|
The Butt Report didn’t demonstrate that bombing cities was a failed strategy. That’s basically the opposite of what actually happened. The pre‐report strategy was precision bombing. Then the Butt Report came out and revealed that, far from putting bombs into pickle barrels from ten thousand feet, bombers can actually only reliably hit targets to the size of a city. So your options are bomb city‐sized targets (i.e. cities) or allow the Nazi war machine to operate unmolested on the continent. It can be argued that it’s still immoral or ineffective to bomb cities, but that’s not the thesis of the Butt Report.
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:That's the entire point. Those are not your only options. You could also take the immense amount of resources it takes to churn out bombers and ordinance and use it for literally anything else that's provably more effective. You could have dismantled the Luftwaffe years earlier if you committed those factories, engineers and pilots to fighters instead. How are you going to dismantle the Luftwaffe with fighters if they are unwilling to fly into your trap? You can’t loiter over their airbases all day long—you fighters don’t even have the range to go out and back, nevermind the flak they’d catch.  Accuracy problems aside, at least bombers are physically capable of reaching Nazi airbases and equipped to take out planes while they’re on the ground. Dr. Fishopolis posted:Maybe you could have created more armored divisions. So you can do what? Retake the Channel Islands? Embarrass Rommel even more thoroughly in North Africa? The Butt Report comes out in August, 1941. Sir Arthur “Tanker” Fishopolis dismantles Bomber Command immediately and focuses on building tanks. D‐day isn’t till June, 1944. If anything, D‐day would be pushed back with this strategy, but even if you manage to hasten it, your tanks are going to be collecting dust for a long time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Are you arguing that there was literally no more efficient way for the British to spend their lives and resources than bombing civilian targets behind enemy lines? That, in full view of hindsight, it was the correct and justified strategy? The alternatives you’ve presented, tanks and fighters, aren’t more efficient. But if the only goal is to maximise the efficiency of British lives and resources, I supposed sitting back and letting the Soviets do all the fighting would indeed work.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Also for all the people bitching about the strategic bombing campaign, remember that it was the only major way for the West to strike directly at Germany for years. Even if it was as ineffective as people ITT are (wrongly) claiming, after June 1941 it was a political necessity to continue the raids because the Soviets. It’s not just politics; it’s sound military strategy. If it eases the pressure on your brave Russian allies even a little bit, and it’s the only military action you are capable of taking at the time, you should probably do it. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 11:32 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So how hard does your dick get at the thought of someone screaming as they're slowly burned to death by thermite? Or of delayed-burst bombs, designed to kill firefighters and EMTs? It’s comforting to believe that things you consider immoral are also ineffective, and that only truly bad people would do such things. Perhaps