Do allied firebombings during WWII constitute war crimes?

[Taco Truck 🚚]

The thing you all need to understand about this particular bombing strategy is that the whole point was to kill large numbers of civilians (the theory advanced was that this would lead to a collapse in morale and so hasten the end of the war, which was... remarkable... given that its principle advocates were senior bods in the RAF who had surely noted that this was not what had happened when British cities were subjected to intensive bombing) and that it was a complete failure in all respects other than the body count, actually having the opposite effect to what was intended.

Additionally, just because one side commits atrocities does not negate the atrocities (which may well have been considerably worse, as they were in this instance) committed by the other. There is no need to defend appalling actions committed seventy years ago out of nervousness as to what the implications of doing so might be.

True... but the RAF's heart was in the right place even if their actions in retrospect were wrong.

I don't really see the benefit of trying to apply modern morals to a very imprecise war over half a century ago.  I mean Germany didn't have segregated units... the United States did.  No one is saying the Allies were perfect.  After the debacle in the other thread where some people were taking out a tape measure to figure out the square footage of concentration camps liberate so they could award bragging rights via a medal system I just don't know what the point it is.

I mean really.  So what?  Warfare for the US and Britain has gotten a lot more civilized... if you can say that about war.  Why go back and split hairs?  I know the evil stuff people did right here in America in the 1940s.  I'm sure going to war didn't improve their sense of morality.

[ingemann]

True... but the RAF's heart was in the right place even if their actions in retrospect were wrong.

WTF "their heart was in the right place". RAF was terror bombing civilians, let's not sugar coat, we can make up excuses, but that was what they did, they was targeting civilians, not military, not infrastructure, not factories; civilians. This was no difference than German soldiers massacrering villages in areas with partisan activity, except there was a chance that would work (and it did to some extent). Both did it for their country, and to that extent it can be defended, but let's not begin sugarcoating it, just because the Nazi regime was evil.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Some people seem to think attacking Allied policy is automatically saying something ridiculous like "both sides were as bad as the other". It's not, it's a reflection that we can look back at our history and recognise our own nations did some appalling stunts to little meaningful effect,

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Some people seem to think attacking Allied policy is automatically saying something ridiculous like "both sides were as bad as the other". It's not, it's a reflection that we can look back at our history and recognise our own nations did some appalling stunts to little meaningful effect,

Yeah, but I think we all realize the average person on the planet in the 1940s was an asshole by modern standards.

True... but the RAF's heart was in the right place even if their actions in retrospect were wrong.

WTF "their heart was in the right place".

I was being flippant.  The RAF was trying in a misguided way to end an attack on their country.  They were not genocidal maniacs trying to conquer the world... Not to ignore the world conquering efforts of the British in the previous few hundred years.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

True... but the RAF's heart was in the right place even if their actions in retrospect were wrong.

How can a policy that largely involved trying to kill as many civilians as possible (which was very explicitly its purpose: very precise calculations as to casualty rates were made) and which involved a cavalier attitude towards the safety of the people flying the planes be seriously described in such terms without irony? Of course maybe this is an elaborate trolling exercise and irony is indeed the purpose.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would have to dispute that morality was significantly different in 1945 to 2015. I knew all of my grandparents (who, incidentally, considered Harris to be a butcher) and I don't believe they had a significantly different understanding of morality to me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By that logic why discuss anything? Why even, for instance, participate in discussions on the internet? I doubt that anyone would greatly miss your presence.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some people seem to think attacking Allied policy is automatically saying something ridiculous like "both sides were as bad as the other". It's not, it's a reflection that we can look back at our history and recognise our own nations did some appalling stunts to little meaningful effect,

Absolutely.

And of course the word 'our' there is interesting isn't it: it was all over seventy years ago now. I am not my grandfather and neither are you (not that mine would have much disagreed with what I have to say on this topic, but thats beside the point). This ought to lead to a greater freedom in terms of how we discuss these things.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Deliberately targeting civilians during wartime is always a depraved, immoral act.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

By that logic why discuss anything?

Discussing is one thing.  Flying into a rage and banging out a screed on the internet is another.

Unfortunately the world isn't black and white.  And war certainly isn't black and white.  And analyzing a war from over half a century ago is certainly not black and white.  If you have a forum consensus that knowing what we know now that action was wrong why beat us all over the head trying to get us to all froth at the mouth and call it a war crime?  What are you hoping to accomplish?

[dead0man]

Deliberately targeting civilians during wartime is always a depraved, immoral act.

Not always.  Many civilians play a part in war, and are thus targets.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Discussing is one thing.  Flying into a rage and banging out a screed on the internet is another.

Oh but I've done no such thing. I have instead posted clear and coherent arguments.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you would find it more productive - no matter your reasons for posting here - to ask that of yourself.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Deliberately targeting civilians during wartime is always a depraved, immoral act.

Not always.  Many civilians play a part in war, and are thus targets.

Unless they're high-ranking public officials directly responsible for war-time strategy or work in a munitions factory, there's no justification for deliberately targeting civilians.  

Civilians will always play an indirect role in supporting the war effort through their taxes or their participation in economic life but that's hardly a justification for deliberately targeting them. If necessary, I will post a long essay about the moral foundations of the rule of discrimination but this really shouldn't be necessary: civilians, and by this I mean "non-combatants" do not pose a direct threat to anyone.

Note: I voted "no" in this poll. Terror bombings were depraved, immoral, despicable but they could be excused under the circumstances, which were quite unprecedented. Regardless, violating discriminatory targeting requirements always merits a court case or a trial.

[Gustaf]

By that logic why discuss anything?

Discussing is one thing.  Flying into a rage and banging out a screed on the internet is another.

Unfortunately the world isn't black and white.  And war certainly isn't black and white.  And analyzing a war from over half a century ago is certainly not black and white.  If you have a forum consensus that knowing what we know now that action was wrong why beat us all over the head trying to get us to all froth at the mouth and call it a war crime?  What are you hoping to accomplish?

Regardless of the merits of the actual topic, this type of "reasoning" is one of the worst forms of arguments out there. So bad that I could tell you're wrong just by reading this post and not taking in any of Al's.

[rob in cal]

    One thing that I find haunting and awful is the last few German cities and towns that were bombed in the last months of the war.  By this time Germany was defeated, its cities in ruins, and its civilians in its eastern provinces being subjected to the brutal rule of the Soviets, and yet it was still essential to destroy German towns.  I can't remember the names, but there were two Bavarian towns that were among the last to be heavily bombed, in mid to late April, and at that point one must really ask what was the point.

[The Mikado]

Surely the mass rape of the women of Germany and other Eastern European countries at the hands of the Red Army counts as a war crime, if nothing else.

[RosettaStoned]

Surely the mass rape of the women of Germany and other Eastern European countries at the hands of the Red Army counts as a war crime, if nothing else.

  AKA the Rape Army.