"Legitimate bombing target"

Damas · Post by **Damas** » 18 Feb 2005 16:37

Can anybody clarify (with documentation if possible) when a city can be called "legitimate bombing target"?

Thank you

Goldfish · Post by **Goldfish** » 18 Feb 2005 23:40

Do you mean a legal definition, like in the Geneva Convention or some other treaty?

Damas · Post by **Damas** » 19 Feb 2005 01:45

Anything!

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 19 Feb 2005 14:46

Damas -- You asked:

Can anybody clarify (with documentation if possible) when a city can be called "legitimate bombing target"?

I'll try. The term "legitimate bombing target," though often used, is extremely confusing. The word "legitimate" has several meanings, such as "lawful," "reasonable," "genuine," and "proper -- in accord with custom." The meaning of the term "legitimate bombing target" varies, depending on how the modifier "legitimate" is used. If this isn't cleared up immediately, a discussion can turn into a shouting match.

If the word "legitimate" is meant to be synonymous with "lawful," an additional confusing element appears. "Lawful" usually refers to something that is not forbidden by law. The expression "legitimate bombing target" would refer to a target, the bombing of which was not forbidden. The confusion results from the omission of the referent in the phrase -- namely, the law and the acts it forbids.

In the context of WWII, the applicable international law on the subject of a "legitimate bombing target" was Section II, Chapter I (Means of Injuring the Enemy, Sieges, and bombardments), Articles 22-28 of the Annex to the Hague IV Convention of 1907 (Laws and Customs of War on Land)
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm

This Chapter enumerates the prohibited acts. By implication, that which is not prohibited is lawful. So, in order to determine whether a city is a "legitimate bombing target," one has to look to whether the bombing is forbidden by one or more of the articles in the Section II, Chapter I annex to the Hague IV Convention. If such bombing is not prohibited, the city is a "legitimate bombing target."

For this reason, the term "illegitimate (unlawful) bombing target" is probably more helpful.

The remaining meanings of the word "legitimate" -- "reasonable," "genuine," and "proper -- in accord with custom," are more subjective, and also more likely to lead to opinions rather than an analysis, at least in the context of WWII.

Finally, there is an additional consideration, embodied in the Latin maxim non omne licitum honestum -- not every lawful thing is honorable.

JamesL · Post by **JamesL** » 19 Feb 2005 15:09

One reference I offer is the CURRENT US Army Field Manual dealing with "The Law of Land Warfare." FM 27-10. It is based on interpretations of US and applicable international law. Link.

http://atiam.train.army.mil/portal/atia ... 10/toc.htm

Quote from said manual.

"c. Military Objectives. Military objectives--i.e., combatants, and those objects which by their nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage--are permissible objects of attack (including bombardment). Military objectives include, for example, factories producing munitions and military supplies, military camps, warehouses storing munitions and military supplies, ports and railroads being used for the transportation of military supplies, and other places that are for the accommodation of troops or the support of military operations. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 25, HR, however, cities, towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which may be classified as military objectives, but which are undefended (para 39b), are not permissible objects of attack."

The US Army Judge Advocate General website has several excellent online deskbooks used to train military lawyers. Again, it refers to CURRENT US military strategies.

http://www.jagcnet.army.mil/

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 19 Feb 2005 17:10

Thanks, JamesL. I forgot to add to the foregoing that many of the problems posed by strategic bombing in WWII were addressed in the 1949 Geneva IV Convention, which changed the operating rules defining a "legitimate bombing target":

1949 - Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm

kelty90 · Post by **kelty90** » 21 Feb 2005 13:40

I think that it is reasonable to say that, During World War 2, that all cities in Britain were legitimate targets. After all they were all contributing to the British war effort. My home city of Southampton, for example, was a major port, produced Spitfires, and was a major transportation hub on the south coast. The same was certainly true of cities in the Soviet Union, where it is difficult to imagine any person, let alone city, not involved in assisting the Soviet war effort.
The problem comes with mainland Europe, but few outside of Germany were regularly severely bombed. Germany itself would seem to have had some cities which contributed to the German war effort and could be considered legitimate targets. One thinks of ports such as Kiel or Hamburg, and industrial cities in the Rhur. Otherwise, as we all know, Germany never really took WW2 very seriously and entire cities were left uninvolved by the war. As other posts in this forum point out at great length, cities such as Dresden were havens of peace and tranquility, untouched by involvement in World War 2, and as such should never have been subjected to aerial bombardment.

ChristopherPerrien · Post by **ChristopherPerrien** » 21 Feb 2005 17:08

When a city is inside enemy territory and is "defended" it is a legitimate target. The only exception is if it has been declared an "open city". which only happens when a city is about to be handed over or lost to the enemy, hence no longer in "enemy territory". These laws were written for ground-combat.

