Talk:Area bombing directive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] End of the directive
In this case the word directive means orders The directive was not cancelled by Churchill in 1945 it was replaced by another directive long before that. I am not sure which one, because they were issued quite often. For example
- On 27 March, 1944, the Combined Chiefs of Staff issued orders that control of all the Allied air forces in Europe, including the strategic bombers, would pass to the Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower. They were ordered to help bomb tactical targets in France in the lead up to and during the Normandy landings.
- The Directive the RAF received at the end of this campaign dated 25 September 1944, was to attack German oil, communications and certain other targets like U-boat pens.
- Another directive was issued on 27 January 1945,
- Yet more were issued after the Yalta Conference
The above list is far from complete, and as can be seen they were issued quite often. So I am removing the section about Churchill cancelling the directive in 1945. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Was it a war crime?
The German Wikipedia qualifies the article to War crimes cathegory. Xx236 09:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- No. See Area Bombardment#Aerial area bombardment and international law. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
well it was an excessive british warcrime.--131.173.252.9 09:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Must've gotten something wrong but the article mentioned above, does indeed state that it is a war crime (bombing undefended cities). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.244.10.3 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You must "'ve gotten something wrong". First is that you seem to have read the Shimoda judgement and not the rest of the section. Shimoda is just one POV and not the generally accepted one. Second the Shimoda judgement is seriously flawed in that it seems to arbitrarily include "The Draft Hague Rules of Air Warfare, December, 1922-February, 1923" but ignores the "Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War. Amsterdam, 1938" which being closer to World War II it could be argued was closer to international opinion on what civilised countries though indicative of international law on aerial bombardment at that time. Article 2 of that convention stated that:
- Art. 2. The bombardment by whatever means of towns, ports, villages or buildings which are undefended is prohibited in all circumstances. A town, port, village or isolated building shall be considered undefended provided that not only (a) no combatant troops, but also (b) no military, naval or air establishment, or barracks, arsenal, munition stores or factories, aerodromes or aeroplane workshops or ships of war, naval dockyards, forts, or fortifications for defensive or offensive purposes, or entrenchments (in this Convention referred to as "belligerent establishments") exist within its boundaries or within a radius of "x" kilometres from such boundaries.
and defines what constitutes a defended town. It is not distance from the front line as is argued in Shimoda. However both were only indicative of opinions on international law and were not positive international law. That both treaties failed to be ratified is probably more indicative of international law on aerial bombardment than drawing conclusions from them. Further as both were drafted before the public announcements of radar, there was no way that they could reflect the concept of national air defences as developed by both the British (Battle of Britain and all that) and the German Kammhuber Line. Thanks to these integrated national air defences, all British and German cities were defended. The empirical proof of this is the number of aircrew on both sides which were casualties of their enemy's air defences. As an example of how this concept of national defence was put into action during World War II is how the British moved AAA guns from London to the coast to defend against V-1 attacks, see Operation Diver. It would be odd to say the least to argue that moving the guns out of London to better interdiction positions meant that London was less defended than before the move was made. -Philip Baird Shearer 13:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] SYSTEMATICAL ATTACK ON CIVILIANS
This directive lead to a systimatical attacking of the geman civil populatiuon. the british attacks were concentrated on workingclass quarters and midivael citycenters. The goal was pure terror against civilians. The amount of civilian loses were enormous. In Hamburg (55.000 dead, in Dresden betwenn 25.000 and 35.000 dead, in Pforzheim 20.277 dead ,31,4 % of all inhabitants, in Darmstadt 12.500 dead, 66.000 homeless out of former 110.000 inhabitants, Kassel 10.000 dead, Heilbronn 6500 dead, Würzburg 8500 dead etc. Churcill, Harris, Lindmann and many other bristish politicians and military personell was not sentenced for his warcrimes after the war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.173.252.9 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some other bombing directives
- 21 Jan 1943 Casablanca directive issued by the Combined Chiefs of Staff defining the primary objects of the combined bomber offensive.[1]
- 10 June 1943 the Combined Chiefs of Staff issued a directive to RAF and USAAF on the POINTBLANK plan for destruction of the German aircraft industry.[2]
"By the end of 1943, however, the British Air Staff, already inclined to the American view, was finally convinced that the area bombing offensive was not the best way to win the war. But it was not until February 1944 that, by insisting on an attack against the controversial target of Schweinfurt, they made this clear to Sir Arthur Harris. The official British policy, if not the practice, of area bombing was then discarded" (New Zealanders with the Royal Air Force (Vol. II) CHAPTER 3 Bomber Command and the Battle of the Ruhr
- 16 September 1944 combined Chiefs of Staff directive "OCTAGON 29"[3], that stated the primary objective to be
- "the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial and economic systems and the direct support of land and naval forces."
--Philip Baird Shearer 21:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
