The Pros And Cons Of Justified Mass Bombing

Mass bombing carried out by the Allied forces, caused massive destruction and loss of life in enemy territory. Mass bombing was carried out by Britain in Germany and by America in Japan. The mass bombings of Japan and Germany cannot be justified; because the Allies would be liable for committing crimes against humanity; were the law to apply retrospectively, objectives pertaining to economic aims and enemy morale were not achieved, supreme emergency was temporary as opposed to permanent, although, the German threat faced by Allies justified mass bombing, however, the Theory of War, under the principle Jus in Bello, repudiated this justification.

Were, the provisions of the 1977 first protocol to the Geneva Convention 1949, applied as a retrospective

judgment on mass bombing, it would be classified as a moral crime, thereby nullifying Allied justifications in support of mass bombing (Grayling 222). The Geneva Convention of 1949 pertained to the treatment of civilians during war time (193). However, the Convention has never been applied since its formation (194). This shows us, that the element of morality exists with respect to actions committed during war and according to this Convention the Allies clearly transgressed this via their bombings. The bombing of cities such as Hamburg caused massive destruction and death, violating the rights of the civilians and thereby raising a pertinent question with respect to morality. Hence, if the Convention was to apply ex-post facto, the Allies like the Nazis would be responsible for their actions (200). The Nazis were reprimanded as per the Charter of the International Tribunal created by Allies, for the atrocities they committed during WWII. Under, the charter they were tried for four things, including crimes against humanity. This was defined as “murder, extermination...and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds...within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal” (192). By carrying out mass extermination of Jews (Holocaust), Slavs and Gypsies, as well as enslaving, killing the civilian population of conquered lands the Nazi’s had committed crimes against humanity. Legally, laws cannot be applied retrospectively, however, at Nuremburg the reason for applying the law retrospectively was that there was a need to “infuse humanitarian considerations into the conduct of war” (202). Therefore, were these laws, to be applied retrospectively to the Allied forces actions, they would be responsible under the “inhumane acts committed against any civilian population” clause of crimes against humanity (193). Despite, the fact that Allies were not held responsible for their actions under the law, ethics and the availability of choice the Allies had is questioned. Were the deaths, of hundred thousands of civilians; women, children and elderly required? Did their deaths contribute in any way to the Allied victory? Therefore, Allied bombings of cities in Germany and Japan were not justified because of moral implications and an element of illegality as per the laws created after WWII.
The Allies aimed to use mass bombing in order to target the enemy war industry, as well as to demoralize the enemy civilians, however these aims were not achieved, invalidating the justification for mass bombing (Grayley 202-203). As per Fahey, the strategic air offensive undertaken by Britain was burdensome to the degree, that its economy suffered massively and its economic situation by the end of the war was similar to Germany’s (4). Hence, keeping this in mind, a question arises that was mass bombing carried out by Britain successful? Statistics show that production in Germany actually rose in the early years of the war and only fell in the last months of the war (Grayley 209). Excess capacity in the German economy, allowed the country to recover on several occasions. Moreover, logistical issues, Allies expected Germany to face were dealt with easily, since the Germans had slaves and prisoners of war to carry out work such as clearing rubble and corpses (209). Precision bombing, another form of strategic bombing was much more useful in the war. Precision bombing was the bombing of a particular target, as opposed to a whole area. This bombing was carried out by USA on German oil and transport system “The American oil attack was proportionate and pertinent; it could also legitimately claim to be a necessary part of the effort to defeat Germany, the area bombing of civilian populations was not necessary” (205). This shows the success and importance of precision bombing. The reason why German output fell in the last year of the war was because precision bombing impacted and hindered the movement of coal from mines to industrial plants (209). Ruhr is a good example, which shows us the success USA had with precision bombing, which resulted in the damage of the Ruhr dams. Thus, this shows that precision bombing was far more effective than mass bombing. Had Britain focused on precision bombing or switched to it in 1943 when its usage became possible, it would have been decisive in winning the war for the Allies (Levine 194). Thus, this implies that area bombing did not make much difference in Germany with respect to the economy; rather it caused unnecessary death and loss of life. These losses did not offer the Allies much to gain since, the aims intended to be achieved by mass bombing were not attained.
With respect to morale, Britain intended to demoralize the German population and did so by carrying out mass bombing; as a means to end the war as soon as possible.

However, the result of this was mass destruction, loss of life and though this was extremely destructive, it did not impact German morale greatly; rather the civilians went about their daily lives and continued working. The German morale and economy was very different than what the Allies had imagined. An argument is that perhaps this was so because the intensity of bombing in Europe couldn’t be compared to Japan. Furthermore, that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan was “the last straw” and hurt the Japanese morale badly (205). Tokyo bombings had a terrible aftermath and USA was successful in demoralizing the Japanese. This caused the Japanese to surrender in the end, without putting up a fight. It was argued further, that mass bombing was to target military and industrially important areas, however this wasn’t so. Though Dresden possessed a railway system that Allies intended to destroy, Dresden was a cultural city in Germany, where refugees were living; the Allies targeted the city to help the USSR army, which was moving towards Dresden. The mass bombing of Dresden, caused fire storms which killed a huge population of the city brutally. Similarly, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not militarily important, however to showcase their power and to demoralize the Japanese, the atomic bomb was dropped (194 Levine). Thus, we can say that the bombing of cities which were not important militarily or strategically was carried out, to reduce the morale of the enemy civilians, which worked in Japan, however it failed in Germany. Hence this justification, for mass bombing becomes invalidated because the aim of mass bombing was not

