In March 1945, following the bombing of Dresden, Churchill wrote to Chiefs of Staff, criticising the policy of, 'bombing German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror', and calling for, 'concentration on military objectives rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction'.

This damning judgment has coloured later perception of the Dresden bombing and Bomber Command, but this is far from being the whole story. While precision bombing of military targets might have been preferable, at the beginning of the war this was not technically possible. Primitive navigation techniques inevitably led to a policy of 'area bombing': choosing targets, or groups of targets, in an area miles wide. Bomber Command objectives could be justified in military terms: even Dresden could be seen as a focal point in the depleted German communications network, with its destruction making a contribution to the Nazi collapse.

However, there was a grain of truth in Churchill's suggestion that Bomber Command had a policy based on 'terror', although it disguised the fact that Churchill himself had supported this policy throughout the war. Air Chief Marshal Arthur Harris, commander-in-chief of Bomber Command, was a consistent advocate of 'morale' bombing: attacks calculated to make the German people lose the will to fight, rather than damaging military targets. Scenes of devastation such as the Dresden firestorm were part of the plan, and recently declassified maps show that cities were analysed to identify which areas were most flammable.

Even when more precise targeting of military objectives and oil refineries became possible, Harris remained convinced that attacking the 'morale' of the civilian population was the best way to victory. Post-war surveys suggest that bombing did not, in fact, undermine German civilian morale, any more than the comparatively lighter bombing of British cities turned their inhabitants against the war.

The legality as well as the morality of 'area' bombing was debated after the war, and continues to be discussed. During the Cold War, American and Russian plans for fighting a nuclear war, with missiles targeting major cities, were condemned for threatening civilian populations. In more recent bombing operations, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, NATO forces have been criticised for using an excessively broad range of targets (including, for example, the Serbian state TV station). Unacceptable levels of civilian 'collateral damage' have also been condemned, although NATO supporters justify them in terms of attacking military objectives. The days of 'morale' bombing are over.

Top of page

Tanya inspects the results from her target practise