|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 20, 2023 21:17:15 GMT
Another hot potato is that Dresden was not a legitimate military target.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 20, 2023 21:29:10 GMT
The area bombing campaign of Germany tied up a million men - enough for 50 divisions and 10,000 guns. If that resource had been available to be sent to the Eastern Front the Russians would have been fought to a standstill. It tied down nowhere near that many men. That is at least half a million soldiers. Most men in Germany were not there to fight the bombers. Only those manning the anti aircraft guns or flying fighters could do that. And even an extra half a million soldiers on the eastern front in any case would not have been enough to change the outcome anyway. Most of the men in Germany were above military age or unfit for service and it was mostly these and those still too young who worked in the factories and manned the anti-aircraft guns. There was also the Reserve Army consisting of new units being trained for the front or withdrawn home for refitting. The anti aircraft guns were mostly German 88s which were also highly effective anti-tank weapons. But had all these been sent east it would not have changed anything either. The need for the Germans to retain aircraft in Germany as night fighters did remove aircraft from the fighting fronts which helped the Allies win air superiority, but the majority of night fighters were not the Germans best models. Only in 1944 when the first class America fighter, the Mustang, was equipped with extra drop tanks that greatly extended its range so that bombers in daylight could have fighter escort all the way to Berlin did the Germans find it necessary to challenge with the best fighters. This greatly facilitated Allied air superiority elsewhere but it was not until 1944 with the withdrawal of fighters to defend Germany did Allied air superiority at the front become overwhelming. From early in 1944 the cream of the Luftwaffe began to be shot out of the skies by the Mustang bomber escort fighters. But bomber and fighter losses on the Allied side continued to remain very high for the first few months before the Luftwaffe was completely overwhelmed In 1944 800,000 men were tied up repairing the damage caused by the bombing campaign - add to that the manpower used by the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht for air defence and those involved in resupplying all those units, that easily reaches a Million men. Throughout Germany in 1944 alone, approximately 800,000 workers were engaged in essential repair work solely attributable to the bombing, especially to factories and to modes of communication. An additional 250,000 to 400,000 personnel were required to provide the necessary equipment, resources, and services to effect the repairs. Thus, a tremendous amount of the available manpower was diverted from other essential employment to the reconstruction effort.
The Balance Sheet: The Costs and the Gains of the Bombing Campaign
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 20, 2023 21:30:52 GMT
Another hot potato is that Dresden was not a legitimate military target. Of course it was - it was a centre of military production and a transport junction for resources to the Eastern Front.
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jun 20, 2023 21:42:01 GMT
Well done Vinny. There are several strands that might be followed. Perhaps the most obvious is that the Allied Strategic Bombing Offensive was not only immoral but also ineffective. War immoral? Britain was fighting for its survival Hitler offered only total war,so no immorality at all.
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jun 21, 2023 6:48:47 GMT
Well done Vinny. There are several strands that might be followed. Perhaps the most obvious is that the Allied Strategic Bombing Offensive was not only immoral but also ineffective. It lacked precision and made up for inaccuracy with widespread devastation. The idea behind area bombardment was in part to kill factories by killing the workers. Without people to make weapons for the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe, Hitler's war would have ground to a halt.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 21, 2023 7:01:38 GMT
The problem is that those advocating that the strategic bombing campaign of Germany was pointless fail to cite an alternative that would have been as effective. At the time it was the only option we had of taking the war to Germany and relieving pressure on the Eastern Front.
Anything else is wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 21, 2023 7:19:50 GMT
Since when has war been about fighting a duel between gentlemen? it has always been about subduing the civilian population, as weapons have gotten more powerful more of the population can be annihilated hence subduing those who are left. Crushing any resistance is the final outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 21, 2023 7:41:42 GMT
"... In addition to the enemy’s military force and territory, the enemy’s will to resist is also a legitimate objective: ‘…the destruction of his courage rather than his men … warfare is an act of policy’.
Carl Philipp Gottlieb von Clausewitz, On War
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 21, 2023 8:01:52 GMT
An entry in the debate in support of the proposition that the Allied bombing offensive was both immoral and ineffective is AC Grayling's "Among the Dead Cities:"The History and Moral Legacy of the WWII Bombing of Civilians in Germany and Japan".
