Figure 1.--Any assessment of the Allied strategic bombing campaign has to consider what it was intended to stop. These are Jewishh children at the Drancy interment camp north of Paris about December 1942. Jews were held there for transport to Auschwitz where all of the children were murdered upon arrival. Tragically while these precious children were being subjected to NAZI bestiality, powerful forces were being marshalled to avenge and destroy their killers. The Allies were planning the around the clock bombing of the Reich. The NAZI murder of 6 million Jews is well known. What is much less known is that the Holocaust was just the beginning of an enormous killing operation. The NAZIs had a detailed killing plan for killing tens of millions of Eastern Europeans on a much larger scale fter they won the War. Millions of non-Jewish civilians had akready been killed. NAZI plans for killing in the West had not yet been formulted in detail but were being discussed when the Allies landed in Normandy (June 1944).

Two days after the most devestating Luftwaffe attack on London during the War, Churchill said, ... in every land conquered and oppressed by the Nazis "there has sprung up from the soil a hatred of the German name and contempt for the Nazi creed which the passage of hundreds of years will not efface from human memory." The road ahead, Churchill warned, "We know it will be hard. We expect it will be long. We cannot yet see how deliverence will come. Or when it will come. But nothing is more certain. One thing stands out stark and undeniable, massive, and unassailable for all the world to see. [E]very trace of Hitler’s footsteps, every stain of his infected, corroding fingers will be sponged and purged and, if need be, blasted from the face of the earth." He was absolutely correct. When evil mem obtain control of a great, powerful nation waging war and murder in the tens of millions, 'blasted' was the only alternative. Now years after the War, there are those who shirk from the use of force, but the only alternative at the time was to blast away wih all the might aforded by the power of American and British industry.

Winston Churchill, speaking at a meeting of the Dominion High Commissioners and Allied Countries' Ministers at St. James Palace, June 12, 1940

The most contoversial aspect of World War II today was the Allied strategic bombing campaign. Interestingly at the time this was not a matter of great reflection, especially before Dresden. There are two elements of the campaign that today controversial. First is the effectiveness of the campaign. Here the debates concerns the earlier phases of the campaign. There is little doubt that in the later phases of the campaign that German industrial production was affected and the mobility and effectiveness of the German war machine shattered. Second is the morality of the campaign. Here too often critics of the campaign use arguments that are essentially a condemnation of war itself. Here it should be remembered that it was Germany that launched World War II. It is true that civilians as the strategic bombing campaign unfolded became the target and as many as 0.6 million German civilians were killed. It is also true that NAZI Germany killed about 12 million civilians and POWs in concentration camps and death camps and had killed even more ioutside the camps. The Germans were planning the destruction of much larger numbers of civilians had they won the War--Generalplan Ost. German assessments of the strategic bombing campaign usually stress the terrible toll on civilians. Allied assessments normally accenuaye the role of the campaign in destroying the German war machine and by implication saving tens of millions of lives that the NAZIs had slated for destruction and even more that were to be consigned to slave labor in a NAZI dominated New Order.

Effectiveness

Military historians still debate the effectiveness os the strategic bombing campaign. Here the debates concerns the earlier phases of the campaign. There is little doubt that in the later phases of the campaign that German industrial production was affected and the mobility and effectiveness of the German war machine shattered. Any assessment of the Allied bombing campaign has to ask the question of how much more the Germans could have expanded production had it not been for the bombing. The bombing significantly clearly disrupted the economy and the ability of the NAZIs to persue their development of new weapons. There is no doubt that German civilians paid a heavy price for Hitler's war. The cost to civilians was very extrodinarily high. Over 130 German cities were literally flatened. There is no exact accounting. Estimates range from 0.3-0.6 million killed. Countless others were injured and 7.5 million people were left homeless. Even these losses, however, were a fraction of the approximately 12 million people who the NAZIs muredered in concentration camps and death camps and even a smaller number of those the NAZIs had slated for death or a life of slave labor.

