10/26 Except for Hiroshima/Nagasaki, is it actually possible to bomb
people into submission? It seemed to failed with the Londoners,
Germans, Vietnamese, Afghanistan, etc.
\_ worked all right with the Germans. bombing them from the air
isnt the only thing that let to their defeat but it helped some.
\_ Most historians don't really agree with you here. Maybe it
reduced their tank and plane production slightly, which
helped shorten the war slightly. It did not effect the
"will to fight."
\_ I don't understand this new fad of declaring unsavory tactics
like torture or civilian bombing 'ineffective.' Of course
they are effective. Have you read "why the allies won?"
There is a whole chapter on bombing. We don't live in a
convenient world where all immoral choices can be rejected
on amoral grounds. -- ilyas
on amoral grounds. Are you willing to backup your
'most historians' claim or this the old 'argument by
non-existence consensus?' -- ilyas
non-existent consensus?' -- ilyas
\- i think declaring "unsavory tactics" off
limits hugely helps the US, because the
US has a massive advantage in any battle
that involves "fighting fair" where they
define fair.
\_ I am sad when I agree with ilyas. I have to agree that
making the civilian population sad and feaful that the RAF
is going to drop a ton of explosive on their head is going
to reduce their 'will to fight' and 'will to build
tank' and 'will to put up with Hitler'
\_ The civilian population had a will to fight in Feb 1945?
How were they supposed to stop it? No, the purpose
might be to attempt to shock the leadership. But that
relies on there being a rational leadership.
\_ In Csarist Russia, the loses on the front led to the
government being overthrown. In France, the troops
mutinied late in WWI. Nothing like this happened in
Germany (or Japan) due to the allied bombing campaigns.
German workers continued to work under horrific
conditions and followed orders all the way to the
surrender. German soldiers fought to the end in Berlin.
\_ It is not possible for 'business to remain as usual'
when your life is put under daily threat.
-- ilyas
\_ If the Germans hadn't sent VI LENIN back to Russia,
the revolution wouldn't have had legs. Along
similar lines, the folks who could have led
revolutions in Germany and Japan either failed
due to bad timing and lack of assurances or didn't
ever have the forces necessary to force the issue,
respectively.
\_ See Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Effectiveness
on wikipedia. It is certainly open for debate, but
German production of tanks, plane and guns increased
during 1944, the year of the heaviest bombing. It did
have a substantial effect on oil production.
\_ The question is whether production would have been
higher had there been no bombing. -- ilyas
\_ No the question is more subtle and harder to
answer: could the materiel and manpower deployed
to the strategic bombing campaign been more
usefully deployed elsewhere? Like for instance
tactical bombing and air control, which
undoubtedly had a huge effect, or a larger number
of tanks, which Britain was woefully short of.
\_ The only allied power with good tanks was the
USSR.
\_ I agree that it's not at all clear whether
strategic bombing was the best use of resources.
However, the part I objected to was the claim
that strategic bombing was 'ineffective.'
-- ilyas
Incidentally more tank production for non-USSR
allied countries would have been a terrible idea
-- Britain and US had terrible tanks. -- ilyas
\_ If the allies had taken a course of action
that would have made them win faster but
instead used strategic bombing as a tactic,
which wasted men, materiel and focus, thereby
making the war last longer, then I think this
means that strategic bombing was not only
ineffective, but counterproductive. But I
guess at this point we are quibbling over
definitions. The one thing that strategic
bombing might have accomplished it to force
the Luftwaffte fighter force to sally,
allowing us to shoot them down and gain air
superiority. But there were easier and less
roundabout ways to do this. Do you think that
unarmoured troops in jeeps were more effective
than tankers in Shermans? American tanks
were not as bad as their reputation, they
just weren't as good as the best German tanks.
Very few Tigers and Panthers were ever made.
Off the top of my head, I think we made 10x
Shermans for every Panz-V and Panz-VI, while
losses were something like 2x in tank battles.
\_ I bet most German tank losses were due to
aircraft (allies had exceptional planes,
and lots of them). Shermans couldn't kill
Panthers/Tigers. Shells would bounce off,
you see. -- ilyas
aircraft (the allies had lots of planes,
and they were excellent). Shermans
couldn't kill Tigers/Panthers. Shells
would bounce off, you see. A better way
for the allies to spend resources on tanks
would be to copy Russian tanks. Germans
did! -- ilyas
\_ tank: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfZaySq9c8I&NR=1
\_ It depends on which Sherman and from
which angle. The US tanks got
slaughtered early on, because they were
told they could stand toe to toe with
the Panthers, which they could not.
We learned to attack in swarms and take
some losses in order to get a side or
rear shot. Also, we got uparmored pretty
quickly with some better guns and AP
rounds (HEAT, I think) that gave us
a fighting chance. I wonder what
percentage of tanks kills were from the
air? Quite a few, no dobut. Even more
important was the fact that the Panzers
were always short of ammo and fuel, due
to supply line inderdiction.
\_ Works for the type of people who are very submissive (e.g. those
who are willing to do silly things like suicide for their
Emperor, perform Bukake, and draw porn manga). The British,
Germans, Vietnamese and Afghans on the other hand are in
general very proud of themselves and/or are very defiant
thus they'd never surrender.
\_ E_TOOSHORT
\_ yes because Japan is not proud of itself. Just ask anyone
in East Asia.
\_ We bombed the greater Tokyo area too.
\_ We firebombed 67 cities in Japan:
http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html
See also McNamara in Fog of War. It's arguable that Nagasaki
and Hiroshima were more for demonstrating US possession of
atomic bombs to the Soviets. -!pp
\_ McNamura? BTW this name sounds almost Japanese.
\_ Nuke and Pave!
\_ We bombed the Serbs, and they gave up their campaign of genocide
in Kosovo.
\_ So that Albanians could continue their campaign of genocide in
Kosovo.
\_ *shrug* op asked for examples of bombing ppl into submission.
Mission Accomplished.
\_ Libya. Kadaffi.
\_ ...what did we convince Colonel K to do via bombing?
\_ Arguably the Japanese are better off for having submitted. The
destruction of their country stopped, they didn't have a violent
continuing occupation which threw their country back into a
dark age, etc.
\_ In addition their submission allowed them to concentrate their
resources on the development of kick ass products like Wii,
Prius, and Bukake/Urabon/Hentai
\_ Ask the residents of Dresden.
\_ We'll need to live in mobile floating fortresses for all
to live in to deal with extreme weather and flooding due
to global warming. We'll also need to cut about 1/2 the
surplus population due to reduced fishery output and
farm production.
\_ Are you volunteering to be excess population?
\_ I guess dead is a form of submission, but it didn't really
slow down the Germans much, if any at all.
\_ dont give motd armchair historian any ideas. Islam
means 'submission to god'
\_ They stopped producing weapons in Dresden.
\_ Dresden did not have any munitions factories.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
\_ Did you even read this? It says that there were
no munition factories in Dresden. I guess there were
a couple of glass factories.
\_ Because it wasn't militarily relevant. But the Germans were
already slowed down. Dresden was February 1945. VE day is
May 8. "Bomb people into submission"... the people can't
submit even if they want to. The military forces have to
submit.
\_ hindsight is laser like in its precision. we probably
thought some industrial capacity in Dresden helped Germany
with their war effort. without Dresden you woulndt
get great american literature like Cat's Cradle
\_ we bombed the americans and now they are cowardly talking of retreat
from Iraq. -AQ
\_ "Somalia" is the word you're looking for.
\_ somalia wasn't a bombing so much as shooting a few soldiers.
Westerners have no stomach for war. It shall be their undoing!
\_ same basic concept, no? kill a few folks so the rest stop
fighting.
\_ lets not forget Lebanon.
\_ Too bad Bush doesn't have the sense of Reagan.
\_ Because that worked out really well in Lebanon and had the
effect of discouraging our enemies around the world while
strengthening our allies' spines. Or not. Don't they
teach history anymore?
\_ Of possible interest: Richard Marcinko reported in
Rogue Warrior that he suggested instituting a radio
pulse on the frequency the suicide bombers liked to use
to blow up their bombers prematurely, but this was
rejected as being likely to result in civilian
casualties.
\_ Ah yes, it is much better for America to waste $2T
and get beaten anyway, like Our Heroic Leader Bush
has done. Too bad they don't teach Conservatives
the principle of limited government anymore.
\_ I don't understand why anyone listens or respects Bush in any
way. he's poured a couple of trillion down a fucking rathole.
He should be Shunned in DC. Entire blocks of people too disgusted
to look at his face.
\- in an odd coincidence:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=an09LjQPgiVY |