OK we can go on debating whether the UN declaration of genocide is valid or whether genocide should be enlarged. But in reality we return to the age-old discussion whether some killings are legal or some are not. If we use our morale - killing, according to western society is wrong when committed by citizens. But the state has the authority under certain circumstances to kill individuals either belonging to its own nation or another.
According to the saint Petersburg declaration 1868
That the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy;
We can then ask ourselves how do we 'weaken the military forces if the enemy'? According to the Hague declaration of 1907 CONVENTION RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND
According to the views of the High Contracting Parties, these provisions, the wording of which has been inspired by the desire to diminish the evils of war, as far as military requirements permit
So although the Saint Petersburg declaration limits states use of military power only to weaken the military forces of the enemy the Hague Convention leaves a loophole where states are still able to exceed the evils of war, if the military requirements permit.
The issue then is what constitutes a situation where the military requirements permit it? According to the Hague it is forbidden:
To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
But what of the inhabitants? According to the Hague
The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited
But what is undefended? and what if a town is home to war production? is this allowed? The St. Petersburg declaration declares that we are only allowed to weaken the military forces of the enemy. But what about his production? In traditional terms of war. A protected city was a city with a garrison that would close the gates and defend themselves upon the arrival of an enemy besieging force. In such circumstances the besieging force would be allowed to bomb that city. But the high contracting powers of the Hague Declaration did probably not foresee that within 40 years armies would no longer have to siege a city in order to bomb it. They would now have long range bombers, and if a city is producing war materials but is without a garrison is it unprotected or not?. There can be little doubt that in such circumstances a city that produces war materials is a protected city and therefore is subject to bombardments. If our technology or the enemies defences prevent us from bombing accurately then what? Well according to the Hague declaration we are still allowed to bomb as long as the military requirements permit it. Unfortunately you will find no rule of thumb in the laws of war so that you can find the ratio between necessities of war and civilian casualties. That one is up for the courts (of which there were none for the allied conduct of war, but since the allied did not put Goring on trial for air bombardments we must assume that they found that the use of air bombardments was legal). The other issue is bombing the civilian population. A civilian who works in the armament industry and is subsequently killed during an air raid on those facilities is he a civilian? Some would argue that if he went into the armaments facilities he looses his civilian status. Others would argue that since he is a working capacity of the opposing government in their war effort he is a legitimate target no matter if he is at the facility or not. Therefore even if he is off duty and sound a sleep in his home he is still a capacity for the enemy's war production and thereby a part of the military forces of the enemy. If the bomb kills his family while destroying him, those loses can therefore be claimed acceptable if one finds that the military requirements permit it. If we accept that claim it would be quite easy to accept the notion that civilians can be bombed, not since they are just working in the armaments industry but since they support the regime. This on the other hand would open up to and legalise everything that we normally consider as terrorism. But what about Genocide? is that part of the war effort? That would be quite hard to justify, since it normally takes place in occupied territories and therefore it has little to do with weakening the military forces on any level. We can discuss whether allied bombings exceeded the loopholes that the laws of war permit, and therefore we can discuss whether it is a war crime, but to equate it with genocide only has one purpose. If we say that allied bombings were the same as genocide then the allied powers (excluding USSR) were just as bad as the Germans and through that reasoning we can not condemn German war crimes... I can only speculate of the political intentions of such a claim.