Introduction To this day, the strategic bombings within the context of World War II are polarizing contested events, with historians arguing for and against the morality and the effectiveness of the campaign. From the time of the publication of the theory of strategic bombing to the present, no wider consensus has been reached around the moral or strategic legitimacy and viability of the tactic - historians, politicians, and strategists remain in disagreement. There are many different perspectives on the various strategic bombings in World War II, with some historians arguing that strategic bombing is morally indefensible and militarily ineffective, some arguing that strategic bombing is morally indefensible yet militarily effective, some …show more content…
arguing that strategic bombing is morally defensible yet militarily ineffective, and some arguing that strategic bombing is both morally defensible and militarily effective. The nature and the horrors of strategic bombing have resulted in many emotive perspectives and reports about the moral defensibility and military effectiveness of strategic bombing, leading to reports rife with biases and research done to support pre-existing conclusions. Opinions on strategic bombing have changed with time, but the issue is still relevant in our society of today - strategic bombing is still a tactic employed today, with ever increasing frequency. I will be analysing the different perspectives on strategic bombing within World War II, making judgements on the historical validity of arguments both for and against the idea of strategic bombing, before finally drawing conclusions as to whether strategic bombing is morally defensible or indefensible and whether strategic bombing is militarily effective or ineffective. Background to strategic bombing Strategic bombing is oftentimes maligned by critics due to the destruction it caused to civilian lives and its failure to produce clear cut results, but on closer inspection, the infancy of aviation tactics and the doubt surrounding the correct allocation of air resources in the context and time of World War II show that, without the benefit of hindsight, the decisions the strategists of the time were forced to make were those of intense gravity and importance, with little support from the conventional ground based combat wisdom of the past. World War II was the first real opportunity for the employment of strategic bombing, meaning that both the Allies and the Axis Powers had little information as to the true effectiveness of strategic bombing; all they had to work with was theory. When debating over the issue of the morality of strategic bombing, it needs to be remembered that the decision makers of the day were not in possession of the knowledge, information, or the blessing of hindsight which we are able to use to look back upon and critique their decisions. In addition, when reviewing the deaths and the destruction caused by strategic bombing, one must make the consideration that the bombings must not be taken out of context - in isolation, the strategic bombings may be viewed merely as senseless destruction, but within the proper context of World War II, there is the argument that strategic bombing could have accelerated the war and ultimately saved lives. However, it must also be remembered that the lack of information the decision makers of the day had access to does not have impact on the military effectiveness of strategic bombing - although the lack of information as to the effectiveness of the strategy may excuse mistakes which may have been made, it does not make wrong decisions into right decisions. For strategic bombing to be considered as militarily effective, it must have had greater effect than any other allocation of the aviation resources used in the bombings could have had on the war effort. When placed into context, considering both the information available at the time and the setting of the wider war, strategic bombing is an extremely complicated issue, a fact which plays a part in the contestation of the event, and which has led to widely differing perspectives as to the morality and the effectiveness of the bombings. It is difficult to make any assertations as to whether strategic bombing was indeed militarily effective or not, and it is difficult to make a judgement as to the defensibility of the morality of strategic bombing. Even Arthur "Bomber" Harris, RAF marshal during the time of World War II and a major figure in the enactment of strategic bombing policy, is quoted as having said "War is a nasty, dirty, rotten business. It's all right for the Navy to blockade a city, to starve the inhabitants to death. But there is something wrong, not nice, about bombing a city. (1)" The theory of strategic bombing was first publicised by General Giulio Douhet in his book The Command of the Air in 1912 and has remained a contested strategy into the modern era.
Douhet's theory asserts that if enemy civilians are bombed, they will apply pressure onto their governments, leading the opposing governments to inevitable capitulation from mounting unrest and irrepressible plummets in morale to continue fighting. This theory is based upon the idea that war is never won through battle and decisive set-piece victories, but through the surrender of the opposing governments; set-piece battle victories and the destruction of enemy material are merely a means to apply pressure on the opposing government to surrender. In the context of war being won through pressure being applied to the enemy government, Douhet believed that extended army and navy conflict and drawn out warfare was unnecessary, a waste of time, resources, and lives - he believed that the required pressure could be applied to the enemy government merely through the means of bombing enemy civilians, leading to a swift victory, without the need for the navy and the army. Prior to World War II, aviation technology was greatly limited, and as a result, aircraft had minimal impact on the landscape of battle. However, within The Command of the Air, Douhet writes that "because of its independence of surface limitations and its superior speed the airplane is the offensive weapon par excellence. (2)" - with the …show more content…
continued development of aviation technology, Douhet saw the potential of aircraft to redefine the way war was fought, removing the need for land-based combatants restricted by the surface of the landscape, and opening up the field of warfare to the limitless sphere in the sky. Douhet was not the only person of significance with this belief - Stanley Baldwin, Britain's de facto Prime Minister, believed that "The bomber will always get through. (3)" Douhet writes within The Command of the Air - "Would not the sight of a single enemy aircraft be enough to induce formidable panic? Normal life would be unable to continue under the constant threat of death and imminent destruction." This is an underlying idea for the theory of strategic bombing - the pressure exerted on citizens by enemy aircraft would be too great for them to withstand, leading to them pressuring their governments to surrender - if true, regardless of the morality of the strategy, this would indeed empower aircraft as a weapon par excellence, allowing nations to win wars merely based on the strength of their aerial offence. Debates as to the ethicality of strategic bombing aside, strategic bombing's detractors argue that strategic bombing is only effective under the assumption that the bombing of enemy civilians will demoralise the population and cause unrest, and as it is now understood, strategic bombing is a complicated tactic which does not work within all contexts. Douhet's theory of strategic bombing - the intentional and deliberate bombing of civilians with the intention of causing terror - was employed within the context of World War II, with bombings such as Dresden, London, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki remaining both emotional and contested events to this day. Initially, Allied forces refused to apply the principles of strategic bombing to the war effort, believing them to be immoral, however the ineffectiveness of the alternative tactics they had at their disposal eventually forced them to embrace the doctrine proposed by Douhet.
At the outbreak of war, the American air force and the RAF subscribed to the theory of precision bombing - aiming directly for the target, with intent to minimize collateral damage. Aircraft would fly at night to their targets - flying during the day caused them to sustain heavy losses - and attempt to drop their bombs directly upon military installations, factories, railway systems, or various other facilities which aided the enemy war effort. However, the Butt report of September 1941 revealed that only one in three RAF bombers were manging to drop bombs within five miles of their targets . This was a result of numerous factors - because German air defences forced the Allies to make bombing raids during the night, navigators had difficulty locating their targets. In addition to this, while the technology available to the Allies in World War II was greatly superior to that available in the past, it was still limited, making accurate bombing difficult even in perfect conditions. Because of these factors, the Allies yielded and began to employ strategic bombing tactics. In his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th of September 1939, Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minster, stated that
"whatever lengths to which others may go, His Majesty's Government will never resort to the deliberate attack on women and children and other civilians for the purposes of mere terrorism." While this makes clear the original intent of the allies to refrain from strategic bombing techniques, a British Air Staff paper on the 23rd of September 1941 states that "The ultimate aim of an attack on a town area is to break the morale of the population which occupies it. To ensure this, we must achieve two things: first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger. The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i) destruction and (ii) fear of death", showing a clear change of beliefs and adoption of strategic bombing policy - deliberately targeting civilians. Critics argue whether it is the Allied decision to adopt strategic bombing theory was justifiable, as although by investigation their alternative options were proving unsuccessful, Nazi Germany had previously subjugated London to an 8 month and 5 day strategic bombing, the Blitz, yet this strategic bombing had failed to accomplish the objective of its intent, to demoralise the British population. In the years to come, the Allied decision to adopt strategic bombing principle would result directly in the Bombing of Dresden and to the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, highly contested bombings which, to this day, have their legitimacy, ethicality, and military effectiveness debated.
Upon reading “Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan” by J. Samuel Walker, a reader will have a clear understanding of both sides of the controversy surrounding Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. The controversy remains of whether or not atomic bombs should have been used during the war. After studying this text, it is clear that the first atomic bomb, which was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, was a necessary military tactic on ending the war. The second bomb, which was dropped on Nagasaki, however, was an unnecessary measure in ensuring a surrender from the Japanese, and was only used to seek revenge.
Although WW II ended over 50 years ago there is still much discussion as to the events which ended the War in the Pacific. The primary event which historians attribute to this end are the use of atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although the bombing of these cities did force the Japanese to surrender, many people today ask “Was the use of the atomic bomb necessary to end the war?” and more importantly “Why was the decision to use the bomb made?” Ronald Takaki examines these questions in his book Hiroshima.
”Battle of Britain, in World War II, a series of air battles between Great Britain and Germany, fought over Britain from Aug. to Oct., 1940. As a prelude to a planned invasion of England, the German Luftwaffe attacked British coastal defenses, radar stations, and shipping. On Aug. 24 the attack was shifted inland to Royal Air Force installations and aircraft factories in an effort to gain control of the air over S England. Failing to destroy the RAF, the Germans began (Sept. 7) The night bombing, or blitz, of London. Heavy night bombings of English cities continued into October, when the attack was shifted back to coastal installations. The Germans gradually gave up hope of invading England, and the battle tapered off by the end of October. Though heavily outnumbered, the RAF put up a gallant defense; radar, used for the first time in battle by Britain, played an important role. The Germans lost some 2,300 aircraft; the RAF 900. The Battle of Britain was the first major failure of the Germans in World War II, and it thwarted Hitler's plan to force Britain to accept peace or face invasion” (Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia).
We agree that, whatever be one’s judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible. The “8 Primary Pros and Cons of Dropping the Atomic Bomb” People also say how Japan was already defeated, concluding why the bombs were unnecessary. Although, many others say that the dropping of the atomic bombs saved their lives, but the debate over the decision to drop the atomic bomb will never be resolved. The war against Japan bestowed the Allies with entirely new problems as they encountered an enemy with utterly unfamiliar tactics.
The United States of America’s use of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has spurred much debate concerning the necessity, effectiveness, and morality of the decision since August 1945. After assessing a range of arguments about the importance of the atomic bomb in the termination of the Second World War, it can be concluded that the use of the atomic bomb served as the predominant factor in the end of the Second World War, as its use lowered the morale, industrial resources, and military strength of Japan. The Allied decision to use the atomic bomb not only caused irreparable physical damage on two major Japanese cities, but its use also minimized the Japanese will to continue fighting. These two factors along
The Anglo-American bomber force was divided in terms of strategy. Bomber Command believed it was too risky to bomb by day, while the Americans believed it was too difficult to bomb by night. Initially both forces lacked accurate navigational equipment, which deterred them from precision bombing.
The benefits that the bomb had on our society have been invaluable. Permitting the use of the atomic bomb was an atrocious mistake.In John Hersey's book, Hiroshima, he interviews a German priest serving in Japan. This priest, Father Kleinsorge, provides a first hand account of the immorality, justification, and consequences thereof; “The crux of the matter is whether total war in its present form is justifiable even when it s...
World War II played host to some of the most gruesome and largest mass killings in history. From the start of the war in 1939 until the end of the war in 1945 there were three mass killings, by three big countries on those who they thought were lesser peoples. The rape of Nanking, which was carried out by the Japanese, resulted in the deaths of 150,000 to 200,000 Chinese civilians and POW. A more well-known event was of the Germans and the Holocaust. Hitler and the Nazi regime persecuted and killed over 500,000 Jews. This last country may come as a surprise, but there is no way that someone could leave them out of the conversation. With the dropping of the Atomic bombs the United States killed over 200,000, not including deaths by radiation, in the towns of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and ultimately placed the United States in the same group as the Japanese and the Germans. What are the alternatives other than dropping the two A-bombs and was it right? The United States and President Truman should have weighed their opting a little bit more before deciding to drop both atomic bombs on the Islands of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. In the case of dropping the atomic bombs the United States did not make the right decision. This essay will explain through logic reasoning and give detailed reasons as to why the United States did not make the right choice.
