In considering the process of change in the conduct of warfare in the years 1845-1991, how far can the bombing of Guernica be seen as a turning point?

It is arguable that there were other equally significant turning points in warfare, such as the advent of the aviation and the railways, the use of chemicals and the invention of the nuclear bomb; however the bombing of Guernica was the first demonstration of a new style of warfare. Guernica saw the first use of air raids on innocent civilian populations, and represented a significant upscaling of civilian casualties relative to previous methods of warfare, in which military strategy had been based on pitched battles between soldiers. Guernica represented a new mobility in terror that was wreaked by an invader in an indirect manner and led to the erosion of boundaries between the soldier and the civilian. From a distance, the enemy was able to attack with relative ease and stealth, inflict heavy collateral damage, including indiscriminate civilian casualties, and retreat from the battle theatre with ease. This clinical and ‘hygienic’ approach was mimicked in various instances throughout the 20th century, with examples such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, carpet bombing in Vietnam and also precision bombing in Iraq.
The term used to describe warfare that includes civilian targets and incorporates collateral damage in this way is ‘Total War’. In a ‘Total War’ situation, the lines between legality and illegality, and morality and immorality, are blurred, and it would be fair to argue that the bombing of Guernica in 1937 was the first major instance of this. Guernica was, strategically, vital for the Spanish Nationalists, who needed to invade in order to capture Bilbao, enabling the declaration of a Nationalist northern Spain, and as a result of the attack reportedly 1,654 of the defenceless and innocent people of the town were killed. The historian Antony Beevor, in his comprehensive account of the Spanish Civil War, states that ‘the destruction of Guernica became the internationally recognized symbol of the new horror.’ 1 He describes ‘this dehumanization of the enemy which made the war so terrible, along, of course, with modern weapons and the tactics of terror aimed against civilian populations.’ 1