Strategic bombing advocates can use this "defended" wording to include any city in enemy territory because planes can encounter defensive measures(AA guns and fighters) far from any particular target any where along their flight-path.

A easier way to think about it is, even before aircraft, port cities could be shelled as they are considered defended by that nation's navy, even if it doesn't happened to be around at the time. You cannot expect the "agressor" to wait around for a defender's navy to show up which it surely will sooner or later, or to wait for some known or unknown coast defense artillery to set up and start shooting.

Hop · Post by **Hop** » 21 Feb 2005 19:40

Germany itself would seem to have had some cities which contributed to the German war effort and could be considered legitimate targets. One thinks of ports such as Kiel or Hamburg, and industrial cities in the Rhur. Otherwise, as we all know, Germany never really took WW2 very seriously and entire cities were left uninvolved by the war.

As other posts in this forum point out at great length, cities such as Dresden were havens of peace and tranquility, untouched by involvement in World War 2, and as such should never have been subjected to aerial bombardment.

It's certainly true at the start of WW2 that Germany didn't mobilise the civilian economy to the extent Britain did, but it's equally true that towards the end of the war they did so more than Britain did.

Germany suffered a severe manpower shortage, millions of slave labourers were taken from all over Europe, the civilian economy was drastically reduced, all to increase war production. It's frankly silly to think that when such desperate measures were being taken, people in cities like Dresden were allowed to ignore the war and not contribute in any way.

Dresden in fact had many factories producing war material, the US Strategic bombing survey of July 1945 identified 110 directly involved in military production.

DrG · Post by **DrG** » 22 Feb 2005 02:09

Dear Damas, I think you will like the text I have just posted here: Rules for Aerial Warfare (1923 Hague Rules, etc.). It is a commentary to the Hague Rules and generally to the doctrine of Aerial Warfare and I hope it will be useful to clarify the ideas about this topic.

Damas · Post by **Damas** » 24 Feb 2005 16:22

I would like to thank you all for contributing to this very difficult subject. I spent all this time studying your replies. It seems that there is no definite answer to the question "when a city can be called "legitimate bombing target"?". From your messages and the documents you so kindly submitted, I concluded that during WWII there were no abiding laws but general drafts that were directing the combatants. I see most of the Hague Rules as too vague (makes an interesting rhyme, doesn't it?), and when there was an effort ot make them more specific, they were not ratified.
Again, thank you all.

I have a couple of questions that I'm not sure the submitted documents have answers to:
1. Can an occupied city be called a "legitimate target" if it is used by enemy troops?
2. If civilians belonging to a friendly nation are forced to work in enemy installations of the enemy and are killed during air raids from whom should their families seek compensation?

And new question would be: "Do you know of anyone who was tried and condemned as responsible for bombing a "non-legitimate" bombing target? In other words, has there ever been any trial of a person or persons for bombing cities? And if yes what was the result?

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 24 Feb 2005 18:42

Damas -- You asked:

And new question would be: "Do you know of anyone who was tried and condemned as responsible for bombing a "non-legitimate" bombing target? In other words, has there ever been any trial of a person or persons for bombing cities? And if yes what was the result?

I only know of two such trials -- One in former Yugoslavia and one in China. The one in Yugoslavia resulted from bombing attacks on Belgrade after it was declared an "open city," and two officers were convicted, sentenced to death and executed. One of the officers was also convicted of other charges as well. You can get more details here:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 689#248689

The trial in China involved the Doolittle raiders of 1942. Several of the captured crew of the Doolittle raid were convicted, sentenced to death and executed by by a firing squad.

On August 28, 1942, Hallmark, Farrow, and Spatz were given a "trial" by Japanese officers, although they were never told the charges against them. On October 14, 1942, Hallmark, Farrow, and Spatz were advised they were to be executed the next day. At 4:30 p.m. on October 15, 1942 the three Americans were brought by truck to Public Cemetery No. 1 outside Shanghai. In accordance with proper ceremonial procedures of the Japanese military, they were then shot.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/wgfarrow.htm

See also:
http://www.answers.com/topic/doolittle-raid
http://www.pendletonairmuseum.org/dolittle18.html

red devil · Post by **red devil** » 25 Feb 2005 00:01

A broad based definition of such a target is "any target containing the enemy" surely.

Juha Tompuri · Post by **Juha Tompuri** » 25 Feb 2005 19:53

David Thompson wrote: maxim non omne licitum honestum -- not every lawful thing is honorable.

I agree 101%

ChristopherPerrien wrote:When a city is inside enemy territory and is "defended" it is a legitimate target.

