02-24-2003, 03:45 PM
Do you understand what total war is when conducted by industrialized nations? It is the total strength of one nation against another. Try reading in depth on the theories of war that were developed between 1918 and 1939 before you judge anyone. You have to understand that you are the beneficiary of a perspective of 50 years of modern nations realizing that, having invented the most efficient means of exterminating one another, that limited war may be a better course of action if war is to be waged at all.
The industrial might and morale of the enemy is targeted so that they quit. They quit when they have had enough. That was the belief by the leader of every nation running the fight in WW II. (Your red herring on rape is irrelevant, as not nation of the West put rape into the Op Plan. The lack of discipline of the Soviet troops in Eastern Europe, and Germany, however, has been documented by some.)
Thus every city was a center of economic power, or a population center. The theories of Douhet were plagerized or developed in parallel by Mitchell, and others, and had a great audience in strategic thinking. The nationalism, the mood of "us versus them" in 1944 was something that I do not believe you have a clue about. It carried over into the Cold War, but thankfully, the leaders of both the West and the East never pushed The Red Button. That allowed a different approach to slowly grow over two generations.
Once again, you confuse murder with war, and you pretend that there is something magically different about a military base than a city when war is declared. In the context of total war, the directing of your entire economy toward victory (we had rationing all over the country for four years in America, tires were incredibly hard to get, scrap metal drives took place in every town and city) you don't pull any punches, you play to win.
The purpose of the Pearl Harbor attack was a pre emptive strike to cripple American Naval power so that Japan could create a cordon in depth in the Pacific and keep American out of their "turf." The purpose was to start a war, but to hit such a hard blow that the US would not have stomach to fight. And, it was to buy time to establish the dominance in the Southern Asian economic area, Singapore etc, where there was oil for Japan's economy.
The purpose of Hiroshima was To End The War. Similar idea, really, but with a twist. It was to end the war now that it had already started and cost the blood of millions.
My country versus your country. You bring everything, mobilize your economy for the express purpose of winning, since coming in second in a war is an unnacceptable choice for the national leader. The other guy does the same. What is remarkable is that most nations, absent the Japanese, showed remarkable restraint even so, but given the grossly inaccurate targeting available to bombers in WW II, you had to take out a quadrant of a city to knock out its industrial capacity.
Was Dresden necesssary? I repeat, as you missed my point, it was deemed politically necessary, for internal morale. It was a reprisal.
Do I think it had to happen? It happened. Politics runs war, and the political decision was to conduct a reprisal for the bombing of England's non industrial centers and the terror weapons V-1 and V-2. Again, the Germans opened that can of worms with their V weapon attacks. Contrast this to the lack of use of gas. All of the major powers had gas capability in WW II, but did not use it For Fear or Reprisal! You can claim that reprisal are not justified, but it is fear of reprisal that makes deterrence work. And guess what? In the nuclear age, deterrence kept us from World War III.
Quid Pro Quo. Dresden was payback for cities all over England.
The industrial might and morale of the enemy is targeted so that they quit. They quit when they have had enough. That was the belief by the leader of every nation running the fight in WW II. (Your red herring on rape is irrelevant, as not nation of the West put rape into the Op Plan. The lack of discipline of the Soviet troops in Eastern Europe, and Germany, however, has been documented by some.)
Thus every city was a center of economic power, or a population center. The theories of Douhet were plagerized or developed in parallel by Mitchell, and others, and had a great audience in strategic thinking. The nationalism, the mood of "us versus them" in 1944 was something that I do not believe you have a clue about. It carried over into the Cold War, but thankfully, the leaders of both the West and the East never pushed The Red Button. That allowed a different approach to slowly grow over two generations.
Once again, you confuse murder with war, and you pretend that there is something magically different about a military base than a city when war is declared. In the context of total war, the directing of your entire economy toward victory (we had rationing all over the country for four years in America, tires were incredibly hard to get, scrap metal drives took place in every town and city) you don't pull any punches, you play to win.
The purpose of the Pearl Harbor attack was a pre emptive strike to cripple American Naval power so that Japan could create a cordon in depth in the Pacific and keep American out of their "turf." The purpose was to start a war, but to hit such a hard blow that the US would not have stomach to fight. And, it was to buy time to establish the dominance in the Southern Asian economic area, Singapore etc, where there was oil for Japan's economy.
The purpose of Hiroshima was To End The War. Similar idea, really, but with a twist. It was to end the war now that it had already started and cost the blood of millions.
My country versus your country. You bring everything, mobilize your economy for the express purpose of winning, since coming in second in a war is an unnacceptable choice for the national leader. The other guy does the same. What is remarkable is that most nations, absent the Japanese, showed remarkable restraint even so, but given the grossly inaccurate targeting available to bombers in WW II, you had to take out a quadrant of a city to knock out its industrial capacity.
Was Dresden necesssary? I repeat, as you missed my point, it was deemed politically necessary, for internal morale. It was a reprisal.
Do I think it had to happen? It happened. Politics runs war, and the political decision was to conduct a reprisal for the bombing of England's non industrial centers and the terror weapons V-1 and V-2. Again, the Germans opened that can of worms with their V weapon attacks. Contrast this to the lack of use of gas. All of the major powers had gas capability in WW II, but did not use it For Fear or Reprisal! You can claim that reprisal are not justified, but it is fear of reprisal that makes deterrence work. And guess what? In the nuclear age, deterrence kept us from World War III.
Quid Pro Quo. Dresden was payback for cities all over England.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete