War Crime by the RAF

[Lil-Mac]

I am reading some of these post and the thought that comes to mind is...

Twentyfirst century revisionist history at its finest, or worst.. depending on your point of view. Some of the more palitable arguements, such as "brave men died on both sides" or "people on both sides lost loved ones" are of course true. But to in any way try to denigrate or sully the honor of allied trops, in particular the air crews. It's just beyond the pale.

There were reasons why in the USAAF air crews were sent home after 20 missions (extended to 30 by the end of the war). Many people have no idea how brutal and terrifing the air war over Europe was. It was totally unlike any war ever fought by man in our history. Chances are it will remain that way, never to be repeated.

Let me try to illustrate, just a little, some of what the allied air crews faced. First you had a mission breifing in the wee hours of the morning where target data, weather conditions and enemy resistence would be discussed. Even early in the war air crews knew that any mission that went much beyond the French coast was going to be a flight into hell. Swarms of German fighters, barrage ballons, smut pots and ack-ack batteries. As the war progressed these defenses were augmemnted by radar stations, first generation surface to air missles, jet fighters and an early warning air combat control network that was second to none.

During '42 and '43 allied fighters had no legs, they had to turn back to base shortly after crossing the coast.. leaving the bombers alone to face the might of the Luftwaffe. If the raid was deep into France or Germany the groups would be hit again and again and again. Then after they dropped their loads they had to reverse course and fly thru hell again to get home. On one mission to Stutgart there was a shot down B-17 every mile along the flight path. Surviving aircrews called it the Road of Fire.

On top of everything else these men knew that all it took was one hit in the right place to bring them down, especially on the way in.... these planes were loaded to near bursting with fuel, ammo and bombs. Sometimes the planes never even got off the ground. Many of the airbases in England were little more than cow pastures. A rut in the runway or a hastily filled in bomb crater could spell ruin for an unlucky crew.

Back to the 20 mission rule. Alot of people think, Hey.. 20 missions, thats nothing. Do that in two or three months and the war is over for you. Well... in theroy yeah, but in reality the average air crew was lost by mission six.... SIX. These were smart guys, college grads most of them, they knew the odds. And the odds were that long before mission twenty they were going to get blown out of the sky. It wasnt until late 44 and 45 that the crews had an even chance to get home. Then just when the odds got turned in their favor the USAAF in its wisdom extended the tours to 25.. then 30 missions. Talk about a kick in ass.

So here you are, in a B-17 or a Lancastor crossing over the coast of France and watching your fighter cover peel off and head for home. Up ahead you can see little black specks moving up from the ground, forming up like a cloud of gnats.. German fighters. Then suddenly all around you smoky grey puff balls appear.. German flak. You cant dodge, you cant weave. You are in a bomber box, you have to maintain formation or the fighters will tear you to shreads. Shit who are you kidding they are going to tear you to shreads anyway.. still, you fly straight on, knuckles white on the yoke. Suddenly the plane in front of you erupts into an orange fireball as a german 88 hits her bomb bay and blows her to hell. No chutes... 13 dead airmen. Just as well, most likely would have been captured and shot anyway.

On we go, thru the flak, thru the fighters as one by one planes fall out of the box, When is it going to be our turn, when will our luck run out. There is no cover, no trenches or fox holes, cant manuever or retreat. No forts to protect us, no rivers to dig in behind. All we can do is fly....

[pervipete]

Originally Posted by fatalerrror

...the second part which you chose to quote was just a play on words.

While it was clever, and in any other context would have made me smile, it was not really appropriate to the thread.

[sindyloo]

So true Stern...as I see what you meant! War Crimes were and still are hell esp for the young innocent soldiers that were witness to them. Had a Uncle who was one of the liberating troops in a death camp.

He wouldnt ever tell me much about it as he would start crying about what he had seen those many years ago!

There was good and bad on both sides in that nasty war the "War to end Evil!" as that was what Hitler and his people were all about!

The German people then were all but helpless to interfer as they would be killed as well. AND that included the decent Military members in the German Army!

RAF,..... folks they were young Men following orders that they had to obey. Mutiny in War is a very serious offense that no soldier wants to have happen to them! I am sure those that are still alive have nightmares quite often over what they saw or what they heard about!


