There are many paradoxes which have been profoundly exemplified within the conduct of war. One of the most chilling and contentious of these surrounds the extent to which innocent civilians should act as targets for nations whose reasons for declaring war were for justified and honourable reasons.

The most striking example of this of course, is the British bombing of German cities towards the end of the Second World War. By this time, the full extent of the horrors of the Final Solution were being realised and notions of the restoration of civilisation were widespread throughout Allied countries.

It is also known that during the latter stages of the war, a large percentage of the German people had come to actively reject Nazism and it is painfully ironic that by extensively bombing cities such as Dresden, the British were persecuting the same people that they professed to be fighting to save.

Indeed, just before the climax of the war, British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, created a memorandum which was sent to the British Chief of Staff which urged the armed forces to dilute the nature of their attack on the German people. Within the document read the following –

‘It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed … The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing.’

Over sixty years later, the issues which Churchill raised still remain largely unanswered. An eclectic range of perspectives have been offered by a multitude of historians, although no clear understanding of why the Allied destruction of Germany was so severe. One of the most widely read perspectives is that of the military historian John Keegan who has wrote extensively on both the First and the Second World Wars.

Keegan actively furthers the notion that by launching this unparallel level of destruction against a nation which realistically could not really do much about it, then the British “descended to the enemy’s level”. If you consider the atrocities which were occurring at Auschwitz during the mid 1940s, then this represented what was thought to be the systematic extermination of the Jewish race – essentially the murder of a whole people based on racist doctrines – this is where the British bombing campaigns can never be compared to the actions of the Third Reich.

However, in terms of the murder of innocent women and children on very flimsy grounds, then maybe Dr Keegan does have a point.

Despite former Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain’s bold statement, soon after the outset of war, which stated that it was “against international law to bomb civilians as such and to make deliberate attacks on the civilian population’, that is ultimately what the British succumbed to doing. If Cecil Rhodes had been around at the time then I would suggest that his proudly stated view that “to be born an Englishman was like winning the first prize in the lottery of life” would be seriously reviewed.

In the most challenging of situations, British conceptions of morality ultimately failed – in fact after Dunkirk, heavy aerial bombardments were the only realistic method with which the British could combat the Nazis. However, whether this should have been employed to such devastating effect will remain at the forefront of  historical thought for years to come.

Interesting Items:
Get your Steel Radiators here from ael heating
Looking to do a Management Course ?
Murder Mystery fun at great prices.
Fire Surrounds from Creative fire places
Baby Monitors Direct Website