Was the American Bombing Campaign in World War II a War Crime?

American Heritage Magazine ^ | April 6, 2006 | Fredric Smoler

[tbird5]

Deliberately targeting civilians is widely considered terrorism nowadays, but during World War II both the Britain’s Bomber Command and the United States Army Air Force deliberately targeted civilians.

The British philosopher A. C. Grayling, in his new book Among the Dead Cities: The History and Moral Legacy of the WWII Bombing of Civilians in Germany and Japan (Walker, $25.95), points out that the two air forces combined killed perhaps 600,000 German civilians and another 200,000 Japanese. He makes the case that at least by our current standards we were terrorists, and it logically follows that the attacks were war crimes. In an age of political terror, when it is urgent to come up with a persuasive distinction between legitimate and illegitimate violence, it is hard to overstate the importance of the questions Grayling raises.

[frankiep]

both nuclear detonations should have been war crimes.

You serious? Those nuclear detonations that you say should have been war crimes ended WWII, the bloodiest war in human history. Had they not been dropped the war would have went on, and an all out invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been necessary. The American casualties of such an invasion would have made D-Day look like a minor skirmish. Something to remember the next time you think that this war a "war crime".

[Caveman Lawyer]

"Grayling acknowledges that American bombing attacks on German fuel stocks, transportation and aircraft factories actually had some significant effect on the outcome of the war, so he gives the U.S. Army Air Force a partial pass."

I'm sure that the USAAF vets who completed these missions rest more peacefully in their graves knowing that they have Grayling's "partial pass."

Give me a f*cking break.

[WestTexasWend]

"When's the apology due?"

For $100K, a plane ticket and a couple of 'escorts', BJClinton can deliver a blanket apology as early as Wednesday.

[FreedomPoster]

Ask the Carthaginians if this was a war crime.

You do what it takes to win. It's war, not a Marquis of Queensbury rules boxing match.

Carnage and Culture covers the use of total war by the West fairly well, and is a worthwhile read.

[When do we get liberated?]

Be a realist. America provided the arsenal. Our casualties do not compare to the USSR, China or even France and the UK

[Spktyr]

As opposed to the London Blitz, the V1 campaign, and the mass slaughter of a significant portion of "Manchuria" and China by the Axis - all of which happened first?

It's not a war crime to respond in kind, IMHO.

Also, with regards to the use of nukes on Japan - the only other alternative was 5 million Allied dead, and the complete extermination of the Japanese nation and people. The Japanese would have fought to the last man, woman, and child. Compared to the anticipated 30+ million dead in Japan if we'd invaded instead, I have no problems with Truman's use of nukes.

[org.whodat]

Simple, not worth posting and not worth reading. The story line is something you come up with when you have no common sense.

[Eastbound]

So what do you think should happen to Iran if they nuke Israel?

If Israel knew for certain it was going to be nuked by Iran within a week or two, would Israel be justified nuking Iran back to the dark ages first, or should they take a first-hit?

The question is, who is waging the war? Who is the offender and who is on the defensive? WWII wasn't our war. It belonged to Germany, Japan and Italy. We were on the defense. The people of Germany, Japan and Italy were complicit by not preventing their leaders from engaging in national suicide.

When it's a question of survival of the ones attacked, you follow the laws of survival. Whatever it takes.

[When do we get liberated?]

Awesome!

[Enterprise]

Thank you for sharing that.

[Alberta's Child]

I have never seen any objective analysis of World War II in which it was determined that "an all out invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been necessary."

As an island nation that relied heavily on other regions throughout the Pacific Rim for natural resources, Japan was basically incapable of sustaining itself once the U.S. had occupied islands within flying distance of Japan by our heavy bombers.

[When do we get liberated?]

no, no knowlede of history

[IronJack]

Most authorities agree that the firebombing of Dresden at least was unnecessary, from a military point of view, and that it added little to a war that was already won. The bombing of Hamburg in July of 1943 (much earlier in the Combined Bomber Offensive) presaged Dresden. Estimates were that 50,000 died, and three fourths of the city was destroyed. But at least Hamburg had a military value; it was a major port and shipbuilding center, and its facilities were being used for Uboat production.

Does any of this make the Allies terrorists or war criminals? Even the stuffy leaders of Bomber Command admitted that the point of much of their effort was to strike terror into the heart of the German citizenry, thereby reducing their will to fight. Churchill was especially committed to that effort. But they also had to admit that all the bombing did was strengthen German resolve, much the way the Blitz had stiffened the spine of the British.

In the end, the offensive achieved most when it was targeted toward areas that provided Germany with her warmaking materiel: ball bearing plants, oil and gas refineries, heavy armament factories, and railyards. Terror proved a most ineffective tactic.

[oldtimer2]

If you had asked the average American that question in 1938, the answer would have been a resounding yes. After 3 years of total war the average American would have said it was not immoral.
Every person has a sliding scale and will lower their 'gag reflex' in a long war.
I am not sure what the answer is.

[PzLdr]

Couldn't disagree with you more about Hiroshima. It was the HQ for the defense of the southern Japanese main islands, including Kyushu, where we would have landed. It was the major embarkation point for reinforcements coming in from Manchuria and heading out to Kyushu. It had major war production [American POWs were enslaved there]. In short, it was a legitimate military target.

As for the fire bombing of Japan, we had three options: naval blockade, and starve thousands, if not millions of Japanese civilians, firebombing and nuclear bombing to break their back, and their will to resist, amphibious invasion, and face the potential loss of exceptional heavy American casualties.

As for option one, would it have been more 'moral' to starve them [and our POWs] to death slowly, rather than kill the Japanese quickly? As for option three, would it have been worth the death of all those American troops, and all the POWs [their executions had been ordered for as soon as the invasion began] so we could feel morally superior? I would remind you that the Japanese government refused to surrender before the A-bombs were dropped, when option one was already in play, refused after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, and refused for at least FIVE days AFTER the Nagasaki bomb was dropped before accepting terms.

The Japanese plan, from IWO on was to make the U>S and her Allies suffer so many casualties that we would give Japan a much better peace than we were offering. I, for one, will eschew the morality for the lives of the troops, POWs, and in the long run, the civilians.

As for the Germans, by 1944, they had moved their war industries underground, or into compartmentalized production in many cities and towns [German production reached its height in Sept. or Dec.1944]. The Germans made their cities targets. Hamburg was a port. Dresden was on the interior lines between the Eastern and Western Front. And unlike the Japanese, the Germans put up fairly effective air defense until late in the war, which led the Allies to use night bombing of large areas to avoid heavier losses. So, in a sense, the Germans were the authors [in part] of their own misfortune.

[Mr. Mojo]

..... the two air forces combined killed perhaps 600,000 German civilians and another 200,000 Japanese.

Only 200,000? There were at least 100,000 dead in one firebombing attack onTokyo alone. Add to that the campaigns on other cities (including the A-Bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and I would've thought the number to be about double that.

[claudiustg]

No, but it will be criminal if we don't soon start bombing certain sites in Iran.

[Prime Choice]

Yet another dose of liberal revisionist history. They'll give a pass to the Nazis, Jihadists and Communists and always try to pain the United States and its allies as "The Great Satan."

To hell with them. If there had been more people like them in 1945, there would be far fewer people like them today.

[Thombo2]

Interesting article.One example:The author states,"Japan surrendered because of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria."????

[Mears]

God,no !