Aerial bombing of cities: Encyclopedia II - Aerial bombing of cities - Is aerial bombardment state terrorism?

Aerial bombing of cities - Is aerial bombardment state terrorism?

Some argue that these acts qualify as state terrorism. Others state that there were valid military reasons for the attacks on these particular locations. For example, Nagasaki had major naval shipyard facilities and Hiroshima had bases where tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers were quartered. Some say that there is evidence that the United States attempted to warn the civilian populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to evacuate the target areas, but this claim is disputed. However as it was assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, no warning needed to be given under the laws of war at that time (see lower down in this section for more details).

The minutes of the meetings of the Target Committee responsible for proposing locations for the are available. According to these minutes, it was agreed "that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance." Later, the decision was made

Both of these quotes were taken from The Decision to use the Atomic Bomb by Gar Alperovitz, 1995. These statements are of course open to varying interpretations, but they call into question the notion that the target was chosen purely for its military significance.

During World War II the British approved city busting at the highest level. Professor Lindemann was liked and trusted by Winston Churchill. Churchill appointed him the British governments leading scientific adviser with a seat in the Cabinet. In 1942 Lindemann presented a seminal paper to the Cabinet advocating the aerial bombing of German cities by carpet bombing in a strategic bombing campaign. It was accepted by the Cabinet and Arthur Harris was appointed to carry out the task. It became an important part of the total war waged against Germany. Professor Lindemann's paper put forward the theory of attacking major industrial centrers in order to deliberately destroy as many homes and houses as possible. Working class homes were to be targeted because they had a higher density and fire storms were more likely. This would displace the German workforce and reduce their ability to work. His calculations showed that the RAF Bomber Command would be able to destroy the majority of German houses located in cities quite quickly. The plan was highly controversial even before it started, but the Cabinet thought that bombing was the only option available to directly attack Germany, (as a major invasion of the continent was years away,) and the Soviets were demanding that the Western Allies do something to relieve the pressure on the Eastern Front.

The legal defence for this action can be found in the "Laws and Customs of War on Land "(Hague IV); October 18, 1907^[2]

• 25 The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
• 26 The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.
• 27 In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

It was a bombardment of defended towns because countries had air defences. It was an arial assault so no warning need be given and All necessary steps as far as possible were taken.^{[3] [4]} There were a number of legal argument against this view, but unlike Karl Dönitz, who was tried and found guily of waging "unrestricted submarine warfare" for which no one in the US Pacific submarine campaign was ever tried, (which is often cited as a case of Victors justice), as no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, "assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory", it is not possible to state categorically that that aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory during World War II was or was not a war crime. However the fact that there were no prosecutions, suggests that legal opinion of the time was that it was not a crime during World War II.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Is aerial bombardment state terrorism?", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki