THE ETHICS OF BOMBING
By FRANCIS GOWER
WRITERS in the correspondence columns of The Spectator and elsewhere have recently expressed anxiety in regard to what might be called the ethics of our present bombing policy. That such views can be expressed in the midst of what is still, after all, a desperate war for survival is an encouraging example of the degree to which we have managed to maintain the values of a humane and civilised society. But when writers speak in such terms as "the indis- criminate bombing of civilians," or even suggest that 'some of our recent bombing was not so much indiscriminate as primarily directed against public buildings, shops and houses, they show themselves to be ill-informed about the nature of the objectives of the recent R.A.F. raids. Their protests hardly suggest that they have thought out very carefully the many sides of this difficult question.
Take the example of the four consecutive night-raids on Rostock. In these raids aircraft were detailed to attack both the town of Rostock and the main Heinkel aircraft factory, which lies on its outskirts. One of the most beautifully clear air-reconnaissance photographs ever taken shows that what were, probably, three one- ton bombs fell directly through the roof of the main assembly-shed, and that several of the other assembly-sheds of the plant received damage. Every newspaper-reader has seen these photographs, with the damaged fuselages of the half-finished Heinkels, pulled out into the open from the gutted shops.
It is true, however, that the highly conservative experts who estimate the damage from these air-photographs have also concluded that the terrifying proportion of 70 per cent, of all buildings in the town of Rostock was destroyed. Was this, then, an instance of the indiscriminate bombing of civilians? Before we proceed to any such conclusion, it is neceRary to remember that the town of Rostock is honeycombed with smaller engineering-plants and workshops, which are almost all engaged in sub-contracting for the manufacture of parts for the great Heinkel plant on the out- skirts (and some for the Neptune shipyards, which were also well bombed). It is true, of course, that many of our bombs fell, not on these workshops, but, as the photographs show, on the public services, power-stations, the gas and electric light mains, the railway- station, and the railway-lines, and, undoubtedly, the houses of the town. But Rostock was, in fact, a great interdependent unit for the production of Heinkel aircraft. The gas, light and power and other public services of the town were an integral and indispensable part of the industrial life of the place.
Finally, let us face the fact that the most important part of any productive activity is the skilled workers who undertake it. The skilled workers who produce the Heinkels which have bombed us, which have bombed our troops in Libya, which are bombing our Russian allies, live, or lived, at Rostock. Some of them were killed in the raids, a very high proportion of them were rendered homeless. Was this a crime? I, as it happens, am an opponent of Lord Vansittart's views. I, personally, bear no grudge against the skilled workers of Rostock, or of any other German town. I think that they were no more, or less, responsible for the war than ourselves. I believe that they, too, with ourselves, are victims of the Nazi attempt to conquer the world for Fascism. Nevertheless, it seems to me grotesque to suggest that these workers should be immune from our attacks. They appear to me to be every bit as much a part of our enemy's fighting forces as are the uniformed men who fly the bombers which they make, or the soldiers of the German Panzer di visions. What is, I think, indispensable is that we should
always make it plain that we are not attacking these Germ workers as individuals, as workers, or as human beings. We ar attacking them simply and solely because they are key-units in th German war-machine which is attempting to subdue us and the rest of the world to its own filthy will. And so long as th remain a part of that machine, we can do no other than atta them to the very utmost of our ability.
Unfortunately (in my view) not all of our raids are as successf as those which were made on Rostock ; but they are roughly the same character. It is true that French workers lost their lir in the Renault raid of March 3rd last, but the final assessment the photographic evidence of the results of the Renault raid is that will be impossible to use the plant again on anywhere near th same scale as before for a period of years, if then. It is furth estimated that the Renault works could have produced in the n year sufficient armoured vehicles and other equipment to supp three armoured divisions. Should we have been justified in sacrific ing the lives of British, Russian and American soldiers with who these armoured divisions would have fought, for the sake of sparin the French workers who lived • round the edge of the Renau plant?
Again, our raid on Lubeck is, naturally enough, criticised becau of the very great architectural beauty of that town. But Liibeck ' not merely a museum-piece ; it is also an important port ho for the shipment of iron ore, the supply of which is essential t the German productive system, and for the stream of supply u the Baltic to the northern half of the eastern front. We now in that for a period of weeks after our raid the port was totally do to traffic of all sorts. Consider the position in which we shod find ourselves if we listened to those who would ask us to des from these attacks. What, for example, would our Russian alli say to us if we told them that we could not prevent the productio of Heinkels, with which the Germans were bombing them, becau we could not bear the idea of inflicting casualties amongst th population of Rostock? Our Russian allies, rightly or wrongly, d not consider that our raids on Germany are, in themselves, anythin like an adequate form of assistance to Russia. But what would the think if even these attacks were called off? I have little dou myself that what they would think would be that behind all o pious talk was fear of the reprisals with which Germany h threatened us, and which, to a relatively small extent, and at a hig price to her own aircraft, she has undertaken. What, again, woul our merchant-seamen, keeping our life-line open, say, if they we told that we must not make raids like the recent two on Kid, which both of the two great submarine building-yards w damaged, and the daylight attack on the submarine-engine-build' plant at Augsburg?
It is not perhaps of some significance that the German propagan machine is making an impassioned plea to us to desist from ni bombing? The so-called new British Broadcasting Station, whi is, of course, simply a German propaganda-organ broadcasting fr occupied Europe, but which poses as an authentic British statio with the interests of British people deeply at heart, assures us th "air-war is just a waste of energy " ; that "the people shoul raise their voices and demand that this vicious game of reprisa should stop"; that "we must expect something pretty ghastly retaliation for Rostock." What a pity the Nazi leaders did n think of all this in the winter of 1940-41, when they were droPP three or four tons of bombs on us for every ton we dropped Germany. Now it is the other way about. Must we aband each form of warfare just when it becomes advantageous to us damaging to our enemies? Surely that way nothing but defea with all the incalculable consequences which defeat would nie would lie ahead. of us.
Finally, is it true to assume that we are doing nothing b injury to the German people when we bomb German cities? I) f one, have been impressed by the books written by the Amen correspondents who themselves, during their residence in German experienced our bombing and the German reaction to it. should not, I think, neglect such a book as Mr. Joseph Harseb Pattern of Conquest. Mr. Harsch was the Berlin correspond of the Christian Science Monitor, and shows throughout his that he was a humane man, who earnestly considered the moral Ind ethical issues raised by bombing. He writes that our bombing points inexorably to the way whereby Germany can perhaps be aught that the golden rule has a reverse corollary ; 'what you do 0 others, they will do to you,' the way whereby Germany may one day reach national maturity and become a constructive member of the World Community."
Mr. Harsch, at any rate, evidently believes that an anti-Fascist socket in Rostock, as he surveys the ruins, will be able, for example, m point out to a comrade who has perhaps been brought under Nazi influence that the easy war of conquest which Hitler promised old which, even a year ago, he seemed to be achieving, has become nightmare of retribution. The aroused peoples of the world are giving back to Germany what the Nazi criminal leaders misled Germany into giving to Poland, to Holland, to Belgrade, to Coventry, to Plymouth, and to every other city which German bombers could reach. Can we be sure that it is unnecessary to give to that anti- Fascist German worker the materials from which he can teach that lesson to the rest of the German people?
Previous page
