Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

... To start with, this got started by you posting a thread that has nothing to do with Uncommon Valor. You were simply wishing to express a controversial political opinion, your own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
Second, other country´s are free to name their airports, cities and towns, etc., whatever they choose. They are under no obligation to consult the US Marines or you and probably don´t really care what you or they think anyways ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
So if Trolls tweedle dee and tweedle dum would like to hit their green buttons now, please do.

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

Who is we in the "You know how we feel"? Ask people on my street corner about what? Feel about what?

Nothing Todd.

quote:

Wirraway_Ace- I not sure I agree with your use of "the numbers" in this way. I am an economist by training, and all this really tells you is that Germany was able to increase production of key weapon systems in spite of the bombing. It doesn't tell you what their potential production was if their industries had been left alone.

Well it would be impossible to put a number on what German production would have been without strategic bombing but we can compare their rate of expansion with someone who wasn´t bombed at all.

Germany, total aircraft produced by year.

1942-12,822
1943-20,599
1944-35,076

So from 42´ to 43´ German aircraft production rose
by around 60%. From 43´ to 44´around 57%

USA, total aircraft production by year.

1942-46,907
1943-84,853
1944-96,271

So their expansion went 54%, from 42´to 43´. Then
from 43´to 44´ they had a growth rate of just
around 1%. I suppose the industrial base was
maxed out.

So as far as aircraft production is concerned I
would think the strategic bombing campaign had
at most a very minor effect if any at all. Germany
was able to expand it´s aircraft production by
actually a larger percentage than the USA who was
not being bombed at all.

I´m thinking what is effecting this a lot also is
simple manpower numbers. Getting pilots.

If you move over to armored vehicles etc, you will
find comparable numbers.

Take strictly tanks. Germany produced give or take
20,000 tanks during the war. The USA produced
61,000. About a 3-1 margin.

So by comparing tank production 3-1 total. Aircraft
production close to 3-1, I would conclude the
strategic bombing had about zero effect on German production, at least in these two categories.

You have Germany being bombed daylight and dark with the USA not being bombed at all and the production figures in these 2 areas, adjusting for the size of their respective industrial bases seems just about identical.

Now this does not take into account every single
item of war, artillery, etc., and I don´t feel like looking it up right now but unless you can show
me something else I still say the strategic bombing
campaign was a waste of resources. It didn´t do
much from what I see as far as reducing war time production.

One could say, well the Allies had to build all those
ships too so that used up a lot of their industrial
capacity but they would have had to build them
anyways.

I think I got all my numbers right. If not I´m sure I´ll be corrected.

quote:

Joe D.

As much of the fighting in UV centers around Guadalcanal, how can it not be important news on this forum?

quote:

anarchyintheuk

There's a difference between saying that the strategic bombing had no or little to no effect on German production and saying that the campaign was a waste of resources. Imho the first is wrong, the second arguable. Which is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99


You charge, try and convict by Articles. In this case, Article 6. You can´t go through and strike words, sentences and paragraphs out of a law because you don´t like them.

A lot of war criminals at Nuremberg would have looooved to have been able to do that.

Article 6 is Article 6. You take it all or reject it all.

quote:

Yes Joe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


I would say not, but I would also say that the civilian deaths do not make the bombing campaign any less right.

People are often quick to condemn the WW2 bombing campaign, but how else could the war have been prosecuted against the enemy?

PS, the second part of the post is not intended as a swipe at you Wirraway_Ace, rather a general comment to the world at large.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

Joe D.

As much of the fighting in UV centers around Guadalcanal, how can it not be important news on this forum?

How would the renaming of Henderson Field effect UV? Besides it´s not even called Henderson Field in the game but Lunga. So in the game it was renamed a long time ago. Hmmm...don´t look at me. Maybe you should go campaign for the hex to be renamed ¨Henderson Field¨ in CF if it´s sooooo important for you and others.

