Bomber Harris tried for war crimes

[Karlos]

Of course I know I would see things very differently if I was an englismanh living in London in 1944, but I'm not. But if we are to understand other pepole's point of view, we can also try to feel like a 13 year old child in Dresden in 1945. I think nazism had to be defeated, but things could have been done in a different way.
Raymann, I think it's a bit too much to say that german, japanese or italian civil population deserved terror bombing more than, say, british or american population (What about the soviets, what degree of guilty do you apply to them?) I don't think the bombs over Hamburg killed many nazi leaders, but a lot of innocent children and women who had no say in Hitler's politics. You can't avoid innocent deaths in war, but you don't have to deliberately go for them.

 

[MrP]

No, I agree with you that the intention was to end the war swiftly with fewer military casualties... but the way of doing it, or the price if you want, was to kill german civilians. Of course, they were the enemy, so most people back then had no moral issue with killling them -as the germans had done the same to them- but I think that if now we do agree that deliberately killing unarmed civilians is a war crime, then it was, no matter the goal. Of course that means that all armies of the world had comitted those war crimes, the degree only a matter of numbers, so I recognize I may sound a bit naive, but we were talking about war crime trials.

I'm not sure if it's that black and white. If you've a choice between committing a war crime that's bad or permitting something worse to happen, which would you choose? As you say, both are war crimes, and the difference is in the numbers. I'd go for the lesser, especially if I were a military officer trained to choose between the lesser of two evils. Even if it made me look and seem like a truly evil person. Interestingly, I find this mindset to be helpful in understanding the Nazi's anti-Jew actions. Though not in condoning them, clearly.

Raymann, I think it's a bit too much to say that german, japanese or italian civil population deserved terror bombing more than, say, british or american population (What about the soviets, what degree of guilty do you apply to them?) I don't think the bombs over Hamburg killed many nazi leaders, but a lot of innocent children and women who had no say in Hitler's politics. You can't avoid innocent deaths in war, but you don't have to deliberately go for them.

Well, arguably, even though neither side deserved it, the civilian populations providing the soldiers of the Third Reich with food and recruits and supplies, and the guards of the concentration camps are a more legitimate target than the other armies' civilian populations, which provided all the above except for concentration camp guards. In addition German troops were rather more likely to commit atrocities on native populations - Jewish or not. They did this in the 1870-1 war with France and those soldiers' descendants did the same during the WWII occupation. Guerilla activity punished by killing half a village - and not even known terrorists, but randomly chosen people is cruel.

I know this has been morally equated to the bombing campaign, but that's a bit disingenuous. On the one hand we have a occupied country seething for freedom. On the other hand a nation actively engaged in an aggressive war against its neighbours. I don't seek to deny the sterling work of the German Resistance, but it's in a different context.

 

[Karlos]

Well, I don't really think that Harris was thinking about punishing german population for their support of jewish genocide. Or that, by that logic, bombing Dresden was in some sense more justified that bombing Tokio . Harris was thinking about winning the war, as anyone else then, and I don't doubt he would be suprised if anyone cuestioned killing civilians back then. -Anyone did, by the way?

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

Anyone did, by the way?

I seem to recall reading that the continued destruction of German cities did cause no small amount of controversy, but generally people didn't care too much. I think the Germans-had-it-comming state of mind was rather predominant at the time.


Best regards!

- B.

 

[Karlos]

Well, I don't really think that Harris was thinking about punishing german population for their support of jewish genocide. Or that, by that logic, bombing Dresden was in some sense more justified that bombing Tokio . Harris was thinking about winning the war, as anyone else then, and I don't doubt he would be suprised if anyone cuestioned killing civilians back then. -Anyone did, by the way?

 

[sikitu]

In addition German troops were rather more likely to commit atrocities on native populations - Jewish or not. They did this in the 1870-1 war with France and those soldiers' descendants did the same during the WWII occupation. Guerilla activity punished by killing half a village - and not even known terrorists, but randomly chosen people is cruel.
.

Do you have sources for the events mentioned from 1870/71? I agree concerning WW2, especially the actions by SS troops and "Einsatzgruppen" in the Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union were horrible. However, for the war of 1870/71, I would like to express some doubt.

Furthermore, if atrocities committed by troops justify attacks on the civilian population (do I understand you correctly here?), this would also mean that the Vietcong would have been justified to bomb some US cities during the Vietnam war...

 

[Melvin Loh]

Mr Bluenote, I believe that Hiroshima was chosen, as the other target cities, due to its strategic importance as a major port, was undamaged by previous firebombing and goegraphically could maximise the nuclear fallout, while Nagasaki was actually a secondary target to Kokura.

Guys, don't forget the use of the atomic bomb and the overall justification of preventing an Okinawa-style bloodbath from the active execution of Op DOWNFALL in invading the home islands. Cpuld the Allies really have afforded to NOT use the A-bomb when it was ready and expend 10s of thous of American and Allied lives trying to take Japan inch by inch ?

