5 ms·
I generally disagree with this article, mostly tone - but also conclusions too. What other options were there for the Allies? By 1943 the Germans had mostly s
by Aloha 3y ago
I generally disagree with this article, mostly tone - but also conclusions too.
What other options were there for the Allies?
By 1943 the Germans had mostly successfully moved their production to small workshops, which were often in cities. This is also in the long shadow the Blitz cast, which inflicted not dissimilar damage to London.
If London was a valid Military Target in 1940, then Hamburg was certainly one in 1943.
To quote from wikipedia about sessions learned by the British the Blitz "From 1943 to the end of the war, he [Harris] and other proponents of the area offensive represented it [the bomber offensive] less as an attack on morale than as an assault on the housing, utilities, communications, and other services that supported the war production effort."
They do get one thing correct however - the horrors of the Nuclear Bomb are not that unique, many many more were killed, in Europe and Pacific theaters by firebombing (I'll point folks at the firebombing of Tokyo as a starting point) as the than were killed by nuclear bombs.
Both Germany and Japan violated the normal, commonly understood rules of war - we responded, in ways that, could be argued to have an ethical shadow - and while I dont consider these acts unethical (including the nuclear bomb), they're not ethically clean - they're a gray area that can only be justified in context.
We have this mental narrative of war that its this clean thing, either black or white, just or unjust - and thats not reality, war it dirty, even when its just and good - for a good reason, it means much death and killing, it leaves indelible stains on those who fight, and those who survive for the rest of their lives. To present otherwise is foolish and lying to ourselves.
- c_crank 3y ago>What other options were there for the Allies? We know that what actually ended the war was invading the territory that was held, not strategic bombing. Not that it really matters, since the German state was so thoroughly interrogated for the war that they aren't going to complain, but the Allied bombing campaign bears much similarity to the Vietnam bombing campaign in that it was killing stuff for the stake of killing stuff with little tactical or strategic advantage.
- Aloha 3y agoHow much longer would the war have lasted without the strategic bombing? Would those civilians have died anyhow had the germans had the military materiel to hold each city longer, which would have required fighting block by block - Imagine the Battle of Berlin but on a continental scale.
- c_crank 3y ago>How much longer would the war have lasted without the strategic bombing? Probably just as long. The reason the American forces had such an easy time advancing into France once they had landed is because most of the German forces were on the Eastern front, where the USSR had to do the extremely bloody fighting all the way to Berlin anyway.
- myk9001 3y agoYour comment seems to imply the German forces on the Eastern front weren't reliant on the German industrial capacity targeted by the Allied bombings. Had the Germany retained said industrial capacity, wouldn't the USSR have to fight even bloodier fighting for longer? How do we know whether they would prevail or loose eventually in this alternative history scenario? Could you elaborate on how you logically arrive at such a conclusion?
- c_crank 3y ago>Your comment seems to imply the German forces on the Eastern front weren't reliant on the German industrial capacity targeted by the Allied bombings. The bombings did little to disrupt said industry. Though there were deaths and damage, it was repaired and the machines kept working. Actual severe disruptions to the German war economy occurred when they lost access to raw materials, such as the Romanian oil fields. There are studies to this effect, but it is more obviously visible by how the German armies kept shooting until they were eliminated by other shooting armies. Strategic bombing also failed to eliminate the Chinese/North Koreans, the Vietcong, the Taliban...
- 3y ago
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago> We know that what actually ended the war was invading the territory that was held, not strategic bombing. Against Germany, I agree with you. Against Japan, not so much.
- c_crank 3y agoThrowing nukes into the equation does change things. It was also well time with the Soviet Union entering the war, which is often unmentioned.
- kouru225 3y agoThere's an interview in World At War with a German official that talks about this exact bombing. He says that if the Allies had done this one or twice more, the Nazis would've surrendered. The Nazis main strength was their overwhelming belief that they were destine to easily succeed. It wasn't until this bombing and their failed invasion of Stalingrad that this narrative began to unravel and that was also the beginning of the end of the war.
- c_crank 3y agoIn reality, the Nazis didn't surrender until after Berlin was taken and all but a few pockets of resistance were eliminated. The bombings may have let them know things were turning around, but they didn't drop their guns.
- kouru225 3y agoWhat’s your point? Are you arguing that a country only surrenders when every single soldier drops their guns? I’m confused as to what you’re getting at. The war was basically over before anyone reached Berlin. The specifics don’t really matter.
- c_crank 3y agoThe war was over when soldiers surrendered and stopped shooting. The course of the war was predictable when Germany invaded the USSR. If the allies had done no strategic bombing at all, both of these things would still be true.
- kouru225 3y agoBy this logic, the war was over before it even started so why fight?
- c_crank 3y agoWhy does man fight in losing wars? If he gives up too easily, he might lose fights he actually had a chance of winning. Or perhaps he does it to satisfy a sense of honor he and his community hold. That it is better to die fighting than to live running. Perhaps he thinks that the more viciously he fights, the less energy his foe will have to destroy his home and his family when the fighting ends. Or perhaps he does it because he is being paid to fight to the end. But if the goal of fighting is to win, then it seems like the heavy bomber has done little to aid that goal.
- hef19898 3y agoGerman indistry, mostly unaffected by bombing, went underground and to remote locations. What the allies, especially RAF Bomber Command under Harris targeted was the worker living quarters, not even the factories for the most bit (not that it made practical difference, aiming was just bad) and civil infrastructure. While wasting limited resources for aircraft production, andtaking away long range aircraft from Costal Command that could have been used against uboats in the Atlantic. And no, London was no legitimate military target during the Blitz neither...
- mrguyorama 3y agoThe unspoken assumption here is that industry going underground and dispersing doesn't reduce it's capacity.
- hef19898 3y agoNo assumption needed, we have statistics for that. Including on the affect of strategic bombing on moral in Germany. The Nazis were good at recording these kind of things.
- tdba 3y agoBoth Germany and Japan violated the normal, commonly understood rules of war - we responded It's worth noting that Britain bombed German civilians before Germany bombed British civilians. See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/15/second-world-war-bombing https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/15/second-world-w...