Is violence against civilians sometimes justified?

[grumbler]

I think the better though experiment is whether he would drop the bomb on some random civilian (where the civilian was the only damage done) and letting it drop in the ocean.

Your hypothetical just ranks two relative values, it doesn't determine whether one of them has zero intrinsic value.

if we are talking targeting, when is the empty ocean the target? 

Now, if you changed the hypothetical to ask "if  Churchill could send a 50-plane raid that he knew would kill exactly 50 German grandmothers and inflict no other damage (let's say they are on a beach on an otherwise empty island in the North Sea) or cancel the raid, which would he do?" I think that he would scrub the mission.  Do you agree?

[DGuller]

I think the better though experiment is whether he would drop the bomb on some random civilian (where the civilian was the only damage done) and letting it drop in the ocean.

Your hypothetical just ranks two relative values, it doesn't determine whether one of them has zero intrinsic value.

if we are talking targeting, when is the empty ocean the target? 

Now, if you changed the hypothetical to ask "if  Churchill could send a 50-plane raid that he knew would kill exactly 50 German grandmothers and inflict no other damage (let's say they are on a beach on an otherwise empty island in the North Sea) or cancel the raid, which would he do?" I think that he would scrub the mission.  Do you agree?

Cancelling the raid would save on fuel and the bombs, so that misses the point of Berkut's point.  Then you would have to weigh the cost of fuel and bombs for 50 bombers against the benefit of offing 50 grannies.  What Berkut wants to arrive at is whether the benefit of dead grannies is positive or negative, in Churchill's mind, and keep all other variables exactly the same.

[Berkut]

I think the better though experiment is whether he would drop the bomb on some random civilian (where the civilian was the only damage done) and letting it drop in the ocean.

Your hypothetical just ranks two relative values, it doesn't determine whether one of them has zero intrinsic value.

if we are talking targeting, when is the empty ocean the target? 

When the option is between the empty ocean and the little old ladies, of course.

It is a magical hypothetical, we can set the terms however we like.

Does Churchill choose zero damage over killing the little old ladies? Which is more valuable to him?

Now, if you changed the hypothetical to ask "if  Churchill could send a 50-plane raid that he knew would kill exactly 50 German grandmothers and inflict no other damage (let's say they are on a beach on an otherwise empty island in the North Sea) or cancel the raid, which would he do?" I think that he would scrub the mission.  Do you agree?

Nah, that gets us back to relative costs - are 50 little old ladies worth the cost of the raid.

My hypothetical assumes the cost of the raid is sunk already - it has been launched and paid for. You can't bring the bombs back, much too dangerous.

Do we drop them on nothing, or go ahead and take out some civilians?

[grumbler]

Cancelling the raid would save on fuel and the bombs, so that misses the point of Berkut's point.  Then you would have to weigh the cost of fuel and bombs for 50 bombers against the benefit of offing 50 grannies.  What Berkut wants to arrive at is whether the benefit of dead grannies is positive or negative, in Churchill's mind, and keep all other variables exactly the same.

We are talking whether or not the Allies were targeting civilians (i.e. launching raids to kill civilians), so I think my scenario is the more realistic one for examining the case we are actually considering.  I don't think Churchill would expend effort to solely kill grannies (i.e. I don't believe that he considered the deaths of German civilians per se to be desirable), and so I don't think that he would accept, say, a Mafia offer to assassinate, for free, 50 German grandmothers in order to increase German death tolls.

[grumbler]

Nah, that gets us back to relative costs - are 50 little old ladies worth the cost of the raid.

Which is the situation Churchill faced in the war, according to you.  The Allies conducted about 1.4 million bomber sorties over Germany to kill some 300,000-500,000 civilians.  If killing the civilians was the object (i.e. they were the targets), that's a remarkably small return.

[Berkut]

Nah, that gets us back to relative costs - are 50 little old ladies worth the cost of the raid.

Which is the situation Churchill faced in the war, according to you.  The Allies conducted about 1.4 million bomber sorties over Germany to kill some 300,000-500,000 civilians.  If killing the civilians was the object (i.e. they were the targets), that's a remarkably small return.

Not really - since my position doesn't claim that civilians were the only targets, just one of many.

I would turn that around and note that killing half a million civilians when they are NOT your target seems like a pretty hard to swallow figure.

I think civilians were the targets, but they were one of several different priorities.

[grumbler]

Not really - since my position doesn't claim that civilians were the only targets, just one of many.

What were the targets, then, according to your sources, and how many sorties (or what percentage of the sorties) do your sources estimate were made against each target type?

What percentage of bombs dropped were anti-personnel (fragmentary) bombs?

I would turn that around and note that killing half a million civilians when they are NOT your target seems like a pretty hard to swallow figure.

Yes. That is the entire basis of the "acceptable collateral damage" debate.  I don't share your view, but it is a reasonable one.

[mongers]

I wonder where discovery of firestorms fit in this picture? 

[Ed Anger]

Yes. Bathe in their blood.

[Berkut]

Not really - since my position doesn't claim that civilians were the only targets, just one of many.

What were the targets, then, according to your sources, and how many sorties (or what percentage of the sorties) do your sources estimate were made against each target type?

Come on grumbler, you know I am not going to go trot out sources that list out every single target type. You can read Overy just as well as I can. This is a Langush discussion, not an academic paper.