This Thanksgiving......."PLEASE give THANKS for all of our young people in uniform in all countrys that are lonely and far from home! YET they are Brave enough to serve their own Country with Honor and With their own Lives if needed!"

[fatalerrror]

Originally Posted by pervipete

While it was clever, and in any other context would have made me smile, it was not really appropriate to the thread.

When you have known the horror, the terror, the fear, the numbness;

Smelt the foul odour of blood and brain matter which covers your face and hair;

and

Experienced the sensation of your own shit ruinning down your legs as you stare at the bloodied and now unrecognisable form that just seconds before was your best mate;

Maybe then you'd be in a better position to judge whether my humor (taken in context with the first part of the quote) is or is not appropriate to this thread!

Mental hospitals and cemetaries are full of people who chose to bottle up their feelings and experiences of what happened to them in conflict, others just got on with life !

[menace]

The gravity of the holocaust clouded all other crimes in that war, so the perception today is that only Germans committed crimes during it. Not so.

Putting aside how brutally the Red Army soldiers behaved, the western troops were no better. In France, Netherlands and Italy thousands of people were executed without trial by local militias, often for no other crime than political affiliation. The allies at best stood by, and sometimes even participated in this bloodbath by aiding the "resistance" fighters.

By today's legal standards, generals have been convicted for less.

[pervipete]

I can comment on this as I have a brain and my own thoughts.

Cheap cracks in a thread debating the innocence of guilt of Allied commanders is highly inappropriate, especially one which though potentially highly charged, had been handled with diginty and reasoned argumant by both sides.

The sad fact is that you are obviously eloquent and intelligent, you have the potential to add something worthwhile to the debate.

[pervipete]

Originally Posted by sindyloo

The German people then were all but helpless to interfer as they would be killed as well. AND that included the decent Military members in the German Army!

Quite a few high ranking Wehrmacht* officers supported Hitler, the Night Of The Long Knifes in 1934 was as much about solidating their support as it was about destroying Hitlers one main rival in the Nazi leadership, namely Eric Rohm and the SA.

And even during the war, when they saw what Hitler and the Nazis were finally about they did nothing because that made an oath, which they considered more important then anything else.

*The Wehrmacht was the ordinary German army, oppossed to the Waffen SS, the armed troops of the Nazi party.

[menace]

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was mentioned here by quite a few that they were necessary to make Japan surrender and end the war without an invasion. This is not true.

After the battle of Leyte, Japan had no navy left. A few days before Nagasaki, their last merchant marine ship was sunk. Their air force had lost almost all of their experienced pilots, and had only untrained kamikaze, who may have been good for ramming slow destroyers but were useless in dogfights and thus Japan was practically undefended from air strikes. For an island nation, this was practically defeat, and they knew it.

In fact, Japan had offered to surrender before the nukes were dropped. The offer was turned down because the Americans wanted only unconditional surrender, while Japan was willing to do so only with terms. They were in fact willing to disarm and proclaim neutrality, as long as their internal political system was left intact. Hardly an unreasonable request.

From the transcripts of the meetings of Japanese military leadership after Hiroshima, it is clear the bombs had no impact on their reasoning. They were far more concerned about the Red Army's offensive that captured Manchuria, as this robbed their industry of the only source of raw material they had left.

In conclusion, while ending the war and saving lives was a good excuse for showing off their might to the Soviets, the truth is that that hundreds of thousands were killed needlessly.

[Sternenlied]

Every thread on RB is open to everyone.

Nobody has to earn any "right" to post their opinion(s).

If only those who had actual personal experience with the subject in question were allowed to comment most threads would be quite empty around here ...

There are no official parameters to quantify the appropriateness of humour of course but whether or not a person qualifies to personally judge any such appropriateness however is equally impossible to classify.

Apparently some people fail to see the necessity for jokes in a thread dealing with war crimes, a debate held in a sound fashion. They are just as welcome to say so as you were to make your little joke.

You might also want to consider another, additional issue when regularizing a member's opinion's validity based on personal experience:

a) How do you know he doesn't have any such experience?

b) Who says you do?

c) Most importantly: It is of no concern to me.

This thread is neither about making jokes nor about judging their appropriateness. And certainly not about discussing them.

[pervipete]

Originally Posted by menace

In fact, Japan had offered to surrender before the nukes were dropped. The offer was turned down because the Americans wanted only unconditional surrender, while Japan was willing to do so only with terms. They were in fact willing to disarm and proclaim neutrality, as long as their internal political system was left intact. Hardly an unreasonable request.

