Stalingrad 23 Aug 1942: Tactics or Spoliation?

[tonyh]

Thanks to Mr Thompson for posting those informative links. When one examines the information therein, and reads the previous posts by me and Curioso, tonyh's statement:

the Luftwaffe simply did not possess the capabilities to wipe out 40.000 people in a day, or a week or even a month of bombing, even if they were specifically targeting the civilian population, which they weren't in Stalingrad.

is obviously incorrect on every level.

tonyh obviously labors under the misconception that because the Luftwaffe did not employ large four engine bombers, it was incapable of devastating urban areas and killing masses of civilians. According to Prof Hayward's book, which tonyh originally brought into the discussion, the Luftwaffe raids on Stalingrad of 23 Aug 42 can be compared to the RAF raid on Darmstadt on 11/12 Sep 44. The RAF dropped over 900 tons of bombs killing approximately 12,300 civilians. Prof Hayward postulates that the Luftwaffe may have killed twice as many civilians at Stalingrad because that city was poorly equipped with air raid shelters and the residential areas were mostly of wooden construction.

The Luftwaffe flew some 1660 sorties against Stalingrad on 23 AUG, dropping about 1000 tons of bombs. A ton is a ton. It doesn't matter if that ton is one of 5 tons dropped by a Lancaster, or dropped singly by a Stuka or Heinkel. I think most readers will agree that Stukas and Heinkels, attacking on a clear day from less than 5,000 feet, with absolute air supremacy were able to deliver their tonnage with considerable accuracy. Thus, the devastation inflicted on Stalingrad in the raids of 23-25 Aug prior to 6th Army's arrival at the outskirts on 26 Aug can be said to have been deliberate. Even General von Richthofen, the main character of Professor Hayward's book, doesn't seem to distinguish much between "military targets" and the city. "The city is destroyed."

Tony doesnt labor under any misconceptions at all. Your argument however is simply a "four legs good two legs bad" type of round robin argument. Haywards book is lttered with actual Luftwaffe targets assigned and hit. I wrote some of them down the other day, but you had the thread shut down . I'll post them tomorrow.

I'll say it again.

The Luftwaffe HAD to target the tactical objectives they were assigned so they wouldn't hinder the advance of the army on the ground, such as the rail head, power plants, armaments factories, the landing areas of the Port, Red Army HQ's etc and to a very large extent they were successful at their assigned role.

The RAF just dropped their bombs loads in the center of the City, without specifically targeting anything except the City itself.

The fundamental targeting objectives of both airforces were COMPLETELY different.

The Luftwaffe were of course very capable of bombing many civilians, nobody is saying that their bombing was civilian free. But your repeated assertion, both in this thread and in previous ones, that the Luftwaffe bombing killed 40.000 civilians in Stalingrad on the 25th of Aug in nonsense and completely unsupported too.

"The Luftwaffe flew some 1660 sorties against Stalingrad on 23 AUG, dropping about 1000 tons of bombs. A ton is a ton. It doesn't matter if that ton is one of 5 tons dropped by a Lancaster, or dropped singly by a Stuka or Heinkel."

WRONG, utterly and completely. This statement alone shows that you have a complete lack of understanding of the various types of aircraft involved in the tactical situation and this discussion.

A bombload dropped indiscriminately from a Lancaster at 28.000 ft is ABSOLUTELY NOT THE SAME as a 500lb bomb placed on a target by a Stuka, which carried was a very large number of the 1660 sorties you mention. Stukas were also involved in the subsequent attacks on pinpoint areas in and around the City, they were not employed in the same manner as the aircraft of the RAF, ie leveling Cities.

The stuka was designed to place a its bombload directly onto a target, the Lancaster, Sterlings, Wellingtons etc were designed to drop their loads from a great height.

The Luftwaffe's medium bombers were primarilly employed in hitting lines of communication, outposts, airfields and factories in Stalingrad and Fiebig's Stukas were tasked with twarting the Red Armies ability to defend against the attacking Axis forces.

Another point. The Luftwaffe didn't have the ordinance to waste hitting Stalingrads civilian areas. There was a shortage of material and bombs had to count. Bombing the shopping district of Stalingrad wouldn't have helped the German soldiers on the ground. But hitting the Red Armies communication hub or the port near the Krasny Oktabyr factory would have and it is these elements that were targeted by the Luftwaffe.