Morality

The morality of the air campaign is a still hotly debated question. At the time, none of the major combatant countries with bombing formations (Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States) questioned their own use of bombing on moral grounds. America and Britain accused NAZI Germany of war crimes when it conducted terror bombing of cities with that explicit goal. The Japanese did the same in China. After the the NAZIs began using this tactic, both America and Britain subsequently launched much more massive assaults on German and later Japanese cities. Although the goal was never described explicity as terror, the differences if you were a German civilian would be difficult to determine. The German foreign minister coming to Washington in November 2002 recalled cowering in a bomb shelter during the Allied bombing. A HBC reader remembers the glow in the night sky from raging firesc in a nearby city after Allied bombing runs. Much of the debate over the morality of the aerial campaign really or questins on the morality of ar itself. There are questions, however, tat pertain uniquely to the World War II aerial campaign itself. HBC does not seek to answer these questions. A thorough discussion would be a study in itself. We do believe, however, that it is important to pose some of the major questions. German assessments of the strategic bombing campaign usually stress the terrible toll on civilians in isolation and often seek to isolate the discussion to narrow military actions. Allied assessments normally accenuaye the role of the campaign in destroying the German war machine and by implication saving tens of millions of lives that the NAZIs had slated for destruction and even more that were to be consigned to slave labor in a NAZI dominated New Order.

Facts

We have no objection to a disccussion of morality as regards World War II. Rarely in the case of warfare has the moral issues been so clear and one sided. Not only did the allies do everything possible to prevent the War, but their resistance in the face of the terrible power amassed by the tiotalitarian powers, essentially saved humanity and Western civilization. While we have no problem in having a debate on the war in general or the strategic bombing campaign in particular, it is important that the debate be based on fact. And we notice that those who are critical of America and Britain are more than willing to simply lie about what occur. Another problem here is the strategic bombing campaign was so massive that those on the receiving line of the massive fire power, often did not understand what was happening except that their lives were in danger and frirnds and family were being killed. Thus it is importnt to estinguish between facts and both misunderstanding as well as outright misstatements. 1) Imperial Japan and NAZI Germany began boming civilians. The Japanese began this in China (1931). The Germany began first in Spin (1936) and then in Poland (1939). Hitler made it very clear that terror bombing was an objective in his use of the Luftwaffe. He used the term Schrecklichkeit ('frightfulness'). Ironically theLuftwaffe his highlyprofressional military built was not ideal as an instrument if terror. 2) The British after forced into the War did begin bombing Grman cities. This was because it was suisidal to bomb during the day when specific targets could be identified. At night the best thst could be achieved was to identify a city. 3) British Bomber Command after the Battle of Britain and the Blitz did adopt a policy of area bombing. This meant that as in the Bkitz, civilians were killed. This raises a moral quandry. Most of the civilians weee innocent, especially of course the women and children. They were not evil, but the problem was that the leaders and war econmy that they were supporting, often ferventlky, were evil. 4) The American Air Forces in Europe attempted, at great cost, precission bombing, but because of the inaccuracy of bombing technology, the results were similar to British area bombing. 5) The Americans in the Pacific war, eventually shifted to British area boming and fire bombed Japanese cities. Herewe have the same moral quandry the British faced. 6) The Americans eventually deployed long-ranger fighter air craft for low alditude attacks. It is not true that American plane as one German source charges, "... strafed streets for anything moving - fleeing civilians, students, and cemetery mourners." 7) Civilian casualties in both Grrmany and Japan were well under 1 million people. Still the death toll was horrendous, but this has to be seen in relation to the moer than 50 million civilians killed by both countries in coordinated killing campaigns and plans to kill even more, killing plans of never before levels or industrial perfected methods.

