Firebombing: Are war crimes decided by the victors?

World War II General WWII Discussion
#141

That is consistent with their depredations in Manila, twice, and Singapore against other Asians who lacked the good fortune to be sons of Nihon.

Or having two Japanese officers engaged in a contest to see who could kill the most Chinese with their swords. Which most probably, despite later revisionism by the remnant nationalists, fascists, militarists in Japan, probably consisted mostly or exclusively of killing defenceless prisoners, a skill in which the heroic Japanese were extraordinarly adept even compared with the worst of their German allies.

Or that Japan was dragooning tens of thousands of Asian labourers onto the Burma Railway and treating many of them even worse than the Allied POWs, improbable as that may seem, to the extent that the Asian labourers suffered both a much higher death rate and a higher number of deaths than the Allies, and probably a higher number of deaths than Japanese killed at Nagasaki (figures for both are rubbery). But who ever hears about the poor bloody Asian labourers deceived and dragooned into working for the Japanese on the Railway, often believing that they would get the good wages promised by the Japanese instead of the beatings and countless untreated diseases and deaths they got, without the benefit of military organisation and training and other things such as medical officers which helped the Allied POWS to survive at a better rate?

#142

This doesn’t seem to be accurate,

Rotterdam 14 th of May 1940, ( 800-900 killed, british propaganda inflated the number of civilian casualties by a factor of 30, http://www.enotes.com/topic/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II ) and Warsaw were different cases since those were defended cities in the front line, hence bombing were not against Hague convention Arts. 25 and 27 and Coventry bombing (568 killed) was in September, long after the nightmare started on May 11th 1940 when the first RAF raid on the interior of Germany took place in Mönchengladbach , 35 Hampden and Whitley airplanes threw their bombs over streets and rail roads. ( Jörg Friedrich, El Incendio, pag. 72)
“On the night of May 17/18, RAF Bomber Command bombed oil installations in Hamburg and Bremen; the H.E. and 400 incendiaries dropped caused six large, one moderately large and 29 small fires. As a result of the attack, 47 people were killed and 127 were wounded.[91][92] Railway yards at Cologne were attacked on the same night.[92] During May, Essen, Duisburg, Düsseldorf and Hanover were attacked in a similar fashion by Bomber Command. In June, attacks were made on Dortmund, Mannheim, Frankfurt and Bochum” Wiki Quote.
Rotterdam was Churchill’s excuse for authorizing the attack of german civil targets east of the Rhine. Churchill justified his decision in a letter to the French signed on May 16th 1940:
“I have examined today with the War Cabinet and all the experts the request which you made to me last night and this morning for further fighter squadrons. We are all agreed that it is better to draw the enemy on to this Island by striking at his vitals, and thus to aid the common cause.”
On the other side Hitler directive number 17 states:
5. I reserve to myself the right to decide on terror attacks as measures of reprisal. With this directive Hitler prohibits the Luftwaffe from conducting terror raids except on direct orders from him.

Furthermore, Hermann Göring stablished the following regarding the matter:
The war against England is to be restricted to destructive attacks against industry and air force targets which have weak defensive forces. … The most thorough study of the target concerned, that is vital points of the target, is a pre-requisite for success. It is also stressed that every effort should be made to avoid unnecessary loss of life amongst the civilian population.
Hermann Göring Wood and Dempster, 2003. p. 117.

This conduct of Germany towards Britain is endorsed by Sir Basil Collier in his book the Battle of Britain:
“Although the plan adopted by the Luftwaffe early September had mentioned attacks on the population of large cities, detailed records of the raids made during the autumn and the winter of 1940-41 does not suggest that indiscriminate bombing of the civilians was intended. The points of aim selected were largely factories and docks. Other objectives specifically allotted to bomber-crews included the City of London and the governmental quarter rounds Whitehall”
A wiki quote support this:
“In addition to the conclusions of Sir Basil Collier to that effect there are also for example the 1949 memoirs of General Henry H. Arnold who had been in London 1941 and support Colliers estimate, and Harris noted in 1947 that the Germans had failed to take the opportunity to destroy English cities by concentrated incendiary bombing.”

Regards,

#143

Exceptionally yes Nick,but only as an unwanted byproduct, artillery used against urban areas implies that the front line is near that areas which must be defended military targets. Evacuation is possible and desirable under that circumstances. On the other side when it comes to firebombing, assassinate and terrorize unaware civilians is the strategy in itself, let’s ask the highest authority on this art:
“The ultimate aim of the attack on a town area is to breake the morale of the population which occupies it. To ensure this, we must achieve two things: first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger. The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce: i) destruction and ii) the fear of death.”
Despatch on war operations, 23rd February, 1942, to 8th May, 1945
Sir Arthur Travers Harris

#144

Actually, it wasn’t always possible. And as desirable as evacuation is, this was often verboten by the Nazi “golden eagles.” In any case, the residents of many a besieged city were no more able to flee an artillery bombardment than they were air attack as they were often encircled. Secondly, cities would be “military targets” in your view as they were indeed “defended”…