Walt, it doesn't matter how many times you bang on about the bombing of Stalingrad and the bombing of Dresden.

The two situations, like the delivery methods of the above aircraft, ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

You should actually try and read the WHOLE of Haywards book.

Tony

[David Thompson]

Please keep personal remarks to a minimum, or avoid them entirely. Please remember that the research sections of the forum exist primarily to inform our readers. Posters should expend their energy rebutting their opponents' arguments with facts.

[Fugazi]

WalterS:
A ton is a ton. It doesn't matter if that ton is one of 5 tons dropped by a Lancaster, or dropped singly by a Stuka or Heinkel.

Tony's right, one ton is not necessarily the same as another when it comes to bombing. The RAF went to great trouble to try and concentrate their bomb loads on the target, because that multiplied the effect considerably. They also paid great attention to the types of bombs loaded - the proportion of incendiaries to HE, the size of the HE bombs etc, because that too could increase the effect. 1000 tons of bombs dropped by Stukas on individual targets scattered around a city mostly destroy those targets - 1000 tons concentrated on a residential area by Lancasters could cause a much greater amount of damage.

[David Thompson]

tonyh said:

But this is getting away from the main point that in Dresden the RAF simply bombed the center of the City and in Stalingrad, the Luftwaffe HAD to make an effort at targeting tactical objectives to support the advancing army.

and:

A bombload dropped indiscriminately from a Lancaster at 28.000 ft is ABSOLUTELY NOT THE SAME as a 500lb bomb placed on a target by a Stuka, which carried was a very large number of the 1660 sorties you mention. Stukas were also involved in the subsequent attacks on pinpoint areas in and around the City, they were not employed in the same manner as the aircraft of the RAF, ie leveling Cities.

and:

The Luftwaffe's medium bombers were primarilly employed in hitting lines of communication, outposts, airfields and factories in Stalingrad and Fiebig's Stukas were tasked with twarting the Red Armies ability to defend against the attacking Axis forces.

Another point. The Luftwaffe didn't have the ordinance to waste hitting Stalingrads civilian areas. There was a shortage of material and bombs had to count. Bombing the shopping district of Stalingrad wouldn't have helped the German soldiers on the ground. But hitting the Red Armies communication hub or the port near the Krasny Oktabyr factory would have and it is these elements that were targeted by the Luftwaffe.

Fugazi said:

Tony's right, one ton is not necessarily the same as another when it comes to bombing. The RAF went to great trouble to try and concentrate their bomb loads on the target, because that multiplied the effect considerably. They also paid great attention to the types of bombs loaded - the proportion of incendiaries to HE, the size of the HE bombs etc, because that too could increase the effect. 1000 tons of bombs dropped by Stukas on individual targets scattered around a city mostly destroy those targets - 1000 tons concentrated on a residential area by Lancasters could cause a much greater amount of damage.

To show that these charactizations are inaccurate, let's revisit some of the links posted in this thread:

From The Bombing of Stalingrad by Nazi Aircraft on August 23, 1942
http://www.vor.ru/55/Stalingrad/History_5_eng.html

But by the time of the appearance of the leaflets about 50,000 inhabitants were already buried under the ruble of collapsed buildings while tens of thousands others were injured. Here are recollection by those who survived the horror:
“I will remember the first day of the bombing all my life says Lyubov Zaharovskaya. I was 11 years old then. Mother sent me to take some tobacco to grandfather. Suddenly the sky became dark as it was covered by war planes and for sometime the city was unrecognizable. It was dark and everyone was shouting and running Nearby was an hospital. The asphalt was boiling, the ground burnt and people and animals were also in flames. It was a real hell. Planes were flying low and the Germans were shooting at people with machineguns. My mother died in that hell so also was my brother Only I and my sister 17 at the time survived".

This is the recollection of the nightmare by the then chief of the Stalingrad branch NKVD Alexander Voronin:
“A huge shadow from the twin-engine “Heinkel-111 hung over the city. Each plane carried 4 tons of bombs and among them were mines designed for destroying living apartment buildings, factories and shelters. Countless numbers of flare bombs were dropped on the city causing fires everywhere. The planes made many sorties and they took turns in their devilish mission replacing each other to bomb fresh locations. On dropping its bombs each plane went to an airport for a fresh load of their deadly cargo”.

