*
Second World War II Allied strategic bombing campaign controversy French Televusion
French Television: The Bombing War from Guernica to Hiroshima
Figure 1.--The French authors of this film ask, "What is the point of killing civilians?" It is a fair question, but fails to point out that over 80 percent of the civilians killed in Europe were killed by the NAZIs. And the NAZIs had plans to kill far more civilians after they won the War. The same is true of the Japanese in Asia. The simple fact is that the greatest war crime of all would have been if America and Britain had not used their prodigious industrial might to destoy the monstrous evil with which they were confronted.
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' liberation.
Program Details
The program was a French production, "Le monde sous les bombes, de Guernica à Hiroshima, but also released English -- "The Bombing War". It was produced by Emmanuel Blanchard and Fabrice Salinié and broadcast by Frnce Télévision amd Planète. The text was authored by Emmauel Salinié. The film was awarded the Prix Terre(s) d'Histoire au FIGRA (2017). The Terre (s) d'Histoire Prize rewards the work of a director who intends to share his passion for history with the public, aware of the importance of memory. FIGRA - International Festival of News and Society Documentaries. This is more of a Hollywwod-like group than a professional historical group. The film was a product of the Compagnie des Phars et Balises which does both drama and documetaries.
Assessment
We have developed a method of asessing the historical discussions of the strategic bombiing camapaign and here is our point by point assessment.
1) Does the author spend most of the time describing how terrible war/bombing is?
Most of the French documentary goes into detail about how horrikle the strategic bombing campaign was. This of course is something that no one dusagrees with. War is an ugly thing and strategiv bombing was indeed a terrible thing. There is no doubt about that. And no one would question that. The real question is, was it justified. And here the producers spend very little time. And they largely ignore what the French response was -- surreder and submissionnto the NAZIS. And perhaps even worse, collaborating with the Germnans in the hope that the bNAZIs would treat them kindky.
2) Does the author ignore who started the war?
The authors do make it clear that the Germans lauched the War. Anbegan bpmbing civilians even before the War beginning with the small Basque town of Guernica (1937).
3) Does the author mention that the Germans were very good at war, better than the democratic countries?
The authors totally ignores the fact fact that the Germans were very good at war, better than the armoes of the democracies. Major Allied commanders undferstood this, but did not admit so pubically during the War. This is important because they compliment Stalin for fighting a groonmd war and not bombing. Actually this is one of many historical mistakes. Stalin did bomb, thry bombed Finland during the Winter War. And the Soviet Uniion did not have the indudstrial caoapcity to build an effective bomber force. After the War as Soviet indudtry expanded, Stalin built a bomber firce. The first major bomber was a replica of the American B-29 Superfortess. The suggestioin is that the Allies should have fought a ground war like the Red Army waged in the East. They admit that there were casualties to this approach, but do not mention the enormous dimenbsion of the casualties that the Red Army suffered.
4) Does the author point out that the primary advantage the Allies had was their industrial superiority?
The primary advantage that the Western democracies had was their huge economic capacity--both industrail and agricultural. Germany was the second leading industrail nation, but less than half half of that of the United States. Combined with British production, the Western Allies were hugely superior and that is not eben including Soviet industray. Given that the Germans were the most proficent at war, the best chance the Allies had at winning was to convert their industial might uinto fearsime weaomds of war. Given that the French sollur=tiin was to surreder and collaborate and wait for America and Britain to save them, to ask that they give up thair major assett seems beyond the pale. They call the strate=gic bombing campaign 'pointless caranage' igoring the fact that a major reason D-Day suceeded was that the Luftwaffe was destroyed in the skies over the Reich when they came up to shoot down the bombers (raely 1944). This is why the Luftwaffe was a no show when the Allies landed to libetate France., And the authors simply ignore the huge impact the Allied bomningh had on the success of the Red Army in the East. The NAZIs had to devote huge industrial resources to the air and navala war in the West. This meant that they could not adequately support the Ostheer.
5) Does the author ignore the unmitigated evil of the Axis and there horrendous mass murder camapigns?
The authors totally ignore the monstrous evil the Allies faced. Not only were the the NAZIs commiting unimaginable attrocities, but they were polanning evenb greaterbones after they won the War, including the destruction og France. Not only are the authors silent in this, they even suggest that bthe Holocausr began because of the Allies Strategic Boimbing Campaign. This is absurd. The mass killing of Junes began with Barbarossa (June 1941). This was a year before the Roiyal Air Force began redciebinhg the Acro Lancaster and vpild begin sizeabke raids on the Reich. It is also thge time that work in the death camps and gas chanbers began. Not only is the suggestion that the bombing was related to the Holocaust in accurate, but it is offensive, especially coming from a French source as the French Goverment was cooperating with the NAZIs.
6) Does the author ignore numbers such as the people murdered by the Axis and only stresses the bombing mortalities?
This is exactly what the authirs do. The Germans had a very effective air defense and cibvil defense sustem. There is no excat count, but a commonlyused estimate is 350,000 German civilians killed in the bombing. This is a rounding error compared to massive loss of life in the war or even just the victims of the various NAZI killing programs. Not a word about this in the film.
7) Does the author explain how the Axis could be defeated without strategic bombing?
Here the vauthors do attempt to offer an alternatuve strategy. They belkieve that the bombers should have been used differenty. They suggest that the orimary targets should have been: 1) oil and 2) tramsportation. Here theyb are accurate, but the suggestion shows an apalling ignorance of World War II miitary operations and air ooerations in particular which they preyend to be expets. Oil sites in the Reich could not be hit by night raids and day-light raids were only feasible after the Luftwaffe was destroyed. And if course when the Americans accomplished that, they immediately went after the oil and transport sites (early 1944). The authors also do not mention that going after transport involved hit ing rail huns and marshalling yards, mosdt of which were located in the middle of major cities. Not only do they not mention this, but they even criticize the Americans for hitting rail hubs in Italy because of civilian casualties.
8) Would alternatives to startegic bombing resulted in more or fewer deaths?
HHere the authors suggest that a better approach to the Pacific War would have been to continue the blockade and that the Japanese had offered to nsurrender. All of this is not just a disagreemebht, mit is a total fabrication. The Japanese had not offered to surrender nefore the bombs were dropped. It is true thaey wanted to end the War. It is factually incirrect that they offered to surrender. In fact the authors suggest that the President Truman's Potsdam Decalaration was made after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped. In fact it was made more than a week before the bomb was dropped. As to blockade being a preferable strategy, this is also absurd. Less than 200,000 people were killed by the two atmoic bombs, 300,000 if the lingering radiation deaths are cionsidered. This would be a small fraction of the Japanese that would have doed from starvationd. The Japanese were near starvation at the end of the War. Months of blockade would have resulted in a terrible famine and millions of deaths. Not to mention the deaths thyat woukld have occurred in rhe aubstantial areas still occupied by the Japanese. And it would have meant that viurtually all the POWs and internnees in Jaopanese hands would have perioshed.
Reader Comments
A British reader writes, "Great coming from the French.A few years ago there were programmes about the French resistance and the French frienďline to the Nazis. They would not surrender their fleet to the Allies and then wonder why it was sunk.
The programme seems to have got a lot wrong. And it needs to be mentiined that the Ftench police helped round up Jews and the Frebch railway system was used to transport the holocaust victims to the NAZI death ncamps. There were were some very brave people who hid Jewish people, nut pitifully few. The idea that vwe should have treated the poor Germans more gently is both absurd and offensuve.".
