Amen-Moses

I hate to be a pain (it seems we clash quite a lot around here ) but this is just bollocks, when we needed to our accuracy was pinpoint, i.e when we attacked the V2 production facilities, at night, we hit it dead on first time out. When we hit the Tirpitz we hit it dead on first time, when we hit the super cannon we hit it dead on first time. All these targets were over 200 miles away yet were accurately targetted so the claim that the technology was at fault is bogus.

Indeed when we went after a single building housing SS prisoners (in order to silence a prisoner that could have given away specific secrets) we also hit is first time dead on and when we hit the dams we also hit the dead on first time.

See a pattern emerging here? If we had exact locations of tergets we hit them with pin point accuracy. The problem came with ill defined targets, i.e in a huge factory complex it is extremely difficult to determine which one of hundreds of buildings contain specific production facilities (we did try not to waste too many bombs after all) but it is far easier to target the manpower for the entire complex!

Dresden was never, ever, a strategic target and any attempt to suggest otherwise is to my mind sickening, it was pure terror and nothing less.

Amen-Moses

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amen-Moses
I hate to be a pain (it seems we clash quite a lot around here ) but this is just bollocks, when we needed to our accuracy was pinpoint, i.e when we attacked the V2 production facilities, at night, we hit it dead on first time out. When we hit the Tirpitz we hit it dead on first time, when we hit the super cannon we hit it dead on first time. All these targets were over 200 miles away yet were accurately targetted so the claim that the technology was at fault is bogus.Indeed when we went after a single building housing SS prisoners (in order to silence a prisoner that could have given away specific secrets) we also hit is first time dead on and when we hit the dams we also hit the dead on first time.

No kidding, because those were specialized missions that required lots of practice, special weapons, and elite crews. The average bomber group of hundreds of aircraft was hopelessly inaccurate. For example,

• The problem of how a bomber delivered weapon could breach a major dam was studied by Dr. Barnes Wallis, a distinguished aircraft designer and scientist. Concluding that an attack with a conventional bomb was out of the question, Dr. Barnes developed a 9250 pound cylindrical weapon which, when released at an altitude of sixty feet while rotating backwards at a rate of 500 rpm, would skip along the surface to the dam, roll to a point near the base, and then explode causing shock waves which would crumble the dam.
  
  Recognizing the difficulty of delivering Barnes's weapon, a special squadron (617) led by Wing Commander Guy Gibson was created. The crews were handpicked by Gibson and began training for low level, night operations.
  
  The Lancaster was chosen for the squadron because it was the only aircraft capable of lifting the weapon designed by Dr. Wallis. The problem of how to determine when the aircraft was at an altitude of precisely sixty feet was solved by installing two spotlights on the aircraft whose beams crossed at a distance of sixty feet.

See? Special weapons, training, techniques, crews, and aircraft. And mission losses were still appallingly heavy. The V-1 sites and sub pens were attacked with special 12,000 pound Tallboy bombs. The aircraft had to be specially modified to carry it, and the weapon was so expensive and rare that crews were told to return with it if unused -- imagine trying to land with a 12,000 lb weapon in your belly! Certainly, with enormous investment, specialized weapons could be made to kill specific targets. Average bombers with average crews, not a chance.

Further, Tirpitz was attacked many times, by both British and Soviet forces. Some, like Operation Tungsten, were outstanding successes, others, like the first Soviet raid, were dismal failures. Mascot, a UK operation conducted in 1944, was a complete failure with the loss of two aircraft against one near miss and no damage to the German BB. Additional attacks in Goodwood I,II,III,IV and V in 1944 were failures -- four times the ship was attacked, although in fairness raid three failed only because a direct hit which almost certainly would have destroyed the ship failed to detonate. See the whole story here. She was finally destroyed by Bomber Command using Tallboys, specially designed bombs, in actions which took three separate raids. Far from "hitting her the first time" the destruction of the beautiful German battleship took a year and specially designed equipment and specially trained crews and modified aircraft to bring off.

Like I said, with massive investment in special techniques and equipment, individual raids of great accuracy could be brought off....but ordinary mass bombers were inaccurate and hopeless for such precision tasks.