I will throw out a bone though - this is from Overy's "The Bombing War: Europe 1939-1945", page 617:

The RAF, by contrast, soon abandoned conventional economic warfare in favour of deliberately attacking the German civilian workforce and their urban environment. This was done not simply because night-time bombing was so inaccurate - and continued to be throughout the war - but because the bombing of a city or urban quarter was deemed to be an effective economic target. Killing workers, destroying their houses and amenities, and reducing their willingness to work were designed in the long run to reduce German war production in many rather than a few factories. In a people's war, 'the people themselves', as Sir Richard Pierse put it, became a legitimate objective. This meant particular people, those living and working in industrial cities, where the population was attacked indiscriminately.

Excuse any typos, they are mine since I typed this out from the text.

What percentage of bombs dropped were anti-personnel (fragmentary) bombs?

I have no idea, nor is it pertinent to the discussion.

I do know, however, that the US dropped thousands of tons of incendiary bombs on population centers in Japan. That strikes me as pretty anti-personnel to me.

I guess at the end of the day I don't really care much how you go about justifying it - sending 1000 B-29s over Tokyo at night at low level armed with incendiary bombs targeting population centers is terror bombing of civilians with the intent of killing as many of them as possible. You can call it what *you* like, "de-housing" or some other euphemism, but that strikes me as kind of obscene.

[grumbler]

Come on grumbler, you know I am not going to go trot out sources that list out every single target type. You can read Overy just as well as I can. This is a Langush discussion, not an academic paper.

I will throw out a bone though - this is from Overy's "The Bombing War: Europe 1939-1945", page 617:

The RAF, by contrast, soon abandoned conventional economic warfare in favour of deliberately attacking the German civilian workforce and their urban environment. This was done not simply because night-time bombing was so inaccurate - and continued to be throughout the war - but because the bombing of a city or urban quarter was deemed to be an effective economic target. Killing workers, destroying their houses and amenities, and reducing their willingness to work were designed in the long run to reduce German war production in many rather than a few factories. In a people's war, 'the people themselves', as Sir Richard Pierse put it, became a legitimate objective. This meant particular people, those living and working in industrial cities, where the population was attacked indiscriminately.

Excuse any typos, they are mine since I typed this out from the text.

I would say that Overy is saying what I am saying:  that the British were bombing the "urban environment," not targeting civilians qua civilians.  Sure, some workers could get killed, but they weren't the targets (since they were in the bomb shelters, and the Allies dropped no penetrating bombs on the cities, which they would need to do to get at the civilian populace).  Maybe he describes somewhere else in the book how many civilians per moth/raid/sortie the British were aiming to kill?

What percentage of bombs dropped were anti-personnel (fragmentary) bombs?

I have no idea, nor is it pertinent to the discussion.

It is relevant to the discussion if we are debating whether or not civilians were the targets, since frag bombs are what you use to attack personnel.  A hint:  the percentage is near-zero if not actually zero.  The Allies dropped anti-materiel bombs (HE and incendiary).

I do know, however, that the US dropped thousands of tons of incendiary bombs on population centers in Japan. That strikes me as pretty anti-personnel to me.

Actually, incendiary bombs are anti-materiel weapons:  people are not particularly flammable.

I guess at the end of the day I don't really care much how you go about justifying it - sending 1000 B-29s over Tokyo at night at low level armed with incendiary bombs targeting population centers is terror bombing of civilians with the intent of killing as many of them as possible. You can call it what *you* like, "de-housing" or some other euphemism, but that strikes me as kind of obscene.

I am fine with you sticking to the popular narrative that the purpose of the Allied bombing campaigns was to kill people.  I am just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support that interpretation.  No bombing MOE used in Europe or the Pacific by the Allies included number of civilians killed.   MOEs were things like percentage of buildings destroyed, number of factories hit, estimated reductions in output, rail lines or bridges destroyed, and the like. Civilians were killed, but there is no evidence that the Allies regarded these deaths as a goal.

Even more interestingly, the USAAF dropped leaflets on Hiroshima and Nagasaki urging the people to leave because the cities were about to be destroyed.  How was that calculated to add to the body count?

But feel free to believe what you wish.

[DGuller]

It is relevant to the discussion if we are debating whether or not civilians were the targets, since frag bombs are what you use to attack personnel.  A hint:  the percentage is near-zero if not actually zero.  The Allies dropped anti-materiel bombs (HE and incendiary).

Would fragmentation bombs be effective at killing personnel inside masonry buildings?

[dps]

Originally, I had typed a much longer post, but I decided not to post most of it, because this was the last line, and really is about all that needs to be said with regards to many of the bombing missions flown by the USAAF and even more by the RAF in WWII:  if area bombing of cities isn't targeting civilians, it's close enough in practical terms to make no difference.

[Berkut]

I think on the note that we can be certain that civilians were not the target of massive fire raids because people are not very flammable, I am out of the discussion.

[11B4V]

I think on the note that we can be certain that civilians were not the target of massive fire raids because people are not very flammable, I am out of the discussion.

I started was laughing my as s off at that. But was too embarrassed at the time to post. Would;

"civilians were not the target of massive fire raids because people are not very flammable, "

qualify as a straw man?