StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2007-08-10 12:29am**

The plain fact is that the object of all strategic bombing missions carried out by RAF Bomber Command and the USAAF in World War II was the war industries, military supply depots, and transport —the underpinnings of the enemy war effort. Civilian deaths were incidental to the main targets of the raids.

Posted: **2007-08-10 12:40am**

[devil's advocate/] uhmmm. Dresden firebombings, anyone? [\devil's advocate]

was that ever justified as a legitimate military target.

or Coventry, for that matter....

Posted: **2007-08-10 01:33am**

MKSheppard wrote:
Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:If anything, Dresden was so saturated with weapons I find it hard to believe they merely bombed it for military potential. The entire city centre was leveled.
Dredsden was chock full of targets.

1.) Major rail marshalling center, being a linchpin of Germany's eastern defensive system by dint of logistical reasons.

2.) Full of war industries.

And while the second objective was acomplished, trains were going through the city just a few days later.

Posted: **2007-08-10 02:17am**

Trains full of Allied POWs.

Ever read Slaughterhouse Five? or a history of the battle of the Bulge detailing what happened to the American prisoners?

again, devil's advocate.

Posted: **2007-08-10 02:21am**

You know, there's nothing wrong with the expanded modern definition of "legitimate military targets" to include the infrastructure upon which the enemy's military is dependent, so long as you're consistent with it and you recognize that by this definition, the World Trade Center on 9/11 was a "legitimate military target" too. If you use the old-fashioned definition (which the Americans themselves used earlier in WW2 when they were outraged by German tactics), then none of that shit was morally acceptable.

Posted: **2007-08-10 06:23am**

Darth Wong wrote: If you use the old-fashioned definition (which the Americans themselves used earlier in WW2 when they were outraged by German tactics), then none of that shit was morally acceptable.

Oh, I dunno. I think Sherman would have found it morally acceptable.

Posted: **2007-08-10 08:07am**

Sea Skimmer wrote:Not nearby, the military targets were strewn thought-out the cities. The US tried precision bombing of Japans industry for months, it didn’t work. The reason is that Japan had highly distributed industry, as did Britain. The big factory buildings only did final assembly, they depended on components coming from thousands of small plants and individual workshops strewn throughout residential areas. Smash the big building and you accomplish very little, the roof falls down and the place is back in action the next day. Burn down a city and you’ve crippled a big segment of production, killing the inhabitants was never a goal, and in fact it was beneficial if they became refuges. Refuges are a bigger economic problem then dead bodies. Huge numbers of civilians did die, but that was not the main objective and would have been seen as a waste of bombs.

Thank you for the correction regarding the distribution of targets (damn me, I couldn't remember what happened in the previous page of the thread!). Regardless, the point is and has been that the allies were targeting the cities themselves. Ultimately, whether they wanted to kill civilians en masse or wanted to simply hit the industries is irrelevent: they ended up aiming their bombs at the entire cities.

Posted: **2007-08-10 02:19pm**

Concession Accepted, Illuminatus on the aimpoint/bridge issue.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Today in History (According to FOX)