The morality of city bombing vs. regular warfare in WWII

[Razgovory]

Does the violation of laws of war on one side allow the violation of the laws of war on the other side as well?  In other words if one side targets civilians in war the other side may be able to respond in kind?

[CountDeMoney]

Does the violation of laws of war on one side allow the violation of the laws of war on the other side as well?

Not if you want to be "the Good Guys".

[Martinus]

Does the violation of laws of war on one side allow the violation of the laws of war on the other side as well?  In other words if one side targets civilians in war the other side may be able to respond in kind?

No. The purpose of these laws is to protect civilians, not states, so actions of one state do not invalidate obligations of another state. Not to mention, this would make actual enforcement and observance of these laws even more farcial that it is now.

Nb, Germans in WW2 apparently claimed that Soviet soldiers do not deserve Geneva conventions' treatment because the Soviet Union itself was not a party. This was found to be a wrong line of reasoning at Nurnberg.

[Martinus]

Wikipedia to the rescue:

All four Geneva Conventions prohibit reprisals against, respectively, battlefield casualties, shipwreck survivors, prisoners of war and civilians, as well as certain buildings and property. An additional 1977 protocol extends this to cover historic monuments, works of art, and places of worship.

[grumbler]

No. The purpose of these laws is to protect civilians, not states, so actions of one state do not invalidate obligations of another state. Not to mention, this would make actual enforcement and observance of these laws even more farcial that it is now.

Nb, Germans in WW2 apparently claimed that Soviet soldiers do not deserve Geneva conventions' treatment because the Soviet Union itself was not a party. This was found to be a wrong line of reasoning at Nurnberg.

This is correct.  However, perfidy (the deliberate misuse of a protected status by non-protected forces) removes the obligation of the other side to recognize any protected status of the offending power.  That is why you saw (and see) so little abuse of the red cross and red crescent.

[Josquius]

I think a distinction has to be drawn between those bombing raids where the target was of military significance- factories, power plants, rail mustering yards, etc.... and bombing half a city was the only way to be sure it was hit, and those raids which primarily were about killing civilians.
Its not a binary comparison of course. It all comes in degrees with different attacks being more, or less immoral. A lot of the supposed non-combatants were part of the war in some perhaps indirect way, but then there were some who weren't anything to do with it at all.

Also there was a shit tonne of an eye for an eye stuff going on. Which is pretty nasty but...well, what is a government to do when its people demand nastyness?

[Neil]

Nb, Germans in WW2 apparently claimed that Soviet soldiers do not deserve Geneva conventions' treatment because the Soviet Union itself was not a party. This was found to be a wrong line of reasoningThe Germans were found to have lost the war at Nurnberg.

[grumbler]

I think a distinction has to be drawn between those bombing raids where the target was of military significance- factories, power plants, rail mustering yards, etc.... and bombing half a city was the only way to be sure it was hit, and those raids which primarily were about killing civilians.

Well, yes - the distinction you are calling for is the distinction between legitimate military operations and war crimes.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think a distinction has to be drawn between those bombing raids where the target was of military significance- factories, power plants, rail mustering yards, etc.... and bombing half a city was the only way to be sure it was hit, and those raids which primarily were about killing civilians.

Well, yes - the distinction you are calling for is the distinction between legitimate military operations and war crimes.

The distinction starts to get pretty fine when the objective is something like destroying civilian housing stock in the hope that will indirectly impact on worker productivity in war materials and production facilities.

[grumbler]

The distinction starts to get pretty fine when the objective is something like destroying civilian housing stock in the hope that will indirectly impact on worker productivity in war materials and production facilities. 

That's not really close to the line, IMO, so long as the intent is to de-house factory workers that contribute to the actual war effort, rather than intending to de-house, say, farmers and hospital attendants.  If the factory building itself is a legitimate military target, then so are the other infrastructure elements that allow the factory to operate.

It certainly can be argued that the British bombing campaign over Germany (or the American one over Japan) was so indiscriminate that it went beyond what was permissible under the articles of war, but that wasn't because of what they targeted, but rather how they went about hitting what they were ostensibly targeting.

[The Minsky Moment]

The distinction starts to get pretty fine when the objective is something like destroying civilian housing stock in the hope that will indirectly impact on worker productivity in war materials and production facilities. 

That's not really close to the line, IMO, so long as the intent is to de-house factory workers that contribute to the actual war effort, rather than intending to de-house, say, farmers and hospital attendants.  If the factory building itself is a legitimate military target, then so are the other infrastructure elements that allow the factory to operate.

That can work if there is dedicated on site worker housing.  But a typical urban pattern is that workers live in unsegregated working class districts.  My understanding of the WW2 "de-housing" rationale was that the idea was that you just bombed urban residential quarters relatively indisriminately, you would achieve the desired effect. 

[Warspite]

I think the morality of city bombing relates more to the overall moral problems of waging total war.

The norms and laws of war in the Western world evolved in an era when complete mobilisation and utter destruction of an enemy state's ability to fight was not perceived to be a necessary condition of victory. So it is unsurprising that even in the relatively civilised war in Europe between the Western Allies and the Axis such quandries emerge from the deliberate policy of the Good Guys.

Thankfully, total war seems to be infrequent occurrence (I can just think of three instances).

Interestingly, the same moral problem arises in nuclear war, except that no one survives to discuss it.

[Viking]

Thankfully, total war seems to be infrequent occurrence (I can just think of three instances).

That probably doesn't include the dozens of genocidal total war carried on by balkan, pre-historic, barbaric and third world shithole tribes and gangs. You can conduct total war with machetes.

[grumbler]

That can work if there is dedicated on site worker housing.  But a typical urban pattern is that workers live in unsegregated working class districts.  My understanding of the WW2 "de-housing" rationale was that the idea was that you just bombed urban residential quarters relatively indisriminately, you would achieve the desired effect. 

So long as the desired effect is a military one, and the force used isn't excessive to the objective, then this would probably be within the law.  If the objective is to simply terrorize and demoralize the population , it isn't.

[Ideologue]

I think the morality of city bombing relates more to the overall moral problems of waging total war.

The norms and laws of war in the Western world evolved in an era when complete mobilisation and utter destruction of an enemy state's ability to fight was not perceived to be a necessary condition of victory. So it is unsurprising that even in the relatively civilised war in Europe between the Western Allies and the Axis such quandries emerge from the deliberate policy of the Good Guys.

Thankfully, total war seems to be infrequent occurrence (I can just think of three instances).

Interestingly, the same moral problem arises in nuclear war, except that no one survives to discuss it.

Wrong.  Nuclear combat toe-to-toe with the Russkies would kill less than half the populations of the United States, Europe, and the Soviet Union, and practically no one in the southern hemisphere, and probably not in the PRC (depending upon the scenario).

Also, I believe there have been many more than three total wars (you probably refer to the ACW, WWI, and WWII).  If you mean wars where the single overriding goal was to destroy the enemy's state or even its people, you can add the Third Punic War at least, and almost certainly the Chinese Civil War, and I suspect total war would describe the strategy of some during the Thirty Years War, though I know little of the 30YW (however, I do know that many of our rules of war and general international law arise from that war, e.g. that pussy Grotius).