achieved.
Supreme Emergency, justified mass bombings carried out by the Allies, however, once the state of emergency passed, this justification was no longer applicable (Lammers). The British, were threatened by Germany’s increase in military strength and there was a realization, that the enemy was unique since their “imperialism was racist in nature”, this threatened the core of the Western World (98-99). Britain, during the early period of the war, spent large sums of money on the production of bombers, thus it is no surprise that Churchill stated that bomber’s were the only hope for the achievement of victory or the avoidance of defeat (Lammers 100). This, state of emergency is defined as Supreme Emergency. Supreme Emergency has three criteria’s there must be imminent danger, the danger must be of a serious nature. Separately the criteria’s will not constitute an emergency, rather together they would; hence, the threat has be both serious and immediate for Supreme Emergency (100). Thence, it is true that Britain’s response to Germany was under the pretext of Supreme Emergency because the criteria was met. Germany, at the beginning of the war was conquering lands rapidly, with sophisticated forces. Britain at this point was the only power, standing up against Germany, thus it faced a direct threat of invasion by the Germans. This fell under the criteria of both serious and immediate danger. However, once USA joined the war and the Allies started to become successful, with the reduction in seriousness and immediacy of threat, the justification under the pretext of Supreme Emergency was no longer applicable. Similarly, in Japan, the only point where an immediate and serious threat was faced by USA was when the Pearl Harbour incident occurred, however once USA launched its counterattack which included mass bombing and the Japanese started losing the war, the justification under the pretext of Supreme Emergency was no longer valid. Hence, mass bombing cannot be justified unless it is absolutely necessary to carry it out, whilst facing immediate and serious threats; otherwise its justification is invalid.
Mass bombing, by Allies was justified since it was the only means to target Germany directly at the start of the war. In 1940, Britain was the only world power, which stood up to Germany and threatened its hope to achieve its goals. To deal with the German threat, the British as mentioned above intended to use bombers to attack German cities. Prior, to Harris’s appointment as Commander in Chief of Bomber Command, Germany attacked British cities including London (Zuckerman 67). Moreover, as USSR was preparing to fight against the Germans, they demanded that another front be opened, the British couldn’t do so, however they had an option to put their bombers to use. Hence, it can be argued that the British had to counter the German threat, by carrying out mass bombing. Later, when USA joined the war, it focused on precision bombing in Germany, however it used mass bombing in Japan since Japanese cities were made of paper and wood and mass bombing would be more effective (Grayling 14). Therefore, mass bombing caused massive terror and chaos in Japan. Hence, at the start of the war, as Walzer argues, the British were in a precarious situation, such that they could not predict the outcome of the war, and their hopes of winning were very slim. Similarly, the war in the Pacific started with Japanese making huge gains against the Allies. Hence, bombers were necessary to help the Allies fight against their enemies, thus mass bombing was justified (Lamer 100).
This argument can be countered by the fact, that mass bombing went against the principle of Jus in Bello (just conduct in war) a requirement for Justum ad bellum, under the Theory of War. Thomas Aquinas stated that there were three conditions of war. Firstly, that a just cause of war existed, secondly, that it began through proper authority and thirdly it was fought with good intentions. Justum ad bellum is made of the first two conditions. Theorists later recognized a second requirement for Justum ad bellum, which was Jus in Bello that is just conduct of war (Grayling 178). The Allied demand for unconditional surrender caused the prolongation of WWII which resulted in greater destruction and a higher death toll, raising a question with regards to Justum Bellum (180). This in turn, also raises a question about Jus in Bello, whether the carrying out of massive bombing is fair conduct? Philosophy defines military action as “as any action necessary and proportionate to winning the war” (181). Hence an element of proportionality exists. The mass bombing of Germany and Japan was disproportionate. This can be seen from an example where incendiaries were used in the bombs against Japanese; in order to burn civilians thereby the principle of Jus in Bello was breached. It is argued by some that the Japanese deserved this because they too, fought brutally and carried out atrocities during the war. However, it can be countered that this was actually ‘human slaughter’ which was not permissible under Jus in Bello (196). Similarly, the bombing of Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki went against the Jus in Bello principle. Therefore, since the principle of Jus in Bello was breached, the Allies couldn’t justify mass bombing since the element of proportionality did not exist, hence the conduct in war was unjust.
The arguments stated above, support the stance that mass bombings, carried out by the Allies cannot be justified. Accounts of mass bombings in cities such as Tokyo, Hamburg and Dresden, paint a terrible picture of human death and destruction, of once great cities, reduced to ashes and rubble. The bombing of Dresden 1945, received great backlash from the public, that Prime Minister Winston Churchill, in a memo, condemned the Dresden bombing and said that it brought into question the conduct of the Allies. Thus, this brings in an important question, whether mass bombing was moral. Dower’s statement, “Victors control history books and rewrite the moral codes as well” (196) is true, since had the Allies lost, they would have been responsible for “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all of history” (196). Moreover, this debate essentially relies on whether as per Theory of War and Jus in Bello, the actions of the Allies were proportionate and the answer is no, not only was it morally wrong, but aims which were intended to achieved weren’t and although the Allies had to defend themselves and strike the Axis powers, proportionality came into play. Thus, mass bombings cannot be justified.