BOMBING POLICY
SIR,—In view of the Government's declared policy on aerial warfare the published description and photograph of the bombing or Lubeck seem to call for some explanation.
During the heavy raids on this country last year Mr. Churchill stated that whilst we should in due course " give as good as we got," we should not descend to the Nazi practice of the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Military experts backed this statement by assurances that such bombing was stupid and wasteful, and the Archbishops declared it to be morally unjustifiable. Yet the bombing of Lubeck appears to have been not so much indiscriminate as primarily directed against the well-defined centre of this historic old town—a centre consisting almost entirely of public buildings, shops and houses (of which it is claimed 3,000 were destroyed).
Have the moral and strategic considerations of last year ceased to be valid now that we have achieved greater power in the air, and is terror bombing now a recognised feature of British air policy?
I hope some satisfactory alternative explanation may be forthcoming. At the moment I can see no escape from the dilemma—either we are descending to Nazi methods or the R.A.F. marksmanship is not what we 3 Grosvenor Lodge, Grosvenor Road, Tunbridge Wells.
[A reasonable explanation is that the R.A.F. is pressing its attacks on military objectives even when some destruction of civilian life and pro- perty is inevitably involved. There is no evidence, in the case of Lubeck, or any other centre, of the deliberate bombing of civilians in order to destroy morale.—En., The Sptcwor.1
Previous page
