Bombardment of Civilian Targets During WWII: Justified or Not?

Ladies and Gentlemen, today, the issue, bombardment of civilian targets during WWII has been brought up. In my point of view, bombing civilian targets were not necessary to in order to be victorious in a battle. In fact, bombardments of civilian targets are democides, mass murder by the government. Millions of people were killed around the world during WWII by air-raids. Until, civilians became bombing targets, industries and military installations were major targets. I think it was unnecessary for the army to drop bombs on innocent civilians who are mostly composed of women, children and elderly because at the time, most of the men went to fight. Knowingly to kill the innocent is murder and unnecessary.

Main Arguments

Charles Portal’s actions during the attack of Hamburg are considered democides.

British Air Chief Sir Charles Portal’s policy was to intentionally kill civilians during the attack of Hamburg. Bomber pilots did not know during the war that this decision was made. The lives of Canadian air men are affected by the decisions of this commander. He did not consult or advise the Canadian government of this secret decision to begin targeting civilians. If this was a military tactic, there is no need to keep it a secret from his own allies and bombers, unless he was trying to intentionally murder the citizens.

The Hauge Convention of 1923 article 22 and 23 made indiscriminate urban bombing illegal, as well as the League of Nations passed a resolution which affirmed that such bombing was illegal. So, the actions of Sir Charles Portal to intentionally bomb civilians are considered murder.

Civilians are not military forces

During the bombing of Chongqing, The Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy Air services dropped more than 11500 bombs on residential areas, business areas, schools and hospitals. 1939 civilians died on the first 2 days of bombing. The fact that these areas have nothing to do with the military, and yet these innocent people around the areas are having bombs dropped on them is uncivilized and should be prohibited. Civilian population behind an army does not meet the condition to make it right to kill them. They are just maintaining the economic and social strength of the nation.

High civilian deaths

When the U.S. fought in the battle against Japan, they were not justified in bombing because the Japanese were going to surrender before the bomb was dropped. However, even though Japan was willing to surrender, the US still dropped bombs on the Japanese civilians. As a result, civilians of Japan died at a rate of 200,000 per month. Another example is when the British Royal Air Forces bombed Hamburg in a night raid. When the RAF bombers dropped thousands of tons of bombs on Hamburg, they started fires which emerged to create a huge firestorm wiping out 40,000 lives in just one night. If the military tactic was to shatter the morale of the nation, it is ineffective because it is the soldiers who are fighting, not the civilians. Targeting civilians only enrages the military forces’ will to counter attack.

Closing Statement

Thank you for listening to the discussion. Here, I would like to reaffirm my stance on the topic. The bombing of civilians was unnecessary, ineffective to reach the main goals, and is unjustified slaughter of the innocent. Consider this, during bombardments, civilians hid in air-raid shelters, cellar in the house or business establishment which provided uncertain protection. One direct hit on the building from above will cave the shelter and crush the people inside, those that survive the bombs above are only to be trapped underground and die of asphyxiation. They had no water, no light, no food, some fled, but most stayed to cling on what’s left of their homes. Was is really necessary to drop bombs on the innocent?