You know, Amen, you really need to check out each claim you make, on the web, before you post it here. It's a good habit to get into.

See a pattern emerging here?

Yes, the pattern is that you, as always, have no idea what you are talking about.

If we had exact locations of tergets we hit them with pin point accuracy.

Of course! The Allies had no concept of the exact location of Hamburg, Berlin or Cologne.

The problem came with ill defined targets, i.e in a huge factory complex it is extremely difficult to determine which one of hundreds of buildings contain specific production facilities (we did try not to waste too many bombs after all) but it is far easier to target the manpower for the entire complex!

No, the problem was that navigation, weapons, bombsights and target identification techniques and technologies were all primitive and resulted frequently in the Allies bombing places miles from their intended targets, sometimes almost comically so. This is before the effects of fear, German interference, German misdirection, and enemy fighters and flak.

Vorkosigan

Idiopathy

And without Adam and Eve the war had never been started. I think your argument is just invalid. "Carpet bombings" were the effect of war, true, but if they are to justify (with the law of war concerning non-combatants) is another question. Were they better than the crimes and aggressions of the Germans? That is the question.

Churchill said: "It is tragic that so many civilians died, but let's ask ourselves who started the war." If he had destroyed whole Germany, he also could say: but who has started? That should not be the justification on a morale level, I think.

Sounds like a fair aim. But was it really fair? Of course the objective was not named or meant to "terrorize civilians." But they did very well know what they do. To destroy the seventh largest city in Germany (with 1.000.000 people within), close before the war was over (the end in sight) just because of missed military targets (accidentially) sounds not very convincing to me. They knew about the consequences and accepted those. And even when the aim was merely to destroy "Germany's military - industrial complex", we can ask, is it to justify, when they knew what can happen because of unprecise bombs? Does it correspondend with humanity? I think not.

I'm sorry, but that's strange to me. You can't sell the destroying of Stalingrad as destroying military buildings (of course there were some) and you can't sell destroying of Dresden as destoying military buildings. That's just strange. In cities always live thousands of non-combatants.

Because of the same reason it was wrong to drop atomic-bombs over Japans cities to finish the war. Because of killing non-combatants within.

The name of this forum is "moral foundations" and not "how precise were the bombs?", right? If you know the bombs are not precise and you know about the effects you need justification for that what happens.

Nice article: From Dresden To Baghdad - 58 Years Of "shock And Awe":

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...40&ItemID=3003

Vorkosigan

Because of the same reason it was wrong to drop atomic-bombs over Japans cities to finish the war. Because of killing non-combatants within.

Yes, it would have been much better to let the war drag on without end, with the attendent millions of deaths. Or invaded Japan, leading to tens of millions of deaths. The A-bomb ended the war at relatively low cost of life, compared to the holocaust in mainland China or the hopeless, stupid destruction of Manila and the endgame fighting in the Philippines.

Vorkosigan

Idiopathy

That was the official statement: to end the war, of course. But, nevertheless, we have to ask: was is good and is it to justify?

At first it was pretty obvious that the war for Japan was lost at this time. So the the talking about a "war drag on without end" is without foundation. We really have not to discuss this point.

Then you make different mistakes in your attempt to justify that massacre on thousands of non-combatants:

Non sequitur. It's very sad that I have to show this. It is absolutely not relevant how much more death people other massacres produced. That can never be the justification for (1.)another massacre (2.) on non-combatants. There is no connection. What would you think about me when I would tell you that I will kill my neighbour, because it is - compared to war in Vietnam - at low cost? You would say I'm stupid - and I had to say, you're right.

Of course it ended the war. That's a fact and that could be a reason to justify it. But again we have to ask, was it necessary to come to a quick end in that way? I really believe that another way of demonstration should have been able to end the war, too. But unfortunately it was more interesting for some people what exactly the effects of that bomb would be when using it in the way they did.

Maybe you know about the horror which the developers catched when they heard about the effects. They became strong opposers of these weapons. So I can only wonder that you are attempting to justify this crime today. That only means we have nothing learned from history and it can always happen again. That's very, very sad.

