mature in the years between the two interviews since I distinctly remember him talking about individual responsibility.
That’s close to how I see it. Hamas is the duly elected government of Gaza. The people support Hamas in word, deed and money. I also take my responsibility as a citizen seriously too, particularly when our government abuses our rights at home and we have so many foreign misadventures without any real need.
It is always an interesting argument and I largely agree with your summary, but I still cannot buy the argument.
Abortion might be the best example. Half (or more) of our nation is completely against abortion of any kind yet our government is the largest promoter of abortion around the world (the amount of “money” involved is staggering).
I don’t support that but my tax money is indisputably used for it. I don’t support endless welfare for the able-bodied, social security disability not pegged to contributions, or public health care for people who refuse to take care of themselves, but those things are done with my tax money ruining the economic future of our nation in the current system.
It is an interesting debate and all of us (if we are being honest) fall on both sides of the equation depending on the specific question.
The aerial bombardment of Europe and Japan represented a concept of “total war” (aka complete destruction). One argument that is rarely seen, but it deserves full consideration, is how many lives were saved by “total war” versus a much more protracted war that would have resulted without aerial bombardment.
We will never know, but good arguments can be made on both sides. It is inarguable that Japan and Germany were both actively killing civilians and prisoners of war when the war ended and they had countless more who would have certainly died had the war(s) lasted longer with more “prisoners” guaranteed to enter the pipeline.
The argument against aerial bombardment is largely driven by academics who hate the West in most respects and they categorically ignore the lethal nature of the Axis powers who were quite brutal AND the likely casualty numbers among the Allies in both conflicts.
“I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier. It therefore seems to me that there is one and only one valid argument on which a case for giving up strategic bombing could be based, namely that it has already completed its task and that nothing now remains for the Armies to do except to occupy Germany against unorganized resistance.”
Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Sir Arthur Harris.
For later.