Throughout history, there have been countless wars between different groups of people because of race, religion, economic basis, and endless other reasons. More often than not the party that initiated the war was not justified in doing so based on Douglas Lackey’s “just war theory”. One action initiated by the United States that has been furiously debated since the decision was made is the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and later Nagasaki. While some argue that President Harry S. Truman was wrong in making the decision that he did, I will be arguing that he was correct in deciding to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima because there is clear evidence that shows his actions were justified with both statistical proof as well as that the choice coincides with the criteria for “just war theory”.
In contrast, Maier and Selden’s thesis claims the act of dropping the atomic bomb was completely justifiable and not a war crime is the counter argument. Since, both authors address the fact that the world was at war and that aerial bombing was not something new, however, the technology advances were. In addition, their logic is reasonable because at the time of World War II almost everyone was using strategic and tactical aerial bombing, not to mention the Allies wanted to end the war as soon as possible. Thus, the atomic bomb was justifiable, however, it was a war crime. The objective of the tactical bombing was to aim at military targets it achieves its objective, however, killing thousands of lives in the process.
World War II was one of the deadliest military conflicts in history. There were many different battles that took place within this war; some more important than others. World War II began once Germany’s new dictator, Adolf Hitler, decided that he wanted to gain power for Germany and for himself. One of Hitler’s first moves in power was invading Poland on September 1, 1939. Many other countries became involved in this war because of the alliance system. The two sides during this war were the Allies and Axis powers. German, Italy and Japan were on the Axis powers; France, Britain, and the United States were on the Allies. Germany first began with the Blitzkrieg tactic meaning “lightning war”. This tactic is based on speed, surprise and was the most popular tactic. It is set up with military forces based around tanks which are supported by planes and infantry. The Blitzkrieg tactic lead to air wars with airplanes between countries. All of the countries were allowed to participate in the air wars but the four main countries were United States, Japan, Britain, and Germany. During the 1920’s and 1930’s airplanes grew in size and structure giving them more power, and making planes more effective. Planes made it easier to drop bombs, or plan attacks. All of these countries fought over air superiority. Air superiority is the position in which the air force has control over all of the air warfare and air power of the opposing forces. Germany began with air superiority but they lost it when Britain defeated them at the Battle of Britain. Gaining control over the air is a very big advantage because it is easier to plan an attack on an opposing country. All of the countries relied on their aircrafts during this war. The issue about the use of...
On August 6, 1945, the U.S. dropped the world’s first atomic bomb over Hiroshima. Three days later, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. On August 15th, the Japan announced unconditional surrender in World War II. To this day historians still discuss why the U.S. decided to use the atomic bombs. Orthodox historians argue that the decision to drop the bombs was a military one designed purely to defeat the Japanese. Revisionist historians argue that the bombs were not needed to defeat Japan; the bombs were meant to shape the peace by intimidating the Soviets. After analyzing the documents in The Manhattan Project it has become clear that the U.S. used the bombs during WWII not only to defeat the Japanese, but also to intimidate the Soviet Union
"Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Justifiable?" The Pacific War 1941-43. Web. 10 June 2010.
Introduction The development and usage of the first atomic bombs has caused a change in the military, political, and public functionality of the world today. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki revolutionized warfare by killing large masses of civilian population with a single strike. The bombs’ effects from the blast, extreme heat, and radiation left an estimated 140,000 people dead. The bombs created a temporary resolution that led to another conflict.
While the aircraft was used in WWI, it did not become a major part of fighting until WWII. This weapon created another level of fighting in the air that included bombers, fighters, radar, and the ability to assess the enemy from above. The bomb raids were alternatives to static trench warfare and aircraft weaponry allowed the troops to attack the enemy from above which was the upper hand in fighting battles. The increased amount of bombing increased the need to improve the radar technology. The radar that was previously being used was inaccurate and not very useful; but with the improvements, the military was able to see enemy ships or submarines and fight back. One of the biggest elements that made World War Two more significant than World War One was the use of Nuclear Warfare. The United States dropped the world 's first deployed atomic bomb over Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and the another bomb over Nagasaki three days later. The Japanese quickly surrendered from the war and thus led to the end of World War Two. America dropping the atomic bomb showed the world how big of a threat the United States is, especially to Russia which was another big nation at the time. The atomic bomb created terror and panic in everyone’s eyes with the fear of mass