I don't see any relation and logic in your post. I don't see how my point of view which can be generlised as "The allied strategic bombing of Hamburg and other German cities was a war crime, and the people responsible fot it should have got centances, but didn't because they were the winnig side" is a nonsense. And if you want to answer such nonsense do it by just saying : "No, i think the allied bombings were not a war creim beacase..." But instead you focus on the word Bltz(whcih i already explained) and other irrevelant to the maiin topic things which don't change anything at all. Don't try to sell your cheap sophism here.
Operation Gomorrah: Thoughts?
- Thread starter Tycho
- Start date
I don't see any relation and logic in your post. I don't see how my point of view which can be generlised as "The allied strategic bombing of Hamburg and other German cities was a war crime, and the people responsible fot it should have got centances, but didn't because they were the winnig side" is a nonsense. And if you want to answer such nonsense do it by just saying : "No, i think the allied bombings were not a war creim beacase..." But instead you focus on the word Bltz(whcih i already explained) and other irrevelant to the maiin topic things which don't change anything at all. Don't try to sell your cheap sophism here.
And you just misunderstood another word, creating even more goddamn confusion. Sophism.
You are failing to address Masada's underlying concern, while talking absolute gibberish about other points. I recall you doing the same to me in another recent thread, though I don't remember which one. It has nothing to do with linguistic concerns, and everything to do with you flat-out not knowing what you're talking about and using piss-poor methodology.
You are failing to address Masada's underlying concern, while talking absolute gibberish about other points. I recall you doing the same to me in another recent thread, though I don't remember which one. It has nothing to do with linguistic concerns, and everything to do with you flat-out not knowing what you're talking about and using piss-poor methodology.
![[offtopic]](/images/smilies/offtopic.gif "Offtopic [offtopic]")
....Then you might as well question the utility of the entire Soviet war effort. Obviously, because they screwed up plenty and wasted millions of men initially before achieving decisive victory, the Soviets would have been better off...doing what exactly?
Plenty of mistakes were made in the strategic bombing offensive, from going after the wrong targets (like pure terror bombing for instance) to just plain poor tactics and strategy during the first 2 years. But by 1944, once proper tactics had been worked out, and optimal targets found, it utterly paralyzed the German ability to wage war, as well as more directly, destroyed the Luftwaffe. Without hindsight, how else can you work out proper tactics and optimal targets other than trial and error?
Now, in many cases, some of the resources committed would likely have been better put to other things, but the campaign as a whole most certainly worked in the same way as all but the most brilliantly successful campaigns.
Tycho
AFK Forum Warrior
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 3,240
It was effective in the fact that it diverted large portions of the German Luftwaffe, which suffered heavier losses as time went on including many of it's ace pilots from earlier campaigns. Bombing cities and factories to harass the Germans cut their production, and at the same time it made Hitler look like a fool. He had promised early on during the war that for every thousand pounds of bombs that were dropped on the Reich, their would be a hundred thousand, hundred and fifty, and a ludicrous three hundred thousand pounds of bombs returned against the British.
But back to Gomorrah. The area that these bombs were dropped on was about one by one-two miles and wiped out hundreds of factories and apartment buildings, and suffocated people in bomb shelters. Adults that had been exposed to the flames had shrunk to the size of children, and temperatures of fifteen hundred degrees fahrenheit were present as well as a towering inferno that was as high as some apartment buildings. The first aerial firebombing of a western city (to my knowledge) was effective in the fact that it rattled the Reich and inflicted a substantial amount of collateral damage.
Quackers
The Frog
I've read stuff (Dresden firebombing) saying it was unneccessary and was only used to terrify ordinary German citizens. The incineration, suffocation and crushing to death of Germany woman and children is not beneficial to the war effort.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
That's a completely nonsensical argument. The USSR didn't have any choice but to fight the best way it could, because the alternative was defeat. The Allies didn't need the strategic bombing offensive, and they ESPECIALLY didn't need to massacre German/Japanese civilians en masse. If they had instead focused on using their air force tactically, they might have invested their effort better.
By not letting extraneous considerations govern how your prosecute the war.
Plus, if I remember correctly, German production of weapons and equipment was steadily increasing almost to the end of the war. If something crippled German war production, it was the loss of the conquered territories in 1944/1945, in which the strategic bombing played little to no role.
So, it didn't achieve any of its objectives (unless you consider massacring civilians an "objective"), but it was a success? Oh well, then I declare the German invasion of the USSR a success.
Compare the strategic bombing offensive with the tactical air offensive in France before and during Overlord. The latter clearly gave the forces on the ground a tremendous advantage - not only were German forces constantly harassed and depleted by fighter-bombers, but their supply lines and other lines of communication were severely compromised, which prevented them from fast moving their reserves and reinforcing their frontline units. A lot of civilians died as a result of the bombing, but at least they didn't die totally in vain, because the German war effort in France was greatly damaged.
it depends on the results if it is beneficial. If it forces the Germans to commit a single AA gun and associate men and ammunition to the defence of any city in the rear area, there was a benefit. This was probably the largest benefit of the bombing campaign, resources diverted from the front lines.
