Wings #4

1. Why did some world leaders and theologians feel that flying would be the end of mankind?

Flying, it was believed, would lead to increased death during times of attack and violence because it is impossible to hide from a bomb that is falling out of the sky, as mentioned by Stanley Baldwin on page 356. It is hard for an entire army on the ground to sneak up on a city without being detected in order to attack it. It was becoming increasingly easy for an army to bombard a city by air with little to warning for the victims, however. Also, when an army is on land and using guns to shoot each other, it is possible for civilians to be secured in a building, shielded from the attack, while the soldiers form a perimeter to protect them. This is not true in the case of air warfare, when bombs can be dropped from the sky on anyone at anytime and simply rounding up people into safe buildings does no good, as the building can easily be blown to pieces.

Theologians and world leaders were faced with the same dilemma that we face today as new technology is developed. We think “sure, this technology is great and serves the world in so many ways,” and then the technology falls into the wrong hands and shows us the inherent dangers that come with innovation. For example, firearms are tools that are very beneficial for hunting, protection, and sport. However, this awesome invention, if used by someone with less than honorable intentions, can also be the weapon in school shootings, robberies, and accidental deaths.

As someone who was born after airplanes became very popular and sophisticated pieces of technology, it is possible for me to reflect on whether the concerns of these theologians and politicians were correct to be concerned. Flight has affected my life in many positives ways, allowing me to receive fresh produce in my local grocery store that was grown hundreds of miles away and expediting travels. However, I can also see how the most memorable national tragedy in my lifetime, 9/11, took place because of an airplane hijacking and eventual crash. The goal of any technology is to keep the innovation from getting into the wrong hands, and this is true for airplanes as well.

6. What role did strategic bombing play during the war and was it successful?

Strategic bombing was the goal for the countries involved in World War II as they utilized the newly improved aerial technology that was suddenly at their fingertips. Strategic bombing, in layman’s terms, means launching an effective aerial attack on the enemy while minimizing non-essential casualties. This would mean launching a bomb attack on a very precise location, containing the destruction to a small area. While the intention of the bombing used in WWII was for it to be strategic, taking out the military bases and armies while allowing the maximum number of civilians to be unaffected, bombing technology was simply not that sophisticated at this time.

That being said, the strategic bombing did allow for the United States to effectively weaken Germany’s presence in WWII. Along with the RAF from England, the USAAF worked to systematically chip away at Germany’s weakening economy with their attacks. Strategic bombing didn’t work as well in Japan, however. The term “abandonment of restraint” will be addressed in the next response, but it is more synonymous with the utter destruction that was brought upon Japan.

It is interesting to think of how many lives could have been saved if the technology that we had today were available back in the days of WWII. It is hard for those of us who have never lived in a world at war with itself to imagine the feelings of hatred and incivility that permeated between countries. Nowadays, a bombing that was anything less than strategic and precise would be met with intense public resistance because of the current focus on human rights. Back in the time of WWII however, the Allied forces were between a rock and a hard place. It was publicly shared that the Axis powers were committing unspeakable crimes against humanity, and the Allied forces had to decide whether it was okay to temporarily sink to their level if it meant ending their crimes. The fact that strategic bombing was attempted is honorable and speaks to the respect for human life that is typical of American society.

7. What is meant by the phrase “abandonment of all restraint” as it relates to WWII and the military tactics used by both sides?

The phrase “abandonment of all restraint” refers to the complete destruction that was used to defeat enemies in World War II. Most notably, the United States bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki inspires the phrase, as it is estimated that 130,000 lives were lost in Japan as a direct result of the bombings, not counting the thousands that died from radiation-related illnesses years later (Crouch 425).  The “abandonment of all restraint” was a result of the failure of strategic bombing. Because militaries were frustrated with the fact that they could not bomb key war locations accurately, they resorted to simply dropping a bomb and accepting the unintended damage as a casualty of war. The book describes the results of this well on page 426: “Unable to strike at the industrial heart of the enemy with surgical precision, the temptation to bludgeon him to death proved simply irrestible.” Tensions in WWII were at a historical high. Thousands of people were being sentenced to death in concentration camps in Europe, and the Allied forces were willing to do anything to shut down their enemies.

While the morality of the use of the atomic bomb in Japan has been debated for the decades since the attack and will most likely continue to be debated in the classrooms of our great grandchildren, most historians will not hesitate to admit that it wasn’t the most humane way to stop Japan’s tyranny. It blows my mind that, as the book states on page 424, more humans died as a result of another man’s actions on the night of March 4-5, 1945 than any other 24-hour period in history. These days, our technology has improved and our military’s skills with aerial bombings have been honed to the point where I’m sure we could achieve the outcome of stopping Japan without the death of so many civilians. At the time in 1945 however, the technology simply didn’t exist yet. The United States threw caution to the wind, weighed the good of stopping Japan against the bad of the civilian deaths, and did what they could with what they had at the time.