Some good sites on the atom bomb's use to end WWII:
http://www.ww2guide.com/atombomb.shtml
http://www.theenolagay.com/study.html#SELECTING THE TARGET

DMA, i agree that the only way Bomber Harris would've been tried for war crimes is indeed had he been shot down and taken prisoner in a Lancaster over Germany- maybe the Nazis would mount a show trial similar to how the Japs conducted a farcical show trial of the 8 captured Doolittle fliers (resulting in 3 executed and 5 receiving life imprisonment sentences), or to the show trials which condemend von Stauffenberg and the other July 1944 bomb plotters ?

 

[Karlos]

It is clear that the bomb raids over Tokio were worst than the Atomic Bomb. As it has been said, the bomb was just that, a bomb, bigger and more destructive than any other, but used the same way. In my view, it was used more as a warning to the soviets than as a mean to force japanese surrender, which was unavoidable. In any case, is more of the same: you target the other side civilians to break down the will to fight, and for me it fits the definition of war crime. I just can't see a big difference between lining up civilians and machine gun them in a chezc village or burn them in the streets of Hiroshima, is both undiscriminated killing of civilians, or am I wrong? In both cases you are doing it for military reasons, for shortening -wining- the war. A sad conclusion is, of course, that war is a crime in itself, so there is not much sense in triying to find crimes inside of it. Sorry if I repeat myself, but that often happens in debate over moral issues.

 

[Prunesquallor]

Hmm.... Karlos- I've just staggered back from the pub so am in no fit state to look at the recent postings. But just leave out all historical considerations, all case analysis. Let's try a general moral case. You're sitting in front of a machine. It's got one button. You can ignore it, then 2X people die. You can press the button, then only X people die. What's your reaction? And that sort of argument is the only excuse for the bombing campaigns.

 

[MrP]

Sorry, Sikitu, afraid it's just my vague recollection of a modified set of wargames rules (Von Boltenstern's Principles of War) in an article in either Miniature Wargames or Wargames Illustrated about 5-7 years ago. If I err, then I'm sorry. In fact, I'm now very embarrassed, as a mere glance at the net would've revealed no evidence. My apologies.

Furthermore, if atrocities committed by troops justify attacks on the civilian population (do I understand you correctly here?), this would also mean that the Vietcong would have been justified to bomb some US cities during the Vietnam war...

Oh, I wasn't saying that atrocities committed justify attacks on the civilian infrastructure supporting those troops. Sorry if it sounded like that! I meant attacks on the civilian infrastructure of a "more evil" side can be justified much more easily than terror attacks on the "good" side. By that logic, it is indeed easier to justify such potential VC attacks. However, they would not have been just. One can always attempt to justify the unjustifiable, but that makes it no more just. For example, the invasion of Iraq could be justified by an appeal to one's audience to consider the inhumane and barbarity of Saddam. Nonetheless, this would not justify the deaths of those innocents killed in the war who otherwise would have lived. Not to them. But to oppressed minorities it might.

Guys, don't forget the use of the atomic bomb and the overall justification of preventing an Okinawa-style bloodbath from the active execution of Op DOWNFALL in invading the home islands. Cpuld the Allies really have afforded to NOT use the A-bomb when it was ready and expend 10s of thous of American and Allied lives trying to take Japan inch by inch ?

Plus the justification of preventing some sort of hideous Communist regime running the upper half of the nation for another half century.

 

[zoomar]

The strategic aerial bombing of cities (including deliberate terror bombing aimed to distrupt production and break civilian morale) began in the First World War and had become a fairly widespread item of doctrine and dogma among "airpower" advocates in Britain, Germany, the US, Italy, the USSR, and Japan by the time WW2 started. It had already been employed by Germany in WW1, Italy in Ethiopia, Japan in China, and Germany in Spain. All major nations were expecting such attacks once the war began (as evidenced by the existence of functioning civil defense brigades, civilian aerial spotter corps, the placement of anti-aircraft bateries in cities, and air-raid drills with everybody in gas masks - in fact the widespread expectation that cities would be bombed with poison gas was even worse than the reality).

In this context, it is hard to consider Harris or his equivalents in any other WW2 airforce that employed terror bombing a "war criminal". It seems to me part of what makes something a war crime is its uniqueness - something which stands out from "normal" warfare as particularly reprehensible. One can argue all day whether the allied strategic bombing campaign was a good use of resources, or whether it was wrong in an abstract moral sense, or whether it was symptomatic of the growing insanity which is modern total war, but I do not believe it should be considered a war crime.

 

[DMA]

DMA, i agree that the only way Bomber Harris would've been tried for war crimes is indeed had he been shot down and taken prisoner in a Lancaster over Germany- maybe the Nazis would mount a show trial similar to how the Japs conducted a farcical show trial of the 8 captured Doolittle fliers (resulting in 3 executed and 5 receiving life imprisonment sentences), or to the show trials which condemend von Stauffenberg and the other July 1944 bomb plotters ?

Yeah, Melvin, this scenario is basically what I was thinking. Other than such a Nazi show trial, there's no chance that Harris would be facing trial by his own people, post-WW2 Germany, or the UN for that matter.