Militarily you have to take into account the cost of aircraft materiel and men expended during the attack and the opportunity cost of attacking other targets to judge whether the overall campaign was beneficial.
Moral, ethical, and legal matters are another issue entirely. And can turn a militarily beneficial event to a bad decision.
Militarily you have to take into account the cost of aircraft materiel and men expended during the attack and the opportunity cost of attacking other targets to judge whether the overall campaign was beneficial.
Moral, ethical, and legal matters are another issue entirely. And can turn a militarily beneficial event to a bad decision.
Wrong, and I go over why in this thread starting around page 4-5. Please read it and rebut if you can.
How exactly would the Allies make use of massively increased tactical air until they have actual troops in Europe? Tactical air works against units on the move, for instance launching a counterattack. Germany would hardly be launching counterattacks before the Allies land troops, eh? Tac air does practically nothing against dug in troops in the WWII era, proven repeatedly through the course of the war. And the devastating effects tac air had on German infrastructure only became possible after capturing/constructing bases in France, thanks to their relatively short range, and further only succeeded against a Luftwaffe already gutted by the Strategic offensive. (loading fighters down with rockets and sending them to strafe trains is the action of someone who had already achieved air superiority)
Strategic air was the only way to actually hurt Germany prior to full scale invasion, and little of the resources devoted to strategic air could have been used to make an invasion possible sooner. (a few hundred older bombers diverted to anti-submarine patrol would be pretty much it) And only striking at the heart of Germany could force the Luftwaffe to commit its full strength and be destroyed.
aelf
Ashen One
I'm not surprised that at least some conservatives would say that, to be honest. It kind of rationalises even some of the worst things about the military actions that they support.
Tycho
AFK Forum Warrior
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 3,240
The Japanese believed that the people that surrendered were dishonoured and following their beliefs, that was an inexcusable action. That's why few Japanese prisoners were taken during the war, why there were banzai charges.
On the note of the Dresden firebombing, it was later on during the war and Germany was already losing and falling back on all fronts so to attack the city and attempt to raze it from the face of the earth was a little overkill. Hamburg was early on during the war and the amount of life lost in such a small area is astounding to say the least.
Additionally, many people who survived the firebombing of Operation Gomorrah were a little bit shellshocked and insane.
retaliation on that scale to civilians isn't justice, it might have implied deterrant; but they were just getting started. In the end it wasn't rightful ethically or even militarily, but it was understandable in the context of the early war. What helps justify it continuing in some eyes were the V-1 and V-2 reprisal weapons, which fortunately weren't carrying poison gas. But even Churchill knew the whole bomber offensive was overkill before the double raid on Dresden. He issued a memo to that effect after.
There's something of a gentlemen's agreement over bombing and other attacks on those who occupy the line between civilian and military that we don't consider it a war crime provided that it has some basis in military reasoning; we don't consider the German attacks on British cities or Allied merchant ships to be a war crime, and likewise Allied attacks on German and Japanese cities are considered in the same way. Wars are nasty, children, and however much the man in the funny hat says he's concerned about protecting civilians he's far more concerned about doing his job and winning the war.
Would you mind pointing out exactly what is funny about his post? It's not entirely correct, but it's nowhere near wrong either.LoL comparing the war in Afghanistan to World War 2, just...
Winner
Diverse in Unity
LoL comparing the war in Afghanistan to World War 2, just...
I did no such thing. I mentioned it to demonstrate the nonsensical nature and moral repulsiveness of the terror bombing strategy. Nowhere did I imply that the war in Afghanistan is similar in scale or intensity to WW2, so just try to calm your hormones.
That was actually an incredibly ignorant analogy in all respects. The reason that such tactics were used in the World Wars was that the objective was to force the other side to surrender through beating seven bells out of them until they agreed to do so. In Afghanistan it's not about that, it's about bringing stability and government control to those parts of the country that the Taliban still hold, and that means we need to win over the people living there. All the firepower in the world won't count for anything if the people don't think that the government are the good guys and better than the Taliban. Against Germany and Japan, who cared what the people thought? Bomb 'em!
Considering the British and Americans doubtlessly knew that they'd need the Germans and Japanese to be on their side against the Soviets after the war - Roosevelt and Churchill were both planning for the post-war period, in FDR's case before the US had entered the war - that's pretty damn short-sighted.
Clearly not, as they soon became strong and faithful allies of both powers. Rebuilding their countries kind of earned their gratitude back.
I think that was more fear of the Soviets than actual gratitude, especially since the original plan for both nations - actually followed-through partially in Japan - was to turn them into weak, agrarian nations posing no geostrategic threat to anyone. Both Germany and Japan sent out (very unrealistic) feelers to the US during the war, proposing that they join up with the West in fighting the Soviets. The very violent protests in Japan over US occupation - including the slaughter of SCAF-J troops in Okinawa at one point - should be a clear sign that the locals weren't terribly fond of the Western presence. If the Soviets had been a little less, well, communist, things might have a little different, since the elites in both Germany and Japan feared them far more than the capitalist West.
Similar threads
