3 ms·

Fascinating reading of the timeline. And it does sound a tad like justifying the bombing of civilians, nukes or fire bombing doesn't matter here, for something

by hef19898 3y ago

Fascinating reading of the timeline. And it does sound a tad like justifying the bombing of civilians, nukes or fire bombing doesn't matter here, for something the leadership does.

ben_w 3y ago
I'm blaming the Japanese leadership for not surrendering sooner (though given the coup attempt, I'm not sure if they would've been capable of surrendering). My opening line was "I don't like that they happened either", and the reason for that is civilian deaths are bad — I reject "total war" as a concept, and I see the Allies use of this in WW2 as having all the moral weight of a child in a playground saying "the other guys did it first" (and not just because I moved from the UK to Berlin about 5 years ago and get to see all the museums, archive footage of bombed-out apartments, and that the house building process still today includes "we have to check for unexploded munitions"). The point is that, even in with the benefit of hindsight, it seems to me that this much force was actually needed to make some very arrogant leaders stop their war. Also, we can and should learn from hindsight, which suggests e.g. that Hitler's remilitarisation of the Rhineland could have resulted in a coup against him if the French had sent in (IIRC) "a dozen soldiers with bayonets". I presume there were also other missed opportunities in the Pacific theatre, though I don't know them.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Agree, except this bit: >> The point is that, even in with the benefit of hindsight, it seems to me that this much force was actually needed to make some very arrogant leaders stop their war. None of the leaders actually cared a single bit, the Nazis even wanted to burn down Germany for having lost the war. Industrial output was not really impacted, numbers and assessments from both sides show that, while moral of the bombed was actually stiffened. Including Axis POWs in Normandy being debriefed (understandable, if someone bombs my house and family I do not nexessarily like them much). All the strategic bombing of Germany did was satisfy hunger for revenge (especially in the case of Bomber Harris, whom seemed to be extremely butt hurt after the Blitz), despite knowing strategic bombing doesn't do much after the Blitz. That, and showing Stalin that the Western allies did something on the continent. The only time strategic bombing had some impact in Europe, was the preparation of Overlord, when Eisenhower basically forced US and UK bomber commands to focus at logistical networks, hubs and oil installations above cities. And even then, civilian casualties, including in France and the Low Countries, were way to high for the results. Again, USAAF and RAF assessments show that. And yet the bombing of civilians continued unabetted. There is simply no defending this.

Fascinating reading of the timeline. And it does sound a tad like justifying the bombing of civilians, nukes or fire bombing doesn't matter here, for something the leadership does.

ben_w 3y ago

I'm blaming the Japanese leadership for not surrendering sooner (though given the coup attempt, I'm not sure if they would've been capable of surrendering). My opening line was "I don't like that they happened either", and the reason for that is civilian deaths are bad — I reject "total war" as a concept, and I see the Allies use of this in WW2 as having all the moral weight of a child in a playground saying "the other guys did it first" (and not just because I moved from the UK to Berlin about 5 years ago and get to see all the museums, archive footage of bombed-out apartments, and that the house building process still today includes "we have to check for unexploded munitions"). The point is that, even in with the benefit of hindsight, it seems to me that this much force was actually needed to make some very arrogant leaders stop their war. Also, we can and should learn from hindsight, which suggests e.g. that Hitler's remilitarisation of the Rhineland could have resulted in a coup against him if the French had sent in (IIRC) "a dozen soldiers with bayonets". I presume there were also other missed opportunities in the Pacific theatre, though I don't know them.

hef19898 3y ago
Agree, except this bit: >> The point is that, even in with the benefit of hindsight, it seems to me that this much force was actually needed to make some very arrogant leaders stop their war. None of the leaders actually cared a single bit, the Nazis even wanted to burn down Germany for having lost the war. Industrial output was not really impacted, numbers and assessments from both sides show that, while moral of the bombed was actually stiffened. Including Axis POWs in Normandy being debriefed (understandable, if someone bombs my house and family I do not nexessarily like them much). All the strategic bombing of Germany did was satisfy hunger for revenge (especially in the case of Bomber Harris, whom seemed to be extremely butt hurt after the Blitz), despite knowing strategic bombing doesn't do much after the Blitz. That, and showing Stalin that the Western allies did something on the continent. The only time strategic bombing had some impact in Europe, was the preparation of Overlord, when Eisenhower basically forced US and UK bomber commands to focus at logistical networks, hubs and oil installations above cities. And even then, civilian casualties, including in France and the Low Countries, were way to high for the results. Again, USAAF and RAF assessments show that. And yet the bombing of civilians continued unabetted. There is simply no defending this.