Well, considering that this was the same system which managed to start this conflict in the first place it was unreasonable.

Just look at the Japanese treatment of civilians and POW's, google the Rape of Nankin, and also Comfort Women for an example.

At least the Germans have tried to come to terms with what happened, they have laws, sometimes pedantic, to ban the re-use of Nazi symbles.

Whereas the Japanese treat even the most heinous of War Criminals as heroes, even the Prime Minister has to pay tribute, can you imagine the Chancellor Merkell doing the same at a shrine to Hitler and SS, no me neither.

[FuckingRotter]

I couldn't give a toss if someone wants to make a joke or not, because the biggest fucking joke in this thread is those fucking German so called academics.

[menace]

I don't need to google anything, thank you. I'm well aware of how the Japanese army behaved.

But answer me this: how long can a political system which promised victory, prosperity and glory but instead brought shameful defeat and misery stay in power? In '45 Japan was in no condition to launch a second Pearl Harbor for at least three years. I can't imagine the military junta to be able to mobilize the nation after a crushing defeat as it was able to do in '41.

[Sternenlied]

Although all of this is in the past the question is directed at the future.
What measures are we willing to accept in the name of "good vs. evil"?

There is a big difference between
Denial or Revisionism
and
asking for Recognition.

Germany for example never denied any war crimes (or the Holocaust for that matter) committed in the Third Reich. The German government freely admits them and adamantly makes sure they're not forgotten, denied or played down by anyone. It also constantly works on ensuring nothing alike can ever happen again.

Now - while the issue itself is certainly disputable - some (not the government, just some) are asking to have war crimes committed against Germany during WW2 are recognised as well. That's neither denial nor revisionism.

Japan on the other hand, although the Japanese government also recognizes the Nanking massacre, doesn't teach about, they have deleted it from their "official history" and when they recognize that it happened they usually dispute all numbers given, the atrocities, etc. THAT is revisionism.

Whether or not Japan could have been defeated without the use of TWO nuclear bombs however cannot be answered any more, there are only theories.

Fact is: Combined casualty estimates from Hiroshima and Nagasaki exceed 200.000, mostly civilians. Of course the US government would claim those attacks were necessary to prevent an even greater loss of lifes ... after all they did. Less US soldiers lost their lifes. More Japanese civilians did. Naturally a country at war would (hopefully) choose to protect the lifes of its own soldiers and civilians rather than those of their enemy's.

Of course we wish - if war was unavoidable - the countries at war with each other would try to keep ALL casualties to a minimum, especially those among the civilian population.

War crimes and atrocities have been committed and still are around the world, I have seen it myself, and we all (at least most of us, I hope) wish someone would intervene and stop them. Sometimes even by any means necessary.

But then again ... do atrocities committed by Japan defy them ever contesting the use of two nuclear weapons against them?

In the end you will always find people willing to claim something was necessary and unavoidable in order to safe lifes and serve the greater good.

As with the bombings of Dresden - I am most glad I do not have to make such decisions.

[menace]

Stern, I disagree.

These are not theories but easily confirmable facts. Japan was already a defeated nation when the nukes were dropped. They had no navy, their airforce was in shambles and most of their ground troops were stranded in southeast Asia and China.

And the main motive for the swift end to war was not the concern for anyones lives, but the provisions of the Potsdam summit. The attack on Hiroshima happened exactly one day before the date that the Soviet Union had agreed to declare war on Japan. Americans didn't want the Soviets sharing in the spoils of war in Asia as they did in Europe. There is of course no indisputable evidence of it, but it's a little too coincidental.

[Sternenlied]

True, eventually.

We can only discuss what actually happened however - only as far as we know and trust historic "facts" of course.

I meant how the war might have continued, what might have happened, the number of lifes that would have been lost, could have been saved ... (etc.) ... without those two nuclear bombs ... that's only theory.

What I intended to say was: Stating (in the absolute) dropping two atomic bombs was the only way to end the war, the best way to keep casualties as low as possible is a an assessment impossible to make for certain.

[pervipete]

As well as Allied, predominantly American, casualties, which where estimated at one million, there werer concerns about how many Japanese civilians casualties, even from suicidal Kamikazi style attacks or, just like at the end of the Battle of Saipan, people commiting suicide, these were also estimated to be around one million.