Debates

There have been countless debates isnce World War II on the Strategic Bomning Campaign. The same issues come up again and again. From the relative safety of the 21st century it seems horific that whole cities could be laid waste. And the barbarity of the Axis and danger to Western Civilization not fully understood. Sone of these debates acn be viewed on the internet. We viewed the Intelligence Squared debate chaired by Jeremy O' Grandy, The participants were philopspher Antony C. Grayling, journalist Rihcard Overy, historian Patrick Bishop, and historian Antony Beevor. The proposition before the house was "The Allied bombing of German cities in World War II was unjustifiable". The debate took place at the Royal Institutenof British Architects (October 25, 2012). Two speakers supporting the propositiob (Grayling and Overy) and two opposed it (Bishop and Beevor). Those supporting the proposition were not pacifists. They agreed that the NAZIs were evil and had to be opposed, but argued that 1) the strategic bombing campaign was infectual, and 2) the Allies bombers killed innocent civilians, and 3) there were more effective ways to combat the NAZIs. They raised other issues, but these it seems to us are the heart of their argument. (If readers think they made another important point, pleae let us know asnd we will address it. Those opposing the proposition effectively argued the issue and we have no issue with their arguments which were fact based. Pmr especially important argument was it was the Germans who began bombing cities and the Japanese likewise in Asia. They even used the wanton destuction in their prooaganda. As RAF Bomber Command Commander Arthur Harris explained the German did not begin to criruze the bombing of cities, until their cities began to be bombed. "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put that rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." The two speakers for the proposition, however, presented fundamentally flawed arguments that were not fact based. They merit discussion because we constantly see these arguments on the internet.

Individuals

During the War there were a wide range of opinions expressed bu cuviliand military leaders as well as religious leaders and pscifists. At the time, the evil character of German and Japanese leaders was well known, but ut genocidal chararacter was not widely known. Still the opinions expressed are interestung to note. They relect opinionon both the effectiveness of the camapign as well as the morality of strategic bombing. Both Anerica and Britain expressed an opposition to bomboing cibilians, but as the Gernans and Japanese were mombing civiiansboth Ameruca and Britain committed to strategic bombing.

Propaganda

It is cerainly appropriate to assess the stategic bombing campaign. It resulted in the deaths of some 1 million civilians,. Estimates vary and there are no definitive statistics, but 350,000 Germans and 650,000 Japanese are reasinable ball park numbers. The Japanese numbers would be somewhat higher if the lingering affects of radiation are calculated. So can that maiive number be justified? We have assessed the rational academic above. But we note that there are essentially propaganda pieces that make no attempt to discuss the stratehic bombing camapaign honestly, but rather ignore or actually make false statements. They largely focus on the horrors of war and stratehic bombing. Of course it is, Not rational person would deny this. Even Air Marshal Harris (Bomber Harris) did not disagree, He stated famously that the NAZIs "sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." So how do you differentiate between propaganda and entirely appropriate debate. It is not to difficult. Here are the key factors. 1) Does the author spend most of the time describing how terrible war/bombing is? Something no one dusagrees with. 2) Does the author ignore who started the war? 3) Does the author mention that the Germans were very good at war, better than the democratic countries? 4) Does the author point out that the primary advantage the Allies had was their industrial superiority? 5) Does the author ignore the unmitigated evil of the Axis and there horrendous mass murder camapigns? 6) Does the author ignore numbers auch as the people murder by the Axis and only stresses the boming mortalities? 7) Does the author explkain how the Axis could be defeated without stratehic bombing? 8) Would alternatives to startegic bombing resulted in more or fewer deaths? A prime example of propagands and flat out falsehood is a documentary aired on French television: "Bombing war from Guernica to Hiroshima" which insists that the Allied Strategic Bombing Camapign was 1) Ineffective and 2) Immoral. Now one might say this is a strange program to come from the French who approach to the war was to surrender to the NAZIs and rely on Amnerica and Britain to liberate them--while extesively collaborating with the NAZIs. (The program often uses the term 'reconquest' rather than liberation. And actually calls the Allied liberation of France--'bizzare' liberatiuon.

Created: 2:51 AM 8/7/2005
Last updated: 3:00 AM 1/31/2024