The world had never seen anything like it before. In one day of sustained bombing pilots of the German 4th air force fleet under colonel general von Richthofen virtually obliterated the entire city from the face of the earth. They took off from the field aerodrome and close by was a branch of the railway and the Nazis could supply their squadron with all the necessary materials unhindered. The sky was indeed dark with the presence of 2 and a half thousand war planes. Von Richthofen had more than a thousand planes to carry out Hitler’s order.

From WalterS' post, citing to Joel S. Hayward "Stopped at Stalingrad: The Luftwaffe and Hitler's Defeat in the East, 1942-43," p. 188

In describing the Luftwaffe raid of 23 August Mr Hayward writes:

Estimating fatalities is difficult because of a paucity of reliable statistical data. Yet this hellish attack caused at least as many deaths as similar-sized Allied raids on German cities. For example, it certainly claimed as many victims as the Allied attack on Darmstadt during the night of 11 and 12 September 1944, when the Royal Air Force unloaded almost 900 tons of bombs and killed over 12,300 citizens. The Stalingrad death toll may, in fact, have been twice that of Darmstadt, due to the fact that that the Russian city was poorly provided with air raid shelters. Recent popular accounts have advanced a figure of around 40,000, although this seems extravagant when compared with the death tolls in German cities hit by similar bomb tonnages.

From Too Little, Too Late: An Analysis of Hitler's Failure in August 1942 to Damage Soviet Oil Production
http://www.freewebs.com/joelhayward2/lu ... etoilf.htm

The Luftwaffe, Hitler stated, was to continue providing close and strong support to both army groups. "The early destruction of Stalingrad is especially important," he said.[17] (Citation is to Weisung Nr. 45, in W. Hubatsch, ed., Hitlers Weisungen fuer die Kriegfuehrung, 1939-1945. Dokumente des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht (Koblenz: Bernard & Graefe, 1983), 196-200)(emphasis added - DT)

Fliegerkorps VIII performed well against its primary target, Stalingrad, pounding it into rubble during heavy raids, but its continued bombardment of the ruins in accordance with Hitler's insistence that every street be cleared of the enemy led to a great waste of resources. For two months, Fiebig's units rained hundreds of tons of bombs on the ruins each day, turning small heaps of large rubble into large heaps of small rubble but achieving nothing substantial. This was neither Fiebig's nor Richthofen's fault. Hitler wanted Stalingrad taken, and insisted that all efforts be directed to that end.

From these quotes (leaving out the most lurid claims) it appears that:

(1) Hitler ordered the destruction of Stalingrad.

(2) The Luftwaffe used incendiary devices to bomb Stalingrad on 23 Aug 1942.

(3) The targets included the civilian population and their homes, and was not restricted to Red Army positions.

(4) Estimates of the deaths in the 23 Aug 1942 bombing attack on Stalingrad range from about 26,000 to 40,000.

(5) On Hitler's orders, every street in Stalingrad, including ruins, was bombed for a two month period of time after the 23 Aug 1942 raid.

So what is the evidence to support these statements about the bombing attacks on Stalingrad:

(1)

. . . in Dresden the RAF simply bombed the center of the City and in Stalingrad, the Luftwaffe HAD to make an effort at targeting tactical objectives to support the advancing army.

(2)

Stukas were also involved in the subsequent attacks on pinpoint areas in and around the City, they were not employed in the same manner as the aircraft of the RAF, ie leveling Cities.

(3)

The Luftwaffe didn't have the ordinance to waste hitting Stalingrads civilian areas. There was a shortage of material and bombs had to count. Bombing the shopping district of Stalingrad wouldn't have helped the German soldiers on the ground. But hitting the Red Armies communication hub or the port near the Krasny Oktabyr factory would have and it is these elements that were targeted by the Luftwaffe.

(4)

. . . the Luftwaffe simply did not possess the capabilities to wipe out 40.000 people in a day, or a week or even a month of bombing, even if they were specifically targeting the civilian population, which they weren't in Stalingrad.

[tonyh]

"...50,000 inhabitants were already buried under the ruble of collapsed buildings"

Now its 50.000 civilians not 40.000. The number keeps on rising and remains equally unsubstantiated.

Hitler may have ordered the "destruction of Stalingrad" in an offhand way, but the tactical orders for bombing came from the officers on the ground, not from Hitler.

