Figure 1.--We note a lot of criticism of the Allied strategic bombing campaign, especially British area bombing. The number of civilan causualties were substantial, although in World War II terms often overstated. The question of responsibility is commonly assumed to be the simply the country which dropped the bombs. But humans as we very well know are imperfect beings. Religious leaders attempt to promote moral ideals. Most of us attemot to follow thoe teachings, some more than others. But none of us including great religious leaders like St Francis or Mother Theresa have led perfect lives. Here we see a female British Air Raid Warden assisting a blood-splattered little girl whose home has been destroyed by Luftwaffe bombs. Is it really reasonable to expect the British who witnessed scenes like this to resond with moderation and understanding? In all of historry have people so barbariucally battered turned the other cheek and replied with Christian charity? Actually Prime-Minister Chamberlain axtually tried dropping leaflets on German cities. And this moderation led to bthe German terror bombing of London. But the issues here int just understanding the Brutish reaction. The more important question becomes who is most responsible for the massive Allied bombing of the Reich, the British and Americans who actually dropped the bombs or the Germans who lsaunched the War and began dropping bombs on civilians, in this case Londoners.

Anthropolgists have developed the Killer Ape Theory postulating that war and interpersonal aggression was the driving force behind human evolution. It was first stated by Raymond Dart (1950s) and further developed by Robert Ardrey. [Ardrey] Now we do not fully endorse the Killer Ape Theory, but is undeniable that humans are capable of incredible violence. Any study of history can not fail to confirm this. Information on prehistoric times is lacking, but we suspect that the small number of humans limited contact and thus war. We do observe war and violence among primitive people which survived into the modern age such as the head hunters of New Guinea. But from the dawn of civilization and the development of art illustrating human gehavior and writing, we observe war and violence. We do think that war has been a major factor in driving technological change. But another major historical trend associated with civilization is the develooment of law which in large part was aimed at limiting violence. Some socities such as the pre-Columbian civilizations of Meso-America institutionalized violence and endemic wardare along with mass murder. Others have sought to limit it. The Crusades were organized by the papacy seeking to limit warfare between feuding Eurooean nobels and monarchs. The 20th century reversed the steady advancement of law in Western civilization and limits on violence. The 20th century with the rise of totalitarian powers became the most violent century in human history. The iotalitarians (Soviets and Axis) essentially unleashed the genie of hate and violence latent in the human character. This resulted in mass killing around the world, and body counts in the tens of millions. Now one issue that has has to be asked. It is reasinable that a country attacked and sunjected to terrible violence to place Christian morality and benevolence at ghe top of its natioinal priorities. Rightly or wrongly theuy are going to strike back and sometimes with actions that can be morally questioned. The commonly unasked questiion is who is resoonsibe, the ciountry defending itself or the country that unleashed the genie of violence and hatred? President Lincoln appeaked to 'the better angels of our nature'. [Lincoln] This is something that leaders can not always control and mnany do not seek to do so.

Sources

Ardrey, Robert. African Genesis (1961).

Lincoln, Abraham. First Innsgural. (March 4, 1861).

Created: Novenmber 6, 2002
Last updated: 12:33 AM 5/13/2018