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

Thanks for the link Prince. Powerful imagery. However, it still brings me back to the question: do the attrocities of your opponent morally justify a bombing campaign that you know is causing significant deaths to a civilian population? The pictures of Koln, Dresden, Toyko after a major bombing are pretty horrific.

quote:

Wirraway_Ace-Ike, I appologize, but I am not sure what Article 6 you are referring to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99


Nuremberg Principles

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes
a crime under international law is responsible
therefore and liable to punishment.

Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as
crimes under international law:

(b) War Crimes:

...wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.


Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter

ARTICLE 6 (b) ....Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

This is what I am referring to when I say ¨Article 6.¨[/size]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99


Nuremberg Principles

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes
a crime under international law is responsible
therefore and liable to punishment.

Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as
crimes under international law:

(b) War Crimes:

...wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.


Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter

ARTICLE 6 (b) ....Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

This is what I am referring to when I say ¨Article 6.¨[/size]

Thanks Ike, that is helpful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl



What I'm more comfortable with is discussing the law, or lack thereof, which attaches itself to war. There is no real international law, BTW. There are only agreements. And when a side abandons the provisions of the agreement, either formally, by abrogation, or through its behavior, the "compact" is rendered null and void.

Because of the passions attendant to warfare, the ties that might serve to bind the combatants to such an agreement are far more tenuous than those which might adhere to some other sort of pact, trade or extradition, for instance. As such, they are far less likely to withstand a test like that which typified so much of the latter, desperate stages of WW2.

It's also worth noting that the extremity of Axis behavior in places like Nanking set the stage for their undoing. That they went so far in playing out there fascist/militarist/racist ideology virtually insured that the Allies would respond with a level of brutality commensurate to that which they sought to subdue, albeit grudgingly and with considerable agitation of conscience.

Did the Japanese and Germans commit war crimes in WW2?

Nah, they just opted out of the agreement.

Did the U.S. or Britain?

Nah, how could they be bound to an agreement which had been unilaterally voided by the Axis Powers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

But define military necessity. If wiping Hiroshima off the map will shorten the war, then isn't that a military necessity? It is a grey area, to be determined by the victors in the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

The 8th and 15th Air Forces suffered approximately 27,000 dead (out of an estimated 250,000 total personnel), almost all of whom were aircrews.  This compares to approximately 20,000 dead U.S. Marines.  John Terraine, talking about RAF Bomber Campaign, said “it is especially ironic that strategic bombing, a tactic marketed in part for inexpensiveness as compared to trench warfare, resulted in the deaths of so many first-class personnel.”  His comments seem relevant to the experience of the 8th and 15th in Europe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter

ARTICLE 6 (b) ....Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

This is what I am referring to when I say ¨Article 6.¨[/size]

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I find the quote somewhat elitest. Must have been an airman. Of course, airmen look at the loss of 27,000 "first class" personnel as somehow worse than the loss of 27,000 "second class" (read GRUNTS) personnel.

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to HansBolter)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I find the quote somewhat elitest. Must have been an airman. Of course, airmen look at the loss of 27,000 "first class" personnel as somehow worse than the loss of 27,000 "second class" (read GRUNTS) personnel.

Frankly, from the standpoint of comparison to land warfare, the approximately 10% casulaties suffered by the airmen look pretty damn light.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

Joe D.

As much of the fighting in UV centers around Guadalcanal, how can it not be important news on this forum?

How would the renaming of Henderson Field effect UV? Besides it´s not even called Henderson Field in the game but Lunga. So in the game it was renamed a long time ago. Hmmm...don´t look at me. Maybe you should go campaign for the hex to be renamed ¨Henderson Field¨ in CF if it´s sooooo important for you and others.

quote:

anarchyintheuk

There's a difference between saying that the strategic bombing had no or little to no effect on German production and saying that the campaign was a waste of resources. Imho the first is wrong, the second arguable. Which is it?