Besides that you have forgotten that it is a war crime to bomb such cities that way. It is absolutely not relevant what aims you have. The aims do not (never) justify the means. Terrorists also have sometimes very good aims, but always the wrong means.

Finally I've learned that it is forbidden to compare/weigh the life of these people with the life of those people in questions of morale and law to justify your deeds. I'm sure this general rule is valid everywhere.

Vorkosigan

That was the official statement: to end the war, of course. But, nevertheless, we have to ask: was is good and is it to justify?

At first it was pretty obvious that the war for Japan was lost at this time. So the the talking about a "war drag on without end" is without foundation. We really have not to discuss this point.

Oh really? The war was lost in '43, and two years later, despite impending starvation, and defeat on all fronts except China, Japan was still willing to fight. There was no plan to surrender, and the military would not permit it. That was in fact the fundamental US problem: Japan would not end the war even though it had been defeated.

Non sequitur. It's very sad that I have to show this. It is absolutely not relevant how much more death people other massacres produced. That can never be the justification for (1.)another massacre (2.) on non-combatants.

I'm a little weird that way. I think that killing a couple of hundred thousand people is better than letting several million die. Probably I am morally deficient.

There is no connection. What would you think about me when I would tell you that I will kill my neighbour, because it is - compared to war in Vietnam - at low cost? You would say I'm stupid - and I had to say, you're right.

Yes, I agree this is a stupid argument. That's why I am not making it.

Of course it ended the war. That's a fact and that could be a reason to justify it. But again we have to ask, was it necessary to come to a quick end in that way? I really believe that another way of demonstration should have been able to end the war, too.

Yes, lots of people who haven't read up on the issue think that. But the fact is that even with two A-bombs dropped and the Russian invasion of Manchuria, the Japanese gov't did not decide to surrender. Only the direct intervention of the Emperor forced the gov't to change its course, and even then, members of the Imperial family had to be dispatched to the farthest corners of the Empire to make sure that the surrender was actually enforced. So I don't understand why you think a demonstration would have convinced the government, when the destruction of two cities did not.

But unfortunately it was more interesting for some people what exactly the effects of that bomb would be when using it in the way they did.

<sigh> Planners were faced with various conflicting goals. The bomb had to help the planned invasion of Kyushu (in which case Hiroshima was ideal), in case it failed to provoke a surrender; it had to get the government's attention (in which case Hiroshima was badly located), it had to be a valid test, and it had to end the war. All these goals are not necessarily overlapping. Your English is excellent, and it should be no trouble for you to read one of the standard works on the end of the war.

Maybe you know about the horror which the developers catched when they heard about the effects. They became strong opposers of these weapons.

Yes, some were so horrified that they signed petitions demanding that it be used, and arguing that it would be immoral to refuse to use a possible war-ending weapon and let millions die instead. Others were so horrified they went on to build more bombs. The idea that everyone shrank in horror, shaved their heads, and did molecular biology instead is a Leftist myth.

So I can only wonder that you are attempting to justify this crime today. That only means we have nothing learned from history and it can always happen again. That's very, very sad.

I quite agree. It is sad that you have learned nothing from history; indeed, have not even attempted to read in any detail on this topic, which I have taught at the college level.

Besides that you have forgotten that it is a war crime to bomb such cities that way.

Quite true. But it would be a greater crime to let the war go on. Given a choice between two evils, I generally choose the lesser one.

It is absolutely not relevant what aims you have. The aims do not (never) justify the means. Terrorists also have sometimes very good aims, but always the wrong means.

The ends do justify the means, if millions of lives are at stake.

Finally I've learned that it is forbidden to compare/weigh the life of these people with the life of those people in questions of morale and law to justify your deeds. I'm sure this general rule is valid everywhere.

You're "sure this general rule is valid everywhere." I am certainly glad I can rely on your authority, and not have to think about it!

Sorry, but my highest value is human life, and ending the war as soon as possible is absolutely the highest priority in my book. Perhaps you are more wedded to abstract principles of morality than I.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Let us now look at the-cave's original post:
During WWII, over 1.5 megatons of explosives were dropped over the Nazi state, killing millions of civilians--men, women, and children. If you want to argue numbers, it ranks among the largest slaughters ever perpetrated by humankind.

As we actually saw, the numbers are lower than almost any other major slaughter perpetrated by mankind.

The bombings were indiscriminate,and deliberately targeted civilian areas--and left many millions more homeless, as it reduced many of Germany's cities, houses, and buildings to rubble. One of the explicit goals of the bombing was to induce terror and fear in the German civilian population.

Yes.

Great exultation was raised at the enactment of revenge for the destruction of Coventry and the suffering of London.

True, but an emotional appeal that has no bearing on the question at hand. It is irrelevant whether some enjoyed bombing the shit out of German cities; the issue is whether the bombing was moral.

I've seen statistics indicating production capacity did not drop appreciably in Germany during this time,

As we have seen, the numbers are cooked, and the effectiveness of the Strategic Air Campaign in Germany is unclear. In Japan, in military terms, it was a complete success.

and it did not appear to aid the plight of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, nor their fellow victims. Indeed, the Holocaust does not appear to have been used as a reason for the bombings.

No, that was a deliberate policy choice.

Most (70%) of the bombs were dropped after the breakout from Normandy following the D-Day invasion, during the last year or so of the war.

No kidding. That was after long-range fighters, improved bombers, supply train and logistical improvements, and the decline of Germany's ability to stop the bombing. Naturally there were massive increases in bombing that year.

(I'm going to leave out discussion of the mass rapes documented in the Allied sectors following the war, for now.)

Another bit of emotional crap that has nothing to do with the bombings. The rapes were perpetrated, incidentally, by males who were by and large believing theists of one flavor or another.

Were they justified?

Yes, given the choices available to allied planners. In hindsight, of course, some changes would have been made. More concentration on electric targets, for example. As I said.

Vorkosigan

Idiopathy

If I read my post and then your replies, Vorkosigan, then I think so, yes. I really appreciate your knowledge about the facts of war, which is undoubted greater than mine, but we really differ in the questions of morale.

For example, I wrote: "Besides that you have forgotten that it is a war crime to bomb such cities that way." Your answer:

1. If you agree that it was a crime (!) then I wonder that you can try to justify it. (Lesser evil or not is then UNIMPORTANT. Keyword: morally deficient). I already wrote my opinion about the aims and the means to como to these aims.

2. You made a mistake in logic. Your problem is that you think (WAR in other cases) or BOMBING Dresden/Japanese cities in these cases really was

a) the lesser and

b) the only other mean

you have had and

ALSO compare it with millions of death people (hypothesis) as fact.

Or, with other words, your conclusion was:

A or B -> lesser evil

But unfortunately you forgot that there might be also "no A" and C and D too. Popular mistake.

You agreed to the following statement with "Yes."

I know, you also said, but when there are besides other and better aims ... But, still, the keyword: morally deficient, again, because there is really no sense to terrorize 700.000 refugees and 300.000 citizens in Dresden (that was well known, therefore the talk of a "soft target", by killing more than 100.000 of them. Dresden was an open city and without war industry. So the "aims beside terrorizing" are not valid for justification.

You did not come up with any valid morale justification for Dresden. You talk about China, Russia, took up again the Holocaust, the amount of bombs in total and so on. But the justification for killing more than 100.000 non-combatants in the last days of war in Dresden? Were was the SENSE to kill those people? I would have respect for your knowledge if it would lead you to another conclusion.

I know some people like you, who say "my highest value is human life", but who have no problems to say 'yes' to war and killing non-combatants. And they always say it's the lesser evil, but do not really look intesively enough for other solutions. If human life really has such a high value then they should be more careful with their decisions and their talking about the lesser evil, maybe they have overseen it.

I have such a feeling that your replies speak of some doubtless conviction (If i know the facts then my morale valuation has to be right), which tries to be original if not humorous. If you have the means then it looks fine, but this way, not. The means are the facts on one side, but to come to morale conclusions it needs a bit more. You should have read my posts a tiny bit more careful.