On the other side when it comes to firebombing, assassinate and terrorize unaware civilians is the strategy in itself, let’s ask the highest authority on this art:
“The ultimate aim of the attack on a town area is to breake the morale of the population which occupies it. To ensure this, we must achieve two things: first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger. The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce: i) destruction and ii) the fear of death.”
Despatch on war operations, 23rd February, 1942, to 8th May, 1945
Sir Arthur Travers Harris

I’m not really interested in Harris’ harebrained ideas. However, the legality of such is consistent as British bombers were hitting defended cities at night with little in way of accurate bombing methodologies available. But while I am not particularly fond of Harris nor his methodologies, his beliefs were actually altruistic as he sought to end the war as soon as possible–and genuinely believed that sustained air power could do so virtually alone–with comparatively less loss of life than there otherwise would have been…

#145

A meaningless, babbling quote out-of-context as Göring was referring to German policy prior to sustained attacks on population centers…

And Luftwaffe bombing killed over 17,000 Yugoslavians in one night as well…

#146

Ok you cherry picked some quotes from an article directly copied from wikipedia, the same article that also has this near the beginning.

In 1939, Germany invaded Poland and the Luftwaffe (German air force) began providing tactical support to the German Army. The Luftwaffe also began eliminating strategic objectives and bombing cities in Poland. France and the United Kingdom declared war on Germany and the UK’s Royal Air Force began attacking German warships along the German coast with the North Sea.[7] Meanwhile, the German bombing of Poland became an indiscriminate[8] and unrestricted aerial bombardment campaign.

I could also add in Guernica where Oberst Wolfram Freiherr Von Richthofen the Chief of Staff of the Condor legion, told the Condor Legion pilots to “disregard the civilians in the interest of keeping up the speed of the advance”. He also said to General Emilio Mola (Nationalist Commander of the region), “Nothing is unreasonable that can destroy enemy morale and quickly”. The claims that the bombing was only targeting the bridge are not borne out by the Legions use of large numbers of light incendiaries which subsequently caused the fires that they used as an excuse for the blind bombing that followed, no bombs hit the bridge at all during the raids.

#147

Very well stated.

Further more, the Japanese war industry wasn’t concentrated in one or two regions. It was spread through the urban landscape of the country.

The fact is that this was total war. It wasn’t just my military against yours. It was our people against your people. Hitler coined the phrase “war of annihilation” to to describe the war in the East. The Germans weren’t just making war against nations but against other peoples. His intent was not to occupy eastern Europe it was to enslave it’s people and steal it’s resources.

Fire bombing the population of countries involved such activities is solid military strategy. It weakens a nation’s will to fight and depletes it’s man power both as a source of military recruits and to work in it’s industry. The people who grow the food to feed the armies, manufacture arms and munitions and provide the motivation of the troops in the field are every bit as much a legitimate target as a Panzer division.

If the US had to kill 100,000 Japanese to save one single American soldier, sailor or airman it was justified in doing so. They were our mortal enemies. The japanese military were brutal beasts and the very face of unrestrained evil and brutality.

#148

Then why have you not contributed anything of historic significance in your posts? One wonders…

#149

Then the I am completely okay with you Tankgeezer, first I would like to know that is under the pseudo goodlily, because I didn’t see its post, and I will want to know also why he/it made a such post and what are its argument to be able to say such a thing.
Fred regards

#150

Goodly was probably a spammer trying to build up its post count…

#151

Or it could have been, arguably, largely a waste of resources as production was hardly halted and was merely decentralized by Germany. Rather than firebombing population centers, the Allies may well have been better off following the “Transportation Plan” used prior to Normandy, where ‘concentric’ bombing focused on communications and transport centers such as rail yards that could not so easily be dispersed…

It weakens a nation’s will to fight and depletes it’s man power both as a source of military recruits and to work in it’s industry.

Little evidence exists that any populations “will to fight” was depleted. And I have no idea how manpower was depleted by strategic bombing other than to create a “third front” pinning down the Luftwaffe…

The people who grow the food to feed the armies,

Not in cities they don’t!

…manufacture arms and munitions and provide the motivation of the troops in the field are every bit as much a legitimate target as a Panzer division.

Many of the “people” manufacturing arms were slave laborers from Allied, occupied nations. Also, Germany simply began buying ammunition from neutral countries to avoid shortages…

If the US had to kill 100,000 Japanese to save one single American soldier, sailor or airman it was justified in doing so.

That’s pretty spurious logic. But how was killing men, women, and baking children on their mothers’ backs as they ran away from the flames really “saving” U.S. servicemen?

They were our mortal enemies. The japanese military were brutal beasts and the very face of unrestrained evil and brutality.

But you’re not talking about the military, you’re talking about civilians…

#152

There are some bots who act like this account did, made to look like they are actual people but in reality looking for keywords on a site and responding in a set way.

#153

In either of his 4 guises he did the same sorts of things. Either posted complete nonsense, or cut, and pasted parts of other’s posts, presenting them as his own. Like Nick said, just padding his post count.(maybe he thought he’d win a prize…)

rofl3.gif

#154

That, as you say, is arguable.

