Before this escalates any further, I would like to remind everybody to keep comments aimed at posts and not other users.
Please stop conflating the two. It does nothing good for the credibility of yourself or your argument.
And the issue isn't exactly limited to American schools.
So congratulations, KEA. You have highhandedly destroyed your own argument and your own credibility by trying to foist on an ivory moral tower a system and a manner of thinking that has caused thousands of *innocent* children needless harm. One which in fact underlined why rogue states on the national scale (like Imperial Germany, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, etc. etc etc.) could *not* be combated on the large scale or suitably punished without reciprocity. That takes some doing. *Golf Clap*.
And no, my position does not translate to allowing anything so long as the other side starts it first. There is a reason that the crimes of Germany (and the Prussian-led German Confederation before it) would not justify genocide against Germans in response. However, there is *great* value in recriprocity and proportionality of means (if not of results, which I flatly do not believe in.). If you throw a punch at me, I reserve the right to defend myself and punch you in the head twenty times. If you kick me, I resolve the right to kick you back, and do so harder and more frequently. If you lunge at me with a knife, your life is forfeit. And likewise I am sure you would have the right to do the same if I were the aggressor. That is how we keep every bit of fisticuffs from degenerating into something that leaves a body. That is how we keep every war from degenerating into something that leaves millions of innocents dead and countries ruined.
It is not a perfect system. In fact, I would go so far as to say it isn't really a *good* system. But it IS the best system we have yet come up with.
2. And neither am I sure. Which is why I am glad that I am NOT representing them. Again vis-a-vis the "Speaking of" vs. "Speaking For" bit.
No, it was in fact part of it. Obfuscation and sophism do not change how total war is fought, or the fact that total war by definition drags entire nations and their populations to war. For the same reason that those who starved because of blockades are not counted as being victimized by something out of normal combat or war. Nice try, Roll Again.
B: Even if that is true, how is that supposed to change anything? It doesn't. Just because one combatant is all but defeated (but refuses to acknowledge defeat! and thus end the Bloody War!) does not mean the moral dimensions somehow change or get skewed in some fashion. Again, say what you will, but there was no moral, ethical, or LEGAL obligation by the Allied command in Europe to cause the painful, unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people- via the leaving of the Reich's infrastructure for defense and terror intact and capable of resisting further until the end- in order to sate your preferences of the "right" way to kill people in war.
Secondly, if throwing the tidbit "everyone knew the war was over" was supposed to impress upon us some changing moral mandate or alteration, it fails. Whether or not the Axis knew the war was lost is irrelevant, because they did not concede defeat and thus avoid the NEEDLESS DEATHS of hundreds of thousands if not MILLIONS of people. The Allies were under zero moral or legal obligation to "put on the kid gloves" because the Reich was losing the war, particularly when doing so would have strung out the war and caused even more suffering!
And that was my Devil's Advocate's Devil's Advocate (a term which I need to copyright one of these days).
The Germans just did it gratuitously and for no real military justification.
Originally Posted by KEA
As a matter of fact, most bombs were dropped on Germany in the last month of 1944 and the few month the war went in 1945.Every Historian knows your post is false.A: Most historians would disagree.
Humble, Richard (1975). War In The Air 1939-1945
gives these numbers for bombs dropped
on Germany by Bomber Command, and is the source for wiki
Even wiki, you know what the uneducated turn to, for support:
RAF & USAAF Bomb Tonnages on Germany 1939–45 [clarification needed]
Year RAF Bomber
Command (tons) US 8th Air
1939 31 —
1940 13,033 —
1941 31,504 —
1942 45,561 1,561
1943 157,457 44,165
1944 525,518 389,119
1945 191,540 188,573
Total 964,644 623,418
Last edited by Erebus Pasha; January 05, 2013 at 03:18 PM. Reason: personal references
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Allied Bomb Tonnage on Germany and German-Occupied Europe 1940-1945
All books contain the same values, there are none that support your false post.
Penguin Atlas of World History, the Allies dropped about 10,000 tons on Germany in 1940, 30,000 tons in 1941, 40,000 tons in 1942 and 120,000 tons in 1943 while in 1944 they drop 650,000 tons and in 1945, about 500,000 tons are dropped in the first four months (at that rate, 1.5 million tons would be dropped over the course of 1945).
I gave the author who wiki uses without a cite, you know, like you do when you know what your writing about instead of posting ignorant opinion and not understanding even wiki.Including the one that explicitly says "Clarification needed" because it was obviously snagged from Wikipedia, the Lowest Common Denominator of Scholastic research?
