Replies

[While part of me wants to believe that the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo were necessary to win the war, another part of me thinks they were no more than brutal payback.
Was the price of victory (in this case, trying to shut down factories by burning the workers alive in their homes) too high? No, the German people were not "innocent"- but they were still human beings.]

I was asked to write a book that addresses the fighter versus the bomber. In my research the very point you make was addressed. The raid on Dresden was not for vengeance. Sir Arthur Harris, in charge of RAF Bomber Command, was a dedicated disciple of General Douhet's mistaken theory. Douhet preached that strategic bombardment against a nation will cause the people to demand capitulation. (i.e. capitulation without the messy need for land invasion) Germany, the RAF and the US became strong advocates of his theory.

There was no remorse within RAF bomber command about Dresden or Hamburg. To the contrtary they only tried to emulate their success. Late in 1943 Sir Harris wrote a note to Churchill stating that the RAF Bombers had totally or largely destroyed 38 major German cities. He told Churchill that with the destruction of the 39th city, Berlin, Germany would capitulate. It took great faith to belive that with 38 cities in ruin that one more would lead to capitulation. The Douhet disciples had great faith. According to Harris, it would cost the RAF and the US 500 bombers but the Germans the war. The US did not join the RAF in this effort. Berlin was ruined at the cost of 1,700 RAF bombers. No capitulation. Berlin continued to function despite the ruin.

The RAF and the US bombers did not achieve most of their objectives while losing almost 30,000 bombers and about 150,000 bomber aircrew casualties. The Germans also tried to bomb London and Moscow into surrender, with the same non-success.

The US bombers destroyed the German synthetic fuel facilities late in 1944 and early 1945. This occurred when Germany was already in the process of defeat from many causes. It was the strategic bombers major success in the European part of WW II.

According to the bomber people, strategic bombardment won the Japanese war. Of course there were skeptics that felt the nuclear weapon had a little to do with it. It was a great motivator until other Nations could return the favor.

Godspeed, The Dilg

I agree- "terror" bombing (of residential areas, etc.) was a stupid waste. As I recall my WWII history, Hitler's ceaseless attacks on RAF airfields and aircraft production facilities had the RAF- and consequenly England- on the ropes. Then I believe the RAF mounted a daring raid on Berlin, using a few off-target German bombs that fell on residential London as an excuse. Hitler, in a fury, ordered the Luftwaffe to divert their attacks to London in revenge for the attack on Berlin. This gave the RAF the breathing space they needed to recover- so in a sense, Hitler's bombing of civilian London cost him the Battle of Britain.
I always wondered if Churchill ordered the raid on Berlin hoping Hitler would respond just that way.