Vorkosigan

If I read my post and then your replies, Vorkosigan, then I think so, yes. I really appreciate your knowledge about the facts of war, which is undoubted greater than mine, but we really differ in the questions of morale.

Yes, it is true we differ on moral questions. I don't like to let millions die when it can be stopped.

For example, I wrote: "Besides that you have forgotten that it is a war crime to bomb such cities that way." Your answer:

I already agreed that it was a crime. The issue is whether it was a necessary one.

1. If you agree that it was a crime (!) then I wonder that you can try to justify it. (Lesser evil or not is then UNIMPORTANT. Keyword: morally deficient).

It's war, Idiopath. You only have a choice of evils. As Fussell said, the war was madness and everyone in it mad from start to finish. When you only have a choice of evils, you must pick one.

I already wrote my opinion about the aims and the means to como to these aims.

Yes, but since you don't know what you are talking about, your analysis is useless. The "other options" had already been tried. Japan had rejected three peace initiatives. The blockade had reduced it to starvation; already, in the summer, the old, the young and the infirm were starting to die. Yet still nobody would end the war.

2. You made a mistake in logic. Your problem is that you think (WAR in other cases) or BOMBING Dresden/Japanese cities in these cases really was

You are hugely confused. Dresden was a completely unjustifiable war crime. The fact that Dresden was a war crime does not invalidate the Strategic Bombing campaign. I never mentioned Dresden, and would never defend it.

ALSO compare it with millions of death people (hypothesis) as fact.

What is your claim, that millions wouldn't have died? The war would at least have dragged on for years. Remember that there were Japanese on Iwo Jima living in caves and not surrendering for five years after the war.

A or B -> lesser evil .But unfortunately you forgot that there might be also "no A" and C and D too. Popular mistake.

Idio, I have already forgotten more about this topic than you are ever likely to learn. Why are you arguing about something that you don't know anything about? The other options had already been tried. Japan had rejected peace initiatives. It had failed to end a war it had already lost.

And let's not forget, there is some urgency. Every week, on average, something like 50-100,000 Chinese died in the war. That means if the war drags on for five more weeks, dead Chinese exceed the death toll from the two A-bombs. This does not include all the other victims of Japanese expansionism elsewhere, the Allied POWs whose execution was planned, and of course, the poor Japanese enlisted men who starved to death in great numbers in 1944 and 1945. 170,000 men went to New Guinea, and the mere 10,000 who survived did so by eating each other. These were crimes too. What I don't understand is why all that suffering doesn't move you.

I know, you also said, but when there are besides other and better aims ... But, still, the keyword: morally deficient, again, because there is really no sense to terrorize 700.000 refugees and 300.000 citizens in Dresden (that was well known, therefore the talk of a "soft target", by killing more than 100.000 of them.

Who said anything about Dresden? I was only talking about the A-bombs!

You did not come up with any valid morale justification for Dresden.

Because it was an unjustifiable war crime!

I have such a feeling that your replies speak of some doubtless conviction (If i know the facts then my morale valuation has to be right), which tries to be original if not humorous. If you have the means then it looks fine, but this way, not. The means are the facts on one side, but to come to morale conclusions it needs a bit more. You should have read my posts a tiny bit more careful.

"You should read my posts a tiny bit more careful." Idio, pray tell me, where did I try to justify Dresden? I think you should be reading a bit more carefully, eh?

Vorkosigan

TomboyMom

I believe that the deliberate targetting of civilian areas by the allies in WWII was wrong, and so was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I say this from the perspective of a child of a holocaust survivor, and taking into account that Germany and Japan were the bad guys who started it. Nevertheless, deliberately killing large numbers of civilians in order to scare the survivors and thereby influence the course of action of their government is the virtual definition of terrorism. I don't believe that you can come up with a definition of terrorism that does not include these actions, especially the use of the atom bomb on Japanese cities. And terrorism is wrong.

Also the long argument in this thread about means and ends: terrorists always think their means justify their ends. They don't. Whether at least trying to limit our aggression to traditional military targets would have resulted in greater loss of life is speculative. That we murdered thousands of innocent civilians, including children, is not. It was wrong.

Rene