And to be brutally realistic for a moment, any nation that is willing to accept higher losses of their own people opposed to the enemies are going to lose, its as simple as that.

To paraphrase Admiral of the Fleet Sir Jackie Fisher, First Sea Lord, 1904-1910 and 1914-1915

The only way to eradicate war is to make it too terrible to contemplate.

[Sternenlied]

I wasn't putting civilian lifes on a scale, implying the nation with the higher death count is the righteous one.

If that were the case the Soviet Union would have been the most righteous one ...

Of course in a war a nation has to "prefer" killing the enemy instead of having its own citizens killed. There is a difference however between sending soldiers to their eventual death and purposely attacking civilians. Not saying the USA exclusively did.

Naturally a war could easily be won if civilian targets were preferably attacked and civilians killed. In a very short time that would drive any nation into surrender. So why not just attack those all the time then?

If you ask any soldier (most at least) they would tell you it is them who should fight and die.

I don't want to make a call on military decisions of WW2 since I wasn't there. I might have the occasional opinion of course but everyone should be aware that we never know everything that happened and led to certain decisions.

Someone willing to sacrifice predominantly civilians to avoid fighting a war with soldiers ... I can see why that might feel ... "wrong", though.

[FuckingRotter]

I think the Germans needed convincing that any resistance to US and UK troops advance across Europe would result in us battering them even more. We had to snatch as much of Europe as possible to stop the communists doing so. Why bother getting rid of the Nazis just so an equally oppressive ideal could flourish?

I'm glad we bombed Dresden, and anybody who thinks otherwise should get fucked.

[pervipete]

Sorry Stern that wasn't meant at you, it was aimed at Menaces post.

I used the Saipan reference as one of the stated reasons used to justify the use of atomic weapons.

Remember, just months previously, the Soviet troops had been made to pay, and had extracted, a heavy price for every inch of Berlin, even though by then it was obvious that the war was lost? Why, partly because the Red Armies treatment of civilians, particularly the mass rapes, had helped provide Geoballs with his last propoganda coup, partly fear of the SS and Gestapo reprisals against anyone who tried to surrender or who run away, for example summery executions and lastly through deteminations of people never to give in, some because of fanaticism, some becuase of bravery.

This would have been in the minds of the planners of the invasion of the Japanese home islands, namely if the Germans fought like this, how would the Japs, who were famous for their fanatical devotion to the Emporar and their willingness to sacrifice themselves for him, how high a price would they extract.

I can't remember the exact details off the top of my head, but I know thet tha campaign was envisioned to last up to another year, and involve a two stage invasion, with the southern island first. Once that had been pacified, airstrips and forward areas would have been set up, and then the northern island would have been invaded.

As for civilians in war generally

War has affected civilians for years, whether it has been the result of a Viking raid, a Medieval siege of a walled town, a thousand bombers on one raid, or a man wearing an explosive vest, civilians were and still are considered legitimate targets, for good or for ill.

All that has happened is that we have gone from taking days, weeks even months to destroy a town to being able to do so in seconds.

Is it moral, probably not, but is it any more moral to lose?

[Sternenlied]

Well, there's always a sound-sounding reasoning behind everything. Have you seen "Conspiracy" ... ?

Seriously, I can see the thoughts and implications behind the use of atomic bombs. The USA had to expect hard fighting and heavy losses during a conventional invasion of Japan. Back then (to some even today) Japanese culture was alien, almost frightening to the Western world.

I think however it's rather dishonest for anyone to claim the use of nuclear weapons against Japan was only based on pure tactical considerations in WW2. Although I find FuckingRotter's final comment entirely repulsive he is right about one thing - the Soviet Union was ready and willing to claim western Europe, the USA's next arch enemy on the rise. I'm sure showing off the USA's nuclear capabilities had nothing to do with that ...

As for civilians in war generally:

Beg your pardon but ... so?
Just because civilians always had to suffer in times of war makes attacking them ... what exactly?

I'm not blind to the realities of war but just because some usually have to die in an armed conflict doesn't make it any less ... unsettling ... how quick some calculate for civilian casualties.

I don't think "winning" a war is a question of morality at all. Implying the highest moral goal is winning ... well, wouldn't that make all means to achieve this victory moral and legitimate as well?