This continues the tradition of Irving and Deighton in disputing both the efficacy and morality of the bombing campaign. It doesn't have the same technical depth of either nor does it provide a coherent picture of how the campaign developed and changed over time, as did of course the German countermeasures. And he is much more greatly exercised by and appalled by the area bombing tactics of the RAF, in contrast to what he terms the more humane 'precision' bombing approach of the USAAF. Grayling is a philosopher, at Birkbeck at the time, and this is more of a philosophical tome searching for the boundaries between necessity and wickedness in wartime. Towards the end, he poses the following: .... Grayling then answers himself as follows:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 8:08:26 GMT
It tied down nowhere near that many men. That is at least half a million soldiers. Most men in Germany were not there to fight the bombers. Only those manning the anti aircraft guns or flying fighters could do that. And even an extra half a million soldiers on the eastern front in any case would not have been enough to change the outcome anyway. Most of the men in Germany were above military age or unfit for service and it was mostly these and those still too young who worked in the factories and manned the anti-aircraft guns. There was also the Reserve Army consisting of new units being trained for the front or withdrawn home for refitting. The anti aircraft guns were mostly German 88s which were also highly effective anti-tank weapons. But had all these been sent east it would not have changed anything either. The need for the Germans to retain aircraft in Germany as night fighters did remove aircraft from the fighting fronts which helped the Allies win air superiority, but the majority of night fighters were not the Germans best models. Only in 1944 when the first class America fighter, the Mustang, was equipped with extra drop tanks that greatly extended its range so that bombers in daylight could have fighter escort all the way to Berlin did the Germans find it necessary to challenge with the best fighters. This greatly facilitated Allied air superiority elsewhere but it was not until 1944 with the withdrawal of fighters to defend Germany did Allied air superiority at the front become overwhelming. From early in 1944 the cream of the Luftwaffe began to be shot out of the skies by the Mustang bomber escort fighters. But bomber and fighter losses on the Allied side continued to remain very high for the first few months before the Luftwaffe was completely overwhelmed In 1944 800,000 men were tied up repairing the damage caused by the bombing campaign - add to that the manpower used by the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht for air defence and those involved in resupplying all those units, that easily reaches a Million men. Throughout Germany in 1944 alone, approximately 800,000 workers were engaged in essential repair work solely attributable to the bombing, especially to factories and to modes of communication. An additional 250,000 to 400,000 personnel were required to provide the necessary equipment, resources, and services to effect the repairs. Thus, a tremendous amount of the available manpower was diverted from other essential employment to the reconstruction effort.
The Balance Sheet: The Costs and the Gains of the Bombing Campaign Most of those employed on repairing the damage were foreign, often slave, labour, prisoners of war, and those too old, young, or unfit for military service. And of the manpower used by the Luftwaffe over Germany, only the pilots themselves were of optimum quality, the rest mostly consisting of men too old to fight. Whilst most of the anti-aircraft defences also administered by the Luftwaffe came to be manned by members of the Hitler Youth.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 21, 2023 8:15:02 GMT
Tricky questions.
Is it necessary?
If we can win without it, then it isn't necessary?
Even that statement isn't certain. We win without bombing, but at what extra cost elsewhere?
Perhaps without bombing, the Normandy landings fail or are delayed? Is that worth it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 8:17:00 GMT
Another hot potato is that Dresden was not a legitimate military target. Of course it was - it was a centre of military production and a transport junction for resources to the Eastern Front. Dresden had little military significance in February 1945. It was NOT a military production centre of any note with little military production taking place there. And as a transport hub it had little military value to the Germans. The western Allies were never intending to go anywhere near it and the Russians didn't bother taking it until May 6th 1945. In February, however, it was full of non combat refugees fleeing the Russians, and it was known that because of this a heavy bombing raid would kill large numbers of them. It was as simple as that. Dresden was chosen as a target purely because it was one of the few cities left standing and because large numbers could be killed, and no one cared anymore that few of those deaths would be military. Even Churchill later questioned the morality of what we had done, at least in private.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 21, 2023 8:22:58 GMT
^ Could almost have been taken verbatim from David Irving's The Destruction of Dresden".
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jun 21, 2023 8:25:43 GMT
One of the reasons why Hitler's Battle of the Bulge failed, they ran out of fuel. Why did they run out of fuel? The cumulative effect of years of Allied bombing, including the Ploesti raid.
At the end of the war, Germany was on its knees.
And Dresden was a military command and control centre and a logistics centre btw. As for David Irving, the man's a Nazi sympathiser and holocaust denier.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 8:36:32 GMT
^ Could almost have been taken verbatim from David Irving's The Destruction of Dresden".
David Irving is an utterly unreliable holocaust denier. Most of my information comes from years of reading about World War 2 from reliable authors. So I have never read David Irving.
|
|