Hop,
It has been written several times in this thread that any civilian target can be linked to a military one, however insignificant. Yet your example of german air mines is good one, showing a clear intend in military planning to cause maximum (civilian) damage - just like cookies, blockbusters and incendiaries.
But as I feared you are taking my example of the RAF as a main argument, while it is only intended to give a more steady framework. We'll enter on well tread ground with the same old arguments. Sorry Hop, I'll skip that discussion if you don't mind (which will in part be based on semantics and my (lack) of english).
I am not trying to establish that the Luftwaffe did
not attack civilian targets, or did not in fact deploy terror bombing tactics, but the RAF did.
That has never been my aim.
However for the sake of argument lets go back to Guernica.
Three theories, from left to right.
- Terror bombing to demoralize the Basque nation
- Tactical bombing to stop retreating Republican troops
- Mainly Republican sabotage action and Luftwaffe bombing actually causing relatively little damage
James Corum in
The Luftwaffe - Creating the Operational Air War does provide an interesting note on p.199/200:
There is no evidence that Wolfram von Richthofen, who served as a senior Luftwaffe commander in Spain, Poland, the low countries, France, against Britain, and in Russia, ever carried out the policy of terror bombing or the deliberate targeting of civilians. On the other hand, Von Richthofen was a ruthless commander who never expressed any sympathy or concern for civilians who might be located in the vincinity of the military targets. Von Richthofen's actions at Guernica and throughout the Spanish War and World War II showed consistency in this attitude toward targeting.
This quote isn't hard evidence (although Corum seems to have based his writings on primary source material), but it does give us a framework where to put Guernica or Frampol.
I am afraid that much of this debate is fixed around moral guilt.