 

[Raymann]

I started this thread in another forum I'm on basically me asking this to a bunch of professors and lawyers, I try not to repeat myself if I can help it.

http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0309.shtml

 

[sikitu]

Sorry, Sikitu, afraid it's just my vague recollection of a modified set of wargames rules (Von Boltenstern's Principles of War) in an article in either Miniature Wargames or Wargames Illustrated about 5-7 years ago. If I err, then I'm sorry. In fact, I'm now very embarrassed, as a mere glance at the net would've revealed no evidence. My apologies.

Mr P, alright with me. Let us return to the main topic. I also apologize but I am a always concerned when I have the impression that Germany is wrongly characterised. Our country leaders in 1933-1945 were responsible for the holocaust and I am sincerely ashame of this, but Germans have not always been like that, and it has never been "THE" Germans.

 

[Karlos]

in 1937, the American State Department protested to Japan about its bombing of Chinese cities, "Any general bombing of an extensive area wherein there resides a large population engaged in peaceful pursuits is unwarranted and contrary to principles of law and of humanity." In 1938, the United States protested again (also protesting bombing of cities in the Spanish Civil War) and now called such bombing "barbarous." The protest continued: "Such acts are in violation of the most elementary principles of those standards of human conduct which have been developed as an essential part of modern civilization."
City bombing was a war crime in 1944, as it is now. The important thing is that, in war, you can commit crimes if you think they are necessary, and get away with it provided you don't loose the war. And yes, everybody did, but they are still crimes. What gives city bombing a disguise of warfare is the weapon. Imagine a P-51 pilot is shot down. On land, they give him a machine gun and point towards german troops. Keep doing your job! And he will without hesitation. Now a B-29 pilot is shot down. They give him a flamethrower, send him to some neigborhood where families are sleeping and tell him, keep doing your job! What would he do, and why? From above, you don't smell the burning flesh, but from the vicitm's point of view, there is no difference. Now you can tell me that in total war everything changes and there are no more moral laws. Maybe so, but then it smells to hipocresy that we condemn the other side crimes, and do not thing for a moment that I am condonig them.

 

[Steffen]

On a lower level, can anyone here see a chance of allied fighter pilots being persecuted for chasing and shooting at civilians in the last weeks of ww2?

 

[Melvin Loh]

City bombing and unrestricted submarine warfare

Oh another thing on city bombing asd a war crime, weren't the Allies initially considering the trial of LUFTWAFFE leaders for the bombings of Coventry and other major British cities during the Blitz, but later ended up deciding not to due to what Bomber Command and the 8th AF had undertaken by 1944-45 ? Similarly, wasn't there also an initial desire at Nuremberg to prosecute Doenitz for the U-Boat campaign and unrestricted submarine warfare, which was dropped when the Allies realised that the USN had done actually the same thing in the Pacific with its submarine fleet ?

 

[zoomar]

Oh another thing on city bombing asd a war crime, weren't the Allies initially considering the trial of LUFTWAFFE leaders for the bombings of Coventry and other major British cities during the Blitz, but later ended up deciding not to due to what Bomber Command and the 8th AF had undertaken by 1944-45 ? Similarly, wasn't there also an initial desire at Nuremberg to prosecute Doenitz for the U-Boat campaign and unrestricted submarine warfare, which was dropped when the Allies realised that the USN had done actually the same thing in the Pacific with its submarine fleet ?

Yep. More evidence that, for all its flaw's, the Nurnburg tribunal was an attempt to meet out more than crude victor's vengeance. And in reference to Karlos' points about US protests against Japanese and German aerial bombing in China and Spain, it is easy to make such protests when one's own country is not involved in a war. It was also a little unfair, since the US Army Air Corps was full of air power advocates desiring to build up a strategic air force to bomb, among other things, enemy production centers and cities. I'm not claiming the allied aerial bombing campaign against Germany and Japan was not immoral. It was highly immoral. In hindsight, if those who believe it did not hasten the wars end are correct, it may not have been justified as well. It was not, however, on a par with the deliberate extermination of people practiced by the Nazis and cannot be considered a war crime because bombing of civilian targets was practiced to one extent or another by all combatants who had the technical capability to build advanced airforces. And, odd as it may seem, I would consider the individual chasing and shooting of civilians by allied fighter pilots as described by Steffan as much more deserving to be considered a war crime which allied courts should have looked into than the destruction of Hamburg or Tokyo.

 

[Karlos]

Zoomar, I think we don't really disagree. I consider a strategic bombing aimed at a factory or military base as llegitimate, even if there are civilian victims, often unavoidable. I consider the schweinfurt raids or the attack on the French communication sistem as military actions. But if the goal of the bombing is deliberately killing civilians, things change. Thats the point, you target civilians, as when you strafe a girl on a bicycle with your jabo, the only difference being that you don't see them. Harris deliberately wanted to kill german civilians, and even said proudly once "I kill thousands of people every night". Nazi extermination policy is something almost unparalleled in history and nothing stands comparation, but it doesn't mean other actions can be considered a war crime.