Last edited by DimeBagHo; January 05, 2013 at 05:08 PM. Reason: Off topic.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Right, have been preoccupied elsewhere, but now I have to set this straight.
The fact that you are so..... shall we call it "bold" as to claim that every author uses the exact same numbers shows that you have no idea whatsoever how the actual statistical compilation of these things went (example? There was a serious bureaucratic dillema over whether loaded bombers that went down over their targets should be added to the "tonnage dropped" statistics!). Nevermind how the actual scholarly world has parsed, hypothesized, added, subtracted, and generally wrangled over those numbers and others like them.
The only "Uninformed false opinion that contradicts the facts" is your own, and you are doing a horrid disservice to a very good book with some very good services by conflating it with your own hubris.
LISTEN for once in your life:
1. Using sources without citation is just moronic, because you cannot verify the veracity of such a claim. IF you're attempting to do this as some sort of ironic jab at the fact that I don't have every single source I've ever read and absorbed on hand to spit out with links.... it doesn't work. It just makes you look foolish and incapable of credible debate or even discussion.
2. If you seriously are claiming that "serious books" only spit out one set of numbers without variation, you are a dishonest Idiot. Nothing more.
3. I reserve giving out my sources to when I feel I am obliged to. Doing the same with you would be a waste of my time and a needless hassle, since if you have failed debating and basic research you would never even remotely appreciate it.
Last edited by Tiberios; February 24, 2013 at 04:12 AM. Reason: Off topic removed.
I am perplexed with the fact that conversation about number of killed german civilians by allied bombing turned to determing how many bombs were actually dropped by the allies... is someone going to calculate how many allied bombs were needed to kill one german civilian? other than that (which is ridicolous by itself) I don't see any other resaon for debate about how somebody determined the number, and what was considered a dropped bomb or not...
if there is no intention to write a doctorate about it, it is better to drop it... 'cause I can't imagine any of you has a clearance to the bomber command records? and even those should be observed with some healthy dose of suspition...
Points of order, MM.
The amount of munitions you had to drop in order to kill one civilian was a relevant topic (especially vis-a-vis the difference between the Germans/European Axis and Japanese) and was in the process of getting prepped up, but it wasn't really put on the table due to the waving back and forth and the various agendas.
Thirdly, you'd actually imagine wrong; you actually can have clearance to the Bomber Command records, and moreso to other people who have clearance to and more resources to look through more than we civilians do. IIRC the archives have already been declassified/starting to be opened up, and even before than there were trickles of info leaking out. I have more than a few things that cover it myself, and I'd be happy to share 'em with you (preferably on PM).
And agreed, they should be treated with a healthy dose of suspicion given the sheer number of complicating factors here (debating counting bombs in shot down planes? Really?), but since they're some of the best we have, they can at least be used as part of our corpus of sources.
I don't understand why some people in this thread are so keen to justify the indiscriminate bombing of the German cities because the Axis has done the same before. What we should determine is if the bombings had some military purpose or they were just a sort of vengeance through the same terror tactics used against the population.
In reality from a purely military perspective they were largely ineffective and the resources used on these missions could be better spent attacking targets that had more military value.
The military futility of the bombing should have been even more clear to the Allies looking at the complete failure of the Blitz, yet they had gone even more enthusiastically through the same mistakes.
In reality even if the Allies hadn't reached the same monstrosity of the Nazi death camps at the same time their mindset wasn't so different when they were evaluating the value of harm done to the civilians.
Civilians is such a loose term in a Total War. Morally loose, loose in general.
In fully industrially mobilized nations any civilian could potentially be aiding the war effort and thus an enemy. Direct battles don't work as we all know, thus the hamstringing of the logistical set ups are the new flanking maneuvers, and an effective one a that - a modern army is only useful as long as they are supplied. After the development of the breech-loading rife and with the advent of aircraft it could argued the targeting of civilians ("factories") becomes the rational option.
There is no suspicion whatsoever, war is industrial rather than skill based between developed nations, you do not defeat the army, they are too large - you defeat their will to fight. This is maximal war people, people say it's only existed since the French Revolution but I think it's always existed. It would make an interesting thread actually - Has Total War always existed or is it a modern development?
As much as I believe that Air Marshall Harris was a bit over focused on proving his point (area bombing), his Bomber Command did in conjunction with the American Army Air Corps dismantled the infrastructure of Germany in 44-45 which was the point of the exercise. Area bombing was not picked as first option but rather a last one given the RAF losses in daylight raids suffered in 40-41. War is not a game there are no points for coming in second place.
Last edited by Aurielius; November 13, 2013 at 12:40 PM.