The "characterizations" aren't innacurate at all David and I'm afraid you have not shown them to be.

See my post below...

Tony

[tonyh]

You'll have to wait for my other reply. The internet cafe I'm in doesn't allow the floppy drive to be accessed and my reply is typed on that....sorry.

Tony

[David Thompson]

tonyh -- I don't mind waiting. I'm just trying to see what what the story is on this bombing campaign against Stalingrad in Aug-Oct 1942. I don't think the victim figures are rising, either. There are a number of estimates of casualties for the bombing of Stalingrad, just as there were for Dresden. One question for us to discuss is which are most likely correct, and why.

The other is whether Hitler's order (which I have not seen but which Hayward describes) for the destruction of Stalingrad is a criminal act. Since Hayward's account suggests that the order was repeated on several occasions and prevented German bombing of Soviet oil installations, why do you think the order was made "offhand"? According to Cajus Bekker, (The Luftwaffe War Diaries, p. 321) on 8 Jul 1941 Hitler expressed his "lasting resolve" to "raze Moscow and Leningrad to the ground by means of the Luftwaffe" as well. And what credence, if any, do you give to von Richthofen's remark: "The city [Stalingrad] is destroyed"?

[Andy H]

From:-

http://www.leavenworth.army.mil/csi/res ... TLewis.asp

“Luftflotte IV, tasked with supporting the advance into southern Russia, fielded half the air assets on the Eastern Front. It, too, was drawn to Stalingrad; its VIII Air Corps supported the army with an average of 1,000 sorties a day. Throughout the 23rd Colonel General Wolfram Freiherr Dr. von Richthofen’s Luftflotte IV pounded the city, burning down the wooden houses in the southwest corner. The large petroleum facility burned for days. The walls of the white four and five story apartment buildings remained standing, but the bombs burned the interiors, collapsing the floors. The waterworks and communications center were also knocked out……..The aerial bombardment during the week killed an estimated 40,000 Russians”.

Most authors, including the official historians, maintain that both air forces limited themselves largely to ground support of the army, reconnaissance and very short-range bombing. As we shall see, however, there is reason to suspect that air operations by both sides were more important and extensive than suggested by the popular or official histories. No less an observer than General Vasili I. Chuikov, before fighting even began in Stalingrad, noted how the Luftwaffe ranged across the steppes, striking communications centers and troop concentrations. As historian R.J. Spiller observed, however, we will probably never know the specific sortie patterns of Luftflotte IV

Spiller, Sharp Corners, pp. 50-55; Anthony Beevor, Stalingrad, (New York: Viking, 1998), p. 119 and Ziemke, Stalingrad to Berlin, pp. 37-42.

Andy

[Milkcloud]

By 1942 the German - Soviet war was totally fanaticized for both sides so they cared few about "rules of war " and "brutality".

From then on, almost evry military action taken by either side can be labeled as unproportionate and cruel.

[David Thompson]

Let's stay on topic -- the bombing of Stalingrad. Who knows more about it?

[WalterS]

In his post: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 637#657637

tonyh said many things, many of which are, in my humble opinion, without historical merit.

You should actually try and read the WHOLE of Haywards book.

I have, evidently far more thoroughly than tonyh has.

tonyh wrote:

"The Luftwaffe flew some 1660 sorties against Stalingrad on 23 AUG, dropping about 1000 tons of bombs. A ton is a ton. It doesn't matter if that ton is one of 5 tons dropped by a Lancaster, or dropped singly by a Stuka or Heinkel."

WRONG, utterly and completely. This statement alone shows that you have a complete lack of understanding of the various types of aircraft involved in the tactical situation and this discussion.

Actually, that statement shows that I have read Hayward's book, and he agrees with me. Prof Hayward makes a direct comparison between the Luftwaffe raid of 23 Aug 42 on Stalingrad, and the RAF raid of 11/12 Sep 44 on Darmstadt. Prof Hayward uses the amount of tons dropped as the basis for the comparison saying:

"Yet this hellish attack [Stalingrad] caused at least as many deaths as similar-sized Allied raids on German cities."

Prof Hayward also states that the Stalingrad raid killed at least as many people as the RAF raid on Darmstadt which dropped 900 tons and killed 12,300 people, and goes on to state :

The Stalingrad death toll may, in fact, have been twice that of Darmstadt [24,600] due to the fact that the Russian city was poorly equipped with air raid shelters.

Hayward: "Stopped at Stalingrad" p, 188

So, evidently, Prof Hayward draws a correlation between tons dropped and people killed.


tonyh wrote:

Another point. The Luftwaffe didn't have the ordinance to waste hitting Stalingrads civilian areas. There was a shortage of material and bombs had to count.

Another unsourced and unsupported statement from tonyh. Professor Hayward, whose book was introduced into this discussion by tonyh, does not write of any such munition shortage affecting the Luftwaffe during the raids on Stalingrad 23-25 Aug. Also of note is the fact that General von Richthofen's diary, which Prof Hayward uses extensively, says nothing of such a shortage of munitions. In the sources I have quoted regarding these raids, namely Hayward, Beevor and Craig, there is no mention of the Luftwaffe operating under such shortages during this period.

tonyh wrote:

Haywards book is lttered with actual Luftwaffe targets assigned and hit. I wrote some of them down the other day, but you had the thread shut down . I'll post them tomorrow.

Mr David Thompson discussed the reasons for locking that thread, and I accept them. tonyh, of course, hasn't posted anything and has avoided quoting the very source he brought into the discussion. So I will.

Professor Hayward does, indeed, discuss specific tactical targets attacked by the Luftwaffe in support of 6th Army's assaults on the city. On p.197 Hayward has a detailed map of Stalingrad which shows, among other things, "main Luftwaffe bombing targets." These targets include: Dzerzhinski tractor factory, oil depot, Bread factory, Lazur Chemical works, etc.

What needs to be kept in mind is that the Luftwaffe attacked these targets in September and October, once 6th Army was fully vested in assaulting the city. The raids of 23-25 August were aimed at the entire city; 6th Army was still advancing from the Don river.

tonyh wrote:

The stuka was designed to place a its bombload directly onto a target

This is correct. The Stuka, and other German bombers, were able to deliver their payloads with great accuracy. This lends credence to the notion that the great destruction wrought upon Stalingrad during the 23-25 AUG raids, along with civilian deaths of 24,600-40000, was, indeed, deliberate. As General von Richthofen wrote on 25 Aug. "The city is destroyed."

Prof Hayward describes General von Richthofen's objectives a few days later, on 30 Aug.

Believing Stalingrad's capture to be imminent, and determined to shatter the enemy's will to resist- an unrealistic goal, as his experiences at Sevastopol should have shown- he [Richthofen] ordered fresh terror attacks on the city. Throughout that day and the next, Fiebig's corps [VIII Air Corps] struck the city with everything available, diverting aircraft only occasionally to smash enemy airfields east of the Volga.

ibid, p. 191. emphasis added.

Again, no mention of shortages of bombs or fuel. In fact, Hayward quotes General von Richthofen as writing on 30 Aug that "Everything's going well." (p.191)


General von Richthofen seems to me to have been the kind of guy who would raise hell about supplies being short during a crucial battle, which he did during the Sevastopol campaign in June and would do so again when trying to supply the Stalingrad pocket. tonyh's statement that the Luftwaffe was carefully dropping its bombs because of worries about bomb supplies is unsupported.

The Luftwaffe attacks of 23-25 Aug were part of a deliberate effort to destroy the city.

[Fugazi]

WalterS:
Prof Hayward also states that the Stalingrad raid killed at least as many people as the RAF raid on Darmstadt which dropped 900 tons and killed 12,300 people, and goes on to state :

The Stalingrad death toll may, in fact, have been twice that of Darmstadt [24,600] due to the fact that the Russian city was poorly equipped with air raid shelters.

Hayward: "Stopped at Stalingrad" p, 188

So, evidently, Prof Hayward draws a correlation between tons dropped and people killed.

Dr Hayward may have done this (Professor isn't a term applied generally to academic staff at NZ universities, I'm not trying to downgrade him), but that doesn't mean he should have. This is exactly the kind of speculation that gave us casualty figures in the hundreds of thousands for Dresden. For example, we could say the Dresden death toll may have been twice that of Hamburg because the Sachsen city was poorly equipped with air raid shelters. We could also say the death toll may have been three times as high as Hamburg, because there were so many refugees in the city. The fact is, it wasn't, and speculating about what it might have been doesn't change that.

Hayward quoted by WalterS:
Believing Stalingrad's capture to be imminent, and determined to shatter the enemy's will to resist- an unrealistic goal, as his experiences at Sevastopol should have shown- he [Richthofen] ordered fresh terror attacks on the city.

It's a great pity Harris and Portal never learned this lesson either. Their capacity to be obtuse killed a lot more people than Richthofen's.

If Hayward is correct (I haven't read him or Beevor on Stalingrad), it sounds like the Luftwaffe attacked the civilian population in an attempt to make life easier for the ground troops, something which became a war crime later. So we can notch this one up as being similar but on a somewhat smaller scale than Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki as war crimes that weren't recognised as such until later?

[Curioso]

Stalingrad was not a strategic objective? Really? That probably would have come as news to German and Soviet generals at the time.

You know what I mean. Dresden was a "strategic" target in the RAF and USAF stragegic bombing campaign sense of the word. But not in the sense that Stalingrad was for the Luftwaffe, supporting the immeadiate advance of the wehrmacht.

Stalingrad was a battlefield, of course. Dresden was a battlefield, too. Or you deem that a battlefield is only where land forces clash? What about the Atlantic, wasn't it a battlefield? The air over the Channel in the summer of 1940?

Not in the same sense as we are discussing. Stalingrad was the imeadiate frontline. Dresden, Hamburg, Pforzheim etc were not.

But this is getting away from the main point that in Dresden the RAF simply bombed the center of the City and in Stalingrad, the Luftwaffe HAD to make an effort at targeting tactical objectives to support the advancing army.


Tony

Yes, I know what you mean. And I'll tell you that the Luftwaffe's support of the immediate advance of the Wehrmacht was a support to tactical objectives, that in turn were steps towards the strategic objective. In other words, a bombing mission may have exclusively strategic objectives - but _no_ bombing mission can have exclusively tactical objective because, as you very well know, tactics serves strategy and each tactical objective is part of the strategic picture.
So you can claim the Allied bombing campaign pursued strategic objectives. But you cannot claim that just about any military action only pursues tactical objectives. With the only exception of cases in which the local commanding officers have lost awareness of what the strategic objective is, and are pursuing objectives that do not promote their side's strategy. This may happen, but it's an exception.

This is not taking into account, by the way, that Dresden is a very bad example for a strategic-only bombing with no reference to land operations, because, you see, bombing it _did_ support a land advance. The bombing of Hamburg, or Pforzheim, did not, but the bombing of Dresden did. A lot.

You say, "not in the sense we are discussing". But what are we discussing here? Aren't we discussing whether a certain city bombing was spoliation or not? If that's what we are discussing here, then the distance from a _land_ frontline is totally irrelevant, and I'm sure you'll not get fixated on that. Anything can be destroyed for no good military reason at any given distance from anything.
Mind you, I'm not saying that a generalized destruction of a defended enemy city _is_ spoliation. I'm only saying that the distance from a land front is irrelevant in order to decide if a given act of destruction is done for no good military reason.

Finally, you say the Luftwaffe "HAD" to target tactical objectives. Had it? I suppose you'll have some evidence to back up the claim? A list of tactical objectives hit by the Luftwaffe won't be enough, of course. We do know it did target tactical objectives. But having targeted them is not synonymous with actually having targeted _only_ those, much less with _being forced_ to target only those. Contemporary sources, including Von Richthofen, seem to think something wider than factories and railways had been destroyed.
A good example of the evidence you need to make this claim credible would be German aerial recon photos taken after the August bombings, showing that only factories had been hit and that all residential areas were still intact.

[Andy H]

Fugazi wrote:

So we can notch this one up as being similar but on a somewhat smaller scale than Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki as war crimes that weren't recognised as such until later?

Sorry to go of topic but are these officially recognised as warcrimes or is it just a subjective opinion on your part?

Andy H

[Fugazi]

Sorry to go of topic but are these officially recognised as warcrimes or is it just a subjective opinion on your part?

I guess the sentence was ambiguous. Targeting civilians to try and reduce casualties among your military personnel was recognised as a war crime some years after the war. These laws don't apply retrospectively of course, so no, officially these kinds of acts carried out in WWII were not war crimes. But yes, it is my subjective opinion that this kind of act in WWII was a war crime that simply wasn't recognised as such until later.