When you deplete the population you deplete manpower. When you create refugees you put a strain the available resources. There are a lot of “possible” benefits. Who knew at the time what was going to work and what wasn’t?

It just seems too easy for us to sit here with 70 years worth of hindsight and condemn the people who were forced to make these kinds of decisions. If you destroy the infrastructure of a nation does that not contribute greatly to diminishing that country’s ability to make war? Do you think that American leadership firebombed Japanese cities because they enjoyed the thought of baking babies or because they thought it was the most effective way to defeat the enemy? (An enemy that killed over 20 million Chinese. Most of whom were civilians I might add.)

The fact is that strategic bombing would have eventually brought Japan to it’s knees. Even with out nuclear weapons Japan could not have held out for another year and there was already a strong peace movement even within the military. There would have been no need for an invasion.

#155

This was mentioned elsewhere but I would think the Crimean War would count as the first modern war given the lack of advancements between it and the American Civil War. The American Civil War could be considered the first modern war in the western hemisphere.

#156

As for scale, I believe the level of carnage in the American Civil War was actually less than in some earlier wars such as the Seven Years War. However, the number of soldiers mobilized may have exceeded any of the pre-Napoleonic wars.

#157

That seems like sort of an argument the Nazi’s would have made to get rid of the Jews.

In any case, it’s hard to get rid of manpower when the majority of the able-bodied male population is already at the front or in bunkers/shelters…

When you create refugees you put a strain the available resources. There are a lot of “possible” benefits. Who knew at the time what was going to work and what wasn’t?

The majority of refugees were not caused by bombing. They were usually fleeing the advance of enemy armies. In any case, considering the losses we suffered in the ETA air war, creating refugees seems like a massively weak military logic in relation to the resources put into the air forces…

It just seems too easy for us to sit here with 70 years worth of hindsight and condemn the people who were forced to make these kinds of decisions.

I haven’t condemned anybody, here at least…

If you destroy the infrastructure of a nation does that not contribute greatly to diminishing that country’s ability to make war?

That greatly depends on what infrastructure one is targeting. As stated, Germany was able to actually increase its industrial production despite around-the-clock Anglo-American bombing. I’ll say there are many caveats to that. But in my view, the way bombing was carried out was somewhat a waste of resources…

Do you think that American leadership firebombed Japanese cities because they enjoyed the thought of baking babies or because they thought it was the most effective way to defeat the enemy? (An enemy that killed over 20 million Chinese. Most of whom were civilians I might add.)

No, I do not think the vast majority enjoyed killing the Japanese people. I do believe that Curtis LeMay was a bit of a psychopath as was Bomber Harris. LeMay especially showed this towards the end of his career when he attempted to goad JFK around the Cuban Missile Crisis…

I’m well aware of what the Japanese did to the Chinese people. That didn’t make firebombing particularly effective, however, as we were just mainly killing civilians ourselves that had little in the way of power to topple the Imperial militarist gov’t…

The fact is that strategic bombing would have eventually brought Japan to it’s knees. Even with out nuclear weapons Japan could not have held out for another year and there was already a strong peace movement even within the military. There would have been no need for an invasion.

All evidence to the contrary. Strategic bombing didn’t really show itself as particularly effective against Japan as they lacked targets and industry to attack. The only thing that could possibly have broken the IJA’s will to fight without an invasion was mass starvation, which would have taken months if not years longer, and then the Russians were coming. We almost certainly would have invaded had not the atom bombs been dropped…

#158

It was the naval blockade which was strangling Japan, and which had pretty much brought Japan to its knees before the atom bombs were dropped. But that could not by itself have brought Japan to its surrender, any more than relentless conventional bombing would have.

The militarists and the Emperor were quite willing to hold out to the last man, woman and child for however long it took, and were making prepartions to that end by arming and training the civilian populace with wooden spears etc.

I wasn’t aware of that. Can you point to any evidence?

My understanding is that if there was any peace movement in the military it wasn’t strong and it wasn’t where it mattered, which was the military leadership.

The actions of the military, both army and navy, in the dying days of the war are not consistent with any ambitions for peace.

What was the alternative? Let Japan keep its territory and assets in China and its homeland?

Japan was not going to surrender until, metaphorically, the Allies had their boot on its throat and a cocked gun pointed at its head with the clear intention of using it if Japan did not surrender.

This was achieved by dropping of the atomic bombs combined with, in the same few days, the overwhelming defeats and rapid advances by the Soviets on Japanese forces in Manchuria and the realisation that if Japan didn’t surrender it could be invaded by the Soviets as well as the other Allies, assuming that Japan wasn’t wiped out by more atomic weapons.

#159

On this I remember reading about the proposed invasion and in the article there was an interview with a Japanese woman who would of been a just a kid in during the invasion and the government gave her some kind of icepick or something like that and told her that as she had to kill at least one American before she was killed. I will try and find that article.

#160

I was stationed in Yokohama in the late '60’s, there were still tunnels in the hills used a bomb shelters. I spoke to people who experienced this era and they confirm what you say. They were encouraged to kill or maim any invaders - any way they could.