Anarchy, if the strategic bombing campaign had very limited effect on Axis war production and vast resources put into it wouldn´t that make it both?

It is not simply a matter of looking at this from the point of view that it wasn´t very nice. What did it cost and what was the effect?

100,000 Allied airmen were lost doing this. That´s about 5 divisions right there. Then you have the entire force with all their equiptment, the people, training, on and on, everything included in this campaign. This was an enormous investment in resources.

You say it is wrong to say the strategic bombing campaign had little effect on Axis war production. Why do you say this? Facts, figures, speculation, just an opinion?

How do you come to this conclusion? I´m all ears.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

The Axis powers didn't adhere to any past pacts, agreements or law between civilized nations.

The Axis powers quest to dominate the world by aggression and brutality in the end cost them dearly.

They reaped just what they sowed. No one should apologize for the "strategic" bombing.

Another Quote by General Sherman , his words ring true even today.

"War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

The Axis powers didn't adhere to any past pacts, agreements or law between civilized nations.

The Axis powers quest to dominate the world by aggression and brutality in the end cost them dearly.

They reaped just what they sowed. No one should apologize for the "strategic" bombing.

Another Quote by General Sherman , his words ring true even today.

"War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out."

I am not an Axis apoligist, but it would be a bit hypocritical if the Allies convicted V-1/V-2 planners for war crimes at Nuremberg under Article 6. Don't know if they ever did...

Of course, Sherman would have said something like, "you should have won the war you started, if you were wanting to dictate the terms of the peace..."

quote:

One was an aggressor the other defending its own freedom and freedom of other peoples.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

One was an aggressor the other defending its own freedom and freedom of other peoples.

Is that right? Let´s examine the history of the Pacific War a little closer.

Let´s go back to the beginning. As usual some people like to pick and choose some parts of history and ignore the rest so they can sit on a false moral high ground.

Up until 1853 Japan had been a strictly isolationist country and indeed had enjoyed 200 years of internal peace.

Then what happened?

Perry sailed a fleet of warships into Tokyo Bay with guns and demands. They demanded Japan to open up its ports to US ships. Japan refused.

Who is the agressor?

Perry returned to Japan with more ships and more guns. Japan again refused. So Perry threatened he would shell Tokyo if they didn´t open up their country and harbors to them.

So under threat of violence Japan was forced to sign a treaty with the US. This treaty forced them to provide provisions for American ships that docked in Japan.

It also forced them to agree to an exploitive trade agreement. Basically as much as they could force out of them from a cannon.

Then in came all the other imperialist powers to cut up Japan as they were cutting up the rest of Asia among themselves.

Japan was to become just another territory in someone elses empire. As well these foreigners were busy and undermined the Tokugawa Shogunate government and caused its collapse.

What would be expected when someone comes into someone elses house at the point of a gun and demand they open it up to them for plunder happened.

They militarised. Being an island nation with scant resources she launched wars of conquest to aquire the raw materials needed to build the big gun needed to defend herself.

But, she did no more and no less than those who threatened her had done when they were building an empire where the sun never sets and making their way across a continent to get their resources for their big guns. Japan just got a late start at it but caught on quick.

It should be obvious to all what would have happened to Japan had she not done this if you like to admit it or not.

Japan would have went the way of the...

¨Dutch¨ East Indies.
¨British¨ Hong Kong.
¨US¨ Phillipines.
¨British¨ Maylaya.
¨French¨ Indo China.

Just another colonial possession in someone elses empire. Another place to exploit. Another place to sip lemonade by tennis courts with aires of superiority.

¨Darling, it´s dreadfully hot today¨

You kicked in their door. You started the fight with them. The Japanese didn´t sail into San Francisco and make demands with cannon and threaten. They didn´t sail across the ocean and attempt to undermine your Sovereignty. This was done to them and they reacted.

So don´t open the history book at the chapter you like. You have to start at the beginning of the book. Now you know where that is with the war against Japan.