The Strategic Bombing in World War 2. History Essay

THE STRATEGIC BOMBING IN WORLD WAR 2
Name:
Course:
Date:
Introduction
When it comes to war, the two outcomes are usually to win or lose against the enemy. For one to win, the goal is always to ensure maximum casualty count on the side of the enemy. The other purpose is also to ensure extensive damage to the enemy's essential installations and infrastructure. Accomplishments of such goals will automatically kill or lower the enemy's morale in the battle, and effectively make the enemy retreat. This is what is termed as strategic bombing. While different militaries have their approaches, the concept behind strategic bombing remains the same. The Second World War provided a real-time exhibition of strategic bombing. A comparative review on the works of two authors can help shed light on this.
Summaries
David Bashow’s The Balance Sheet: The Costs and Gains of the Bombing Campaign and A.C Grayling’s excerpt from Among the Dead Cities: The History and Moral Legacy of the WWII Bombing of Civilians in Germany and Japan titled The Defense of Area bombing, provide a deep insight into the general aspect of strategic bombing.[Bashow, David L. "The Balance Sheet: The Costs and the Gains of the Bombing Campaign." Canadian Military History 15, no. 3 (2006): 4.] [Grayling, Anthony C. "Among the dead cities." London: Bloomsbury (2006).]
According to Bashow, there are a few things to take note of. He notes that there has always been a raging debate that the Second World War was too ‘wasteful’ on resources and workforce. In other terms, the number of men, as well as the number of resources pumped into the war by the warring nations, was so much more than even the gains realized from the war itself. Bashow, in the article, takes stock of both the downside and upside of the area bombings. He, however, seems to stress the importance and benefits of these area bombings in granting the Allies the victory. He particularly praises the Bomber Command for playing a vital role in the quick conclusion to the war.
In his argument in the article, Grayling believes that the entire cause of the war was entirely wrong. According to him, not only was the strategic area bombing unreasonable and cruel, but it was also disproportionate and unnecessary. The overall impacts of the war and the calls made through the course of it were also unlawful as they went against any international laws concerning the protection of life and safeguarding of property. The excessive bloodshed even in contravention to any ethical principles that advocate for the same. Grayling, therefore, offers quite a scathing criticism of the way the Allied forces interpreted and executed what they believed to be strategic or area bombing.
Comparative Review
Bashow’s and Grayling’s perspectives are quite contrasting when it comes to the issue of strategic area bombing. While Bashow seems to be supporting it, Grayling is hugely critical of the whole thing. In fact, Grayling's criticism of the war is that instead of such a wasteful engagement, much of these resources should have been pumped into something more beneficial in the cause of the war. Area bombing, in particular, which constituted strategic bombing in the war, was of much impa...