"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
60 years of hindsight with some revisionism thrown in have obscured
the
original intent of attacking an enemy from the air.
Revision comes form the latin and it means "to look at again". It is
not about spining the truth. It is about ascertaining it more
accruately. In its true form it has nothing to do with 'obscuring'
anything. Admitedly both history and historical revisionsim can
become part of ideological warfare.
Looking at history 50 year later is actualy now regarded as a good way
to look at it becuase you can be free of some of the passions and
propaganda that prevent it being looked at evenly and critically
I only flew one (of 50)
mission
over cloud cover using GEE.
What is "GEE" is it radar ground mapping or a system of beacons?
We didn't call it area bombing. We didn't call it
blind bombing. Those are words are now used to stake out an agenda
against
bombing in general. We flew the mission because it had to be flown
and GEE was
the only way to get it done. And there was a war on. A very nasty
unpleasant
war.
At the begining of the war the Luftwaffe and RAAF would only attack
military targets: RAF airfields for instance. There was a moral and
ethical code withing the aircrew, armed forces and populations
themselves that prevented this. I mean on both sides. Gradualy
accidents happened these were hyped or exaggerated to justify
reprisals and pretty soon the principles of avoiding civilian targets
was evaded.
Pretty soon methods of bombing which by their nature involved large
civilian casualties.
Finaly it seems that military targets were often only token and most
casualties were civilian.
It was surely a a matter of expediency: relatively accurate low
altitude bombing (as done by B26s or a Stuka) was not acceptable
because aircraft like B17s and Lancasters would suffer unacceptable
losses for one reason or another so cities ended up being flatened and
mainly women and children were burnt or blown to bits. In once case
the RAF bombed the homes of technical workers at penemunde.
In the case of Tokyo and Hamburg about 130,000 in a night civilians
died.
In the case of Nagasaki the atomic bomb landed smack in the middle of
the Catholic area and wiped out 50,000 Japanese Catholics. While the
japanese catholics fought with the Japanese militray (apparently
covents and religious house were always respected for this reason)
they were also a group that suffered some discrimination and were
reluctant to fight.
The name of the game was to go for the enemies throat. Hit him
night and day
in good weather and bad with no let up and no relief. We flew the
missions,
came back, buried our dead and went out again.We always hit a
specific target
that had to be hit. .The idea of having the enemy hit us without our
hitting
back any way we could was unthinkable. It shows weakness and gives
the
inititive to the enemy, and once you have lost the initiative, you
have lost
the war.
Part of war is to discredit the enemy moraly while moraly sancifying
ones own side. The truth is that the enemy is often much closser
morally to us than we are ready to admit.
A mistake or ommision by a German is an atricity or war crime but if
in the case of WW2 and allie is responsble then it is something else.
Here is an Islamic justification of "Collateral Damage"
************************************************
Sa'ab bin Jathamah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported from that
the Prophet was asked about the people in the homes of Mushrikun
(Polytheist) when they are attacked at night and their women and
children are affected, he said: "they are part of them". So, this
Hadith shows that women, children and all those the killing of whom is
forbidden, when they are separate, it is permissible to kill them when
they are mixed up with the fighters and it is not possible to
separate. This is because they had asked the Prophet about the case
which is "attacking at night", in which case it is not possible to
differentiate, and he permitted them because "things may be allowed
when they occur along the way but be forbidden when separate".
Also, Muslim commanders have always used Catapult when fighting the
Kuffar (a kind of weapon that was used in the past when trying to
break into an enemy camp which is fully fortressed - it destroys
whatever it meets by its weight, i.e. something like a catapult -
translator), and it is obvious that a Catapult when applied in a war
does not differentiate between a fighter and others, hence it may
afflict some those so-called 'innocent souls', but that not
withstanding this is an established practice among Muslims in their
wars. Ibn Qudamah may Allah have mercy on him, said: "And it is
permissible to use Catapult because the Prophet may the Salaat and
Salaam be with him used Catapult on the people of Ta'if; and Amr bin
al-As did the same to the people of Alexandria" (Al-Mughniy, vol. 10,
p503). And Ibn al-Qasim said it is permissible to use Catapult against
Kuffar even if children, women and old men and monks are killed
inadvertently, because 'Nikayah' (doing what will weaken the enemy) is
allowed according to the consensus of Ulama. Ibn Rushd said:
"'Nikayah' is permissible according to Ijama' and on any type of
polytheists" (Al-Hashiyah ala' Ar-Raudh, vol. 4, p 271).
*****************************
However I think that "collateral damage" is a term that is not
accurate in some WW2 raids where the civilians were the target instead
of armies.
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer