Were the Allied bomber crews war criminals?

Question

Who has the coolest head to discuss such a controversial issue?

I'll extend the time for answering because I think it's an important question.

Answer 1

For them to be war criminals, they must have knowingly attacked civilians instead of a military target (as in the fire-bombing of Hamburg and Dresden or the atomic bombs on Japan) or used banned weapons (biological or chemical weapons - the laws didn't anticipate nuclear or radioactive weapons). How much the crews knew before the attacks is debateable. I think the policy-makers have more to answer for, such as Arthur 'Bomber' Harris in the UK who started the fire-bombing programme.

Legally, you might be talking about whether they broke the Geneva conventions :-

First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" (first adopted in 1864, last revision in 1949)

Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" (first adopted in 1949, successor of the 1907 Hague Convention X)

Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first adopted in 1929, last revision in 1949)

Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" (first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the 1907 Hague Convention IV)

Only the 1907 Hague convention seems relevent, as the 4th Geneva convention wasn't signed until after the war.

Answer 2

Good question:

I would have to say no. The reasons are many, but here are a few that can be easily discussed.

The crews attacked targets not people directly. They never targeted schools, churchs, houses, etc etc. They attacked the industry that supported the war. The people in the factories either directly or indirectly supported the war effort. Civilian Casulities in war has always been high up to and including WW2. After WW2 the world came to a decision to try the eliminate civil deaths and attack only military targets.

Hence, why we now have smart bombs and high tech tracking systems, etc etc.

War has never been pretty. It is just that the world looks at it different in this age. We could ask the same question of the modern B-52 pilots and bombers.

I believe the world has gotten to soft in its ability to wage war. Trying to save every civilian and make peace only grows hate and discontent. It is hard enough trying to find the enemy much less know what he looks like.

Answer 3

It depends on your definition of War Criminals. Using today's definitions, it seems evident that anyone raising a weapon against anouther enemy who was not obviously a threat to your life woudl be considered a war crimial. It is true that during WW2 the Allies fire bombed whole cities such as the fire bombings of Dresden. In today's day, the International Courts would label those responsible war criminals. What ever happened to the saying "All's fair in love and war"? Today , if you are carring a .50 cal weapon or greater and you use it to shoot an enemy combatant who is a threat to your life, because of the caliber of the weapon it is likely you woudl be considered a war criminal. Though I do not approve of what was done by Hitler during the 30's and 40's, I find the label "War Criminal" which came out of the trials at Nuremburg difficult to comprehend. I agree that what was done by Hilter was horrific on a scope not previously seen. I believe that this is why those who worked with Hitler were considered "War Criminals". I also believe that people have become too politically correct with the use of the label "War Criminal". To defeat a nation, you must break their spirit to fight. How do you do that? The Bombings which were done by the Allies during WW2 where done for just this purpose --- to break the spirit of the German People. Was it necessary ? I believe that it was. Politically Correct wars, as far as I see, Do NOT WORK. War is messy. War is unpleasant. War is horrific. To make war politically correct makes it something which can become common. The droping of the first two atomic bombs on Japan likely saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Which woudl have been more criminal? Droping those bombs to break the will of the Japanese people and killing about 200,000 lives total, or invading Japan, costing perhaps a million people both Allied and Japanese? It is a tough call. A call which I hope no one will every have to make again. I believe their is an aurguement which could be made for calling the crews of the bombers of Nagasaki, Heroshima, Dresden and several other cities War Criminals, but in the context of war, I believe the bombings had to be done. War is Criminal, but once in it, you must only consider the the best course of action for your side and save the politically correct aurguements for later generations.

Answer 4

An opinion was rendered in international courts to wit:

"in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war"

At the time, "total war" meant the civilians on both sides faced indiscriminate aerial bombing, including incendiary attacks, nuclear attacks, and assaults on centers of culture/churches/schools, etc.

A change in the Geneva Conventions, beginning in 1949 were the results from the uproar of the fire bombing of Dresden, nuclear attacks on Japan, and other indiscriminate carpet bombing during WW II.

Therefore, in answer to your question, there were no specific treaties or conventions broken AT THE TIME of the bombings and therefore it was not a war crime, these prohibitions all came after the war.

Answer 5

No they weren't in fact they were hero's The Nazi's were sending V2 rockets indiscriminately at London and didn't care who they killed, Can you imagine the terror these British subjects felt when they knew these rockets could fall out of the sky anytime.Bomber crews were following orders 400 hundred would go up and only 100 would come back no long range fighter protection until the latter part of the war. I have a cool head and you BOY don't have the slightest idea what your talking about.

Answer 6

The fact that you ask such a question shows what kind of public schools we have. I wish you could ask my aunt and uncle who died in a German death camp if Allied bombers were war criminals. Having seen the mounds of the graves of dead jews and russians in Germany your question makes me doubt we will survive. God forgive you and the morons who are teaching you your screwed up history.

Answer 7

"I suppose if I had lost the war I would have been tried as a war criminal. Fortunately we were on the winning side."

--Curtis LeMay

Answer 8

No they were not, with perhaps the exception of the A-bombing on two cities in Japan which had no military significance what-so-ever! Even if you could justify the first, there is no way you can justify the second!

The world was in a fight for survival from a dictator! In those days there were no "smart" bombs! They hit what they hit!

Answer 9

You libs better get busy filing charges on our WW2 veterans! Justice must be done!

Answer 10

Nothing to discuss. No they were not and the idea is infantile at it's base.