I don't agree that deliberate attacks against schools, hospitals, churches etc. at even that case would be legal.

Strategic bombing advocates can use this "defended" wording to include any city in enemy territory because planes can encounter defensive measures(AA guns and fighters) far from any particular target any where along their flight-path.

I agree

A easier way to think about it is, even before aircraft, port cities could be shelled as they are considered defended by that nation's navy, even if it doesn't happened to be around at the time. You cannot expect the "agressor" to wait around for a defender's navy to show up which it surely will sooner or later, or to wait for some known or unknown coast defense artillery to set up and start shooting.

I would put my words a bit different order:
"...ports of the cities could be shelled..."

Kelty90 wrote:I think that it is reasonable to say that, During World War 2, that all cities in Britain were legitimate targets. After all they were all contributing to the British war effort. My home city of Southampton, for example, was a major port, produced Spitfires, and was a major transportation hub on the south coast. The same was certainly true of cities in the Soviet Union, where it is difficult to imagine any person, let alone city, not involved in assisting the Soviet war effort.

I don't agree that one military target (or how many it takes to make it legal?) or one AA gun (or how many it takes to make the city "defended"?) make (made) a whole city as legal target.
No matter in what country the city was.
I think it's illegal for soldiers to kill innocent civilians deliberately. However civilians as war-industry workers etc. when working at those factories, are there without legal protection. Also because of some sort of dispersion at the weapons used, civilian casualites near ( what distance?....don't ask) military targets are "acceptable"
At in any case, everything possible should be done to harm the innocent as little as possible.

Hop wrote:Dresden in fact had many factories producing war material, the US Strategic bombing survey of July 1945 identified 110 directly involved in military production.

IIRC only the ones that are individually "identified" prior the attack can be called as "legal targets"/ "justified reasons to attack".

Regards, Juha

P.S. I'm deepy sorry David, if this post of mine ( as it seems) falls in to category of opinion instead of analysis.

Curioso · Post by **Curioso** » 01 Mar 2005 15:27

Juha Tompuri wrote: P.S. I'm deepy sorry David, if this post of mine ( as it seems) falls in to category of opinion instead of analysis.

The post is not only made up of opinions rather than analysis: the opinions it expresses are unsupported by facts and run contrary to the established interpretation of the laws of war in force during WWII. The post contains a few factual claims - and they are inaccurate.

I hereby respectfully suggest you that you should actually read the laws of war you insist on talking about.

First thing, during WWII deliberate attacks against schools, hospitals, churches and museums could be perfectly legitimate and lawful in a range of cases.
A) if they were employed by the enemy for military purposes (Art. 27, Convention IV of the Hague 1907). With this regard, many schools in Dresden, for instance, had been commandeered for military use in 1945.
B) those buildings should be spared, during bombardments and sieges, "as far as possible" (i.e., this is not an unconditional provision) - provided that the enemy carried out their duty "to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand" (same article). For instance, it is no good to cry on the damage to St. Paul's Cathedral, since the British had not lighted it up.
C) if those buildings are part of a defended city, specifically targeting them would, save in the cases mentioned above, be illegitimate and unlawful. However, a deliberate general attack or bombardment against the city, if it is defended, is always legitimate and lawful, and those building may be hit in it.

Second, it is not the presence of a military target in a city that makes it a legitimate target. It is the fact that the city is defended. It matters not if it is defended by a single AA gun. We can say that for two reasons: the first, that the applicable Article does not mention the level of defense required (Art. 25, same Convention). The second, that it goes within reason that it is the responsibility of the defender to insist on defending something if, and only if, that choice was cost-effective and reasonable. Thus, the burden of deciding whether to defend a city, or to declare it an open city, would rightly be on the defender. If you only have insufficient defenses, but you insist on exposing civilian buildings and civilians to the enemy bombardment, being unable to defend them effectively, the responsibility is, rightly, all yours. In the case of some late-war bombardments, for instance, many people ask why they were carried out when the German situation was so desperate. To which the obvious answer is, if the German situation was so desperate, Germany should have surrendered.

Third, the requirement to identify targets is a post-war provision; maybe you are thinking about the Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Convention of 1949. No provision whatsoever required this in 1939-1945. The issues of "acceptable" civilian casualties, distances from legitimate targets, measures to minimize unnecessary casualties, accuracy of weaponry used etc., things you also mention, are all post-war requirements and find no application whatsoever in the 1939-1945 time frame.

The applicable laws of war, which you really need to read, can be found on-line and Mr. Thompson has posted lots of links. You can also find on-line commentaries by jurists, professors, experts of both military and humanitarian international law, and if you do your research you will find they disagree with your opinions.