Strategic Bombing Theory: A Layman’s Perspective
Written on October 16, 2004
While reading LGF today, I came across one comment that particularly set me off:
The bombing of Dresden accomplished nothing towards either beating the Nazis or curbing their savagery.
With the exception of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there is no example of bombing civilian populations which has ever been militarily effective.
I responded, but I’d like to turn that comment into a full-fledged post.
I do not claim to be a strategist by any stretch of the imagination. Heck, I’m not even a grognard!
248 levi from queens:
You are engaging in 20/20 hindsight, but to understand why the decisions were made, you need to know the history behind the bomber strategy:
The nearly 20 years of peace following World War I, which saw only minor colonial uprisings and the Spanish Civil War, did not provide too many chances for the prophets to test their theories. Yet the war had given them enough evidence to decide that to end a future conflict quickly and with minimal loss of life, a bombing campaign was necessary, directed not at the troops, but at the cities of the enemy. The idea of bombing to deprive the enemy of the means and will to continue to fight became known as “strategic bombing.”
Bombing cities made sense to the prophets. Well-trained troops had already proved that they had the endurance to withstand protracted attack. Yet, civilians in cities had demonstrated the opposite. Trenchard claimed that civilians “are not disciplined and it can not be expected that they will stick stolidly to their lathes and benches.” During the Gotha raids on London, the city had gone through a minor panic; many had fled to the countryside for safety, and the newspapers had run columns criticizing the government’s inability to protect the capital. In studying the effects of the Gotha raids, the prophets theorized that increased, intensified attacks, which included incendiary and gas bombs, would cause a populace to rise up against its government. This would result in chaos, with loss of productivity, riots, looting, and eventually a toppling of the government leading to surrender. The country that would emerge victorious from a bombing war would be the country whose populace could endure the bombings while delivering greater damage to the other side.
Realize that both sides bought into these theories, because they had no frame of reference to guide them. Indeed, their only experience was limited to the aforementioned Gotha raids on London, which were widely reported as “death raining from the skies” and caused panic among the population. Given this limited history, it is only natural to theorize that if a small group of lightly-armed bombers could cause this reaction, then groups of 600-1200 bombers equipped with firebombs would cause the near-immediate capitulation of the opposing side.
I submit to you that the jury is still out regarding the effectiveness of bombing civilian population centers directly. If this strategy were truly deemed unworkable, then why do the nations of the world have ultra-powerful nuclear weapons aimed at population centers? It is only within the past 10 years that “smart” weapons have become a truly viable alternative; only a small percentage of tonnage dropped in Desert Storm was guided. Therefore, from the beginning of mankind’s history until the late 1990s, the preferred method of warfare was to directly terrorize the civilian population into submission and revolt. It remains to be seen how “smart” weapons will affect this paradigm.
Also realize smart weapons are drastically more expensive than conventional “dumb” weapons. This explains why biological and chemical weapons are the new preferred weapon of international terrorists: they can be made cheaply, and they directly terrorize the civilian population.
Finally, bombing the population directly, while heinous in many respects, draws on the oft-repeated observation that “people are sheep” and do not want to change. The bombing disrupts and destroys their world, forcing them to seek a change. Since they cannot directly attack the enemy force, they can opt for a simpler answer: capitulation.
This explains France and the American Left.