In WW2 the Allies won (in part) by bombing civilian towns. Is this legal and/or morally acceptable?

Question

In Bosnia, of civilians were killed in the NATO bombings (as the press cheered). How many civilians were killed (accidentally) by Americans in Iraq? It is impossible to wage war nowadays without accidentally killing civilians. P.S. Why are these issues only brought up when Israel is involved and ignored in other conflicts? - Does anyone even know that, according to the Iraqi Health Ministry, more civilians have been killed in Iraq by american bombing then combatants! (In my research, Israel has one of the lowest civilian per combatant ratio in the history of warfare, and while fighting guerrilla style warfare to!)

Answer 1

There are several discussions going on here:

1.  Is "collateral damage" acceptable?

2.  Is bombing of civilian populations ever acceptable?

3 . What constitutes an enemy army?

1.  I suppose a non-combatant who is in a military area when it is bombed could be considered to be "collateral damage."  However, given the nature of current warfare it may not be possible to separate "military" and "civilian" areas.  It therefore becomes a question of how to attack an enemy, perceived or real, and is bombing the answer?

When winners do this it is acceptable.

2.  Bombing of civilian areas which have "high value" military targets embedded within them may be open to some discussion. However, bombing of non-military or "low value" military areas is always wrong.     Yes the Germans did it in London, during the blitz.  And the blitz was intended to terrorize non-military personnel. And it was inexcusable. However, the carpet bombing of Dresden and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were areas of "low value" militarily was intended to "terrorize" the civilian populations of the axis powers every bit as much as the blitz was intended to terrorize Britain's civilian population.  The business of "it saved U.S. military lives" is specious in that it wasn't mentioned during the bombing, but it only came out several years after the end of WWII. The idea that American lives are more precious than Japanese lives also smacks of the same racial policies that both German and Japanese leaders taught their citizens.

When winners do this it is acceptable.

3.  What constitutes an enemy army?  Wearing, or not wearing uniforms is of no consequence.  The partisans in Europe during WWII wore no uniforms, yet probably were responsible for some of the Allies greatest victories by supplying information about enemy troop strengths, weather conditions, local geography, etc.  These partisans had a command structure and constituted an army every bit as much as the uniformed Free French Forces. They also hid weaponry and military materiel in private houses, businesses, and even places of worship. When winners do this it is acceptable.

And finally: while Israel may have a low civilian per combatant ratio in its fight against guerrilla forces, it is the other issues that makes

Israel's force seem excessive.  A few examples:

a.  Destroying homes in which guerrillas "may" have had accomplices is an example of guilt by association.  The n***s used the same logic in villages they believed had hidden or given support to partisans.

b.  Building a protection wall by expropriating Palestinian land as a protective buffer is somewhat analogous to building the wall to keep out illegal immigrants but building it 10 miles inside Mexico.

c. Destroying Palestinian farmlands and orchards so that Israel may have a clear view into Palestine is also morally wrong.  



    

Answer 2

It is incorrect to state that carpet bombing was required because targeting was not sophisticated. Industrial areas are generally not populous areas. However, both sides bombed civilians in a militarily pointless aspect of the war. The worst of these bombings was the British bombing of Dresden, which destroyed the town and killed 100,000 people in one night.

Answer 3

The reason people seem more bothered about the Arab-Israeli conflict than the others is because it has been going on for so much longer, and lots of people feel involved for religious and cultural reasons, although relatively speaking, far fewer civilians have been affected here than in other wars.

Of course, civilian casualties in war are totally unacceptable, morally or otherwise.

I believe the Allies won in WW2, not mainly on account of bombing cities, but due of a tip in the military balance - there were far too many soldiers against the Germans, who were fighting on both fronts, plus the n***s were starting to get terribly disorganised - not only were they wildly improvising policies as they went along, but many of these contradicted each other.

Answer 4

An opinion was rendered in international courts to wit:

"in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war"

At the time, "total war" meant the civilians on both sides faced indiscriminate aerial bombing, including incendiary attacks, nuclear attacks, and assaults on centers of culture/churches/schools, etc.

