Figure 1.--The idea that tactical air power could have been used to avoid casualties and desruction ignores what occurd in the East--in partiular 25 million Soviets killed. Here a Russian woman and her two girls lookat their destroyed house sometime in 1943 as the Red Aemy began driving the Germans west. Source: RIA Novosti.

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 can be viewed on the internet. We viewed an 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, monstrously 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. One 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 nomning 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.

Infectual

Graylimg and Overy argue that the Strategic Bombing Campaign was ineffectual. This was not the case. The Allied soldiers landing in Normandy would not agree with them. The Luftwaffe was not a factor on D-Day because itbhad been desroyed by Startgic Bombing Campaign. And there were many other impacts of the bombing. Notice that Grayling and Overy do not address the many imapacts of the bombing campaign that Bishop and Beevor present it that are based in the histotical record detailed in the link here. Rather both Grayling and Overy raide a red herring-- Air Marshal Harris' intent on breaking German civilian morale. Here they are absolutely correct. German morale did nor break. Here thy have priven Harris wrong, but that did not mean that the campaign was ineffectual. The bombing campaign played a very important role in the defeat of Japan. Notice that Grayling and Overy do not just mention Harris once, but return to him again and again and simply ignore the mountain of ecidence about the impact of the bombing. Nowe it can ne argued that mistakes were made as to targetting and tacrics, but it simply cannot be argued that the bombing did not seriously impact the German war effort.

Innocent Civilians

There is no doubt that innocent civilans were killed. Now we can argue that many German civlians were not all that innocent. There is a major debate abiut the level of Germam complicity in the Holocaust and other NAZI war crimes. Many German civilians were involved in these atrocities and not just the SS. It was the SS and other German forces that did most of the actual killing, but civilans were deeply involved in many aspects of these crimes. And like the British, the German evacualted the children from the cities--KLV ecavuations. And the numbers have to be considered. The Germans killed something like 40 million civiliams. And most were killed in well thoughout killing campaigns. Transforming the ethnic map of Europe was a primary German war objective. And as appalaing as the German record was, the killing they actually commited was only a small part of what they were planing after they won the War German plasn for the East makes for especially chilling reading--Generalplan Ost. The German killed in the strategic Bombing Campaign were not a small mumber. Historians differ on the numbers killed, but most estimates fall on the 0.3-0.6 million range. The German Civil Defense effort was very effective. Not a small number to be sure, but only about 1-2 percent of the total civilan casualties in a war that the Germans themselves launched. These are all important points, but are not the central issue in considering civilain casualties. Innocent or not, German civilans were samll cogs supporting a vast, barararic killing machine of monstrois dimensions. And while many German civilians may have been innocent, their leaders who directed and controlled their labors and energy certainly were not.

More Effective Use of Resources

Another argument that both Grayling and Overy both make is that there were imprtant options to strategic bombing that would have more effctively utilized the resources devoted to strategic bombing. Neither Grayling or Overy were too anxious to actually provide options, but when called on, the option they came up was the German option -- tactical ground support. What they did mot fully explain was this option was not a campaign by itself but part of a major ground campaign. What they are arguing for is what occurred on the Eastern Front. It is exactly the kind of war the Germans and Soviets fought there, but also used their bombers to hammer countless Soviet cities. And the campaign led to far more civilain amd military deaths than the campaign in the that they are comlaining about. But they mislead the the audience in that this was a realistic option. The British had suffered horific casualties in World War I and the public wanted no part of another ground war. Major politicuans infact were calling for disarmament. There was resistanve to all forms of defense sprending, espcially for the Army. Strategic bombing in Britain and America was seen as a way of preventing the terroble ground casualties of World War I. An imprtant factor to consider is that the Germans were very good at war. This is not just what the Germanns said, it was what the Allied commanders said as well. Their combat effectivenees man for man and umit for unit exceed that of the Allies. It wiild have been a miscalculation of the gaevest proportions for the Allies not to fight the War with the strategic weaponty theur industry could pridce rather than a grund war fought out with manpower. The French did and and lost. The Soviets did as well as sutained some 25 mullion deaths. This was especially the case before the Allies had trained ground firces that could go toe to toe with the Germans. On both the Eastern and Western Frints, victories over the Germans were only gained when substantally superior forces were brought to bear on the Germans. And even then the Allies, especially the Soviet sustained more casualties than the Geramns even in their great victories. The straregic bombing camapaign provide a way to take on the Germans and support the Sovuets before Western grond forces could take on the Germans.

Created: 3:51 AM 6/12/2020
Last updated: 3:52 AM 6/12/2020