A change in the Geneva Conventions, beginning in 1949 were the results from the uproar of the fire bombing of Dresden, nuclear attacks on Japan, and other indiscriminate carpet bombing during WW II.

Therefore, in answer to your question, there were no specific treaties or conventions broken AT THE TIME of the bombings and therefore it was not a war crime, these prohibitions all came after the war.

With regard to the second part of your question, is it morally acceptable, the answer is no, but then again, those who try to moralize a barbaric act like war will be the ones most likely to be defeated.  That to me is the lesson of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Answer 5

Legal? The 4th Geneva Convention took effect in 1950, there were no laws governing non-combatants at the time.

Moral? Is war ever moral? I'm not a Christian, but the 5th Commandment was already in effect.

Answer 6

I would say it always impossible to wage war without killing civilians.  Unless combatants return to marching onto a field and facing each other while firing.

WW2 was different from Bosnia, Israeli conflicts with Palestinians and Iraq.  WW2 was a total war wherein civilians were contributing to their countries war effort.  Someone has to build the tanks, planes, rifles etc...  If you kill those people the country can't fight anymore.

Israel is singled out.  That's the way it is.  Sorry.

Answer 7

The moral part of this question is moot ! IS IT ETHICAL?NO but necessary. In situations where the combatants are not uniformed or out in the open. The cowardly use of civilian urban zones for attacks.The intentional hiding in Hospitals, Orphanages,civilian populations. Make co-lateral damage absolutely unavoidable. The enemy ( hamass and others )intentionally target civialian areas frequently. The PLO , Hamas, Arab states that fund terrorists all seem to have better press agents. It is amazing how every report makes it seem as Israel is the big mean monster!. In WW2 the axis forces put many of their defense plants in populated areas in hopes that, our moral compass would not allow us to bomb civilians!  

Answer 8

no

Answer 9

  The Allies only bombed civilian targets after the Germans did so...although the Germans did it accidently.

  In Japan, many small industrial shops supplied parts to the major industries, and those shops were in civilian neighborhoods.  The cities were bombed to destroy the industrial capacity, not the people, although that was the result.

  Now the USA can bomb accurately, so it can no longer carpet bomb, but must hit specific targets and minimize damage to civilians.  Civilians will always get hurt in a war, but now we try to do them as little hurt as possible- because the weapons allow it.

Answer 10

I think you are trying to point out to the hypocritical approach present in the Western world as to which country to reproach on the grounds of protecting civilians and/or human rights. Of course there have been zillions of wars in history in which the civilian population suffered, but one does expect some things to be changed in an era that is imagined to be human centred and that is only in search of peaceful coexistence. Every country nowadays, even in war, claims to be peaceful. What had been done centruies ago overtly is now done covertly. Actually, in our so called humanitarian era, civilians are in danger more than ever with the use of unconventional weapons and in addition, you have to deal with all sorts of useless, fraudelent diplomacy and propaganda. So I can't agree with the "yeah well it's war, some people are gonna die as always, what's wrong with that" attitude.

I would hardly find a mentality like "It's OK when they're doing, so let me freely do it too" morally justifiable. Don't bog yourself down with figures and who did what, the important thing is lives of the people, who have no other guilt than to be born in a particular country, are always at stake in a possible military conflict between two or more parties.

Answer 11

the bombing of civilian targets was started by the Germans in World War I as was the use of poison gas. The germans used dirigibles to

drop bombs on English sites. They also had a stockpile of poison gas which they released onto the battlefields of Europe. The Allies retaliated. The same was true in WWII. The Germans were looking to develop an atomic bomb but the Allies got their first. (Americans did not invent the atomic bomb. The scientists involved were from all Allied nations.)  What did you expect the Allies to do sit on their hands and let their people be killed? Stop trying to explain today's wars by using yesterday's examples.

Answer 12

In my view, we should stop trying to decide if there's a legal or an illegal way of waging war, and try to concentrate on not waging war at all.

From a historical point of view; the bombing of cities (by both sides) in WW2 was nothing new, except technologically.  From a moral point of view, it ranks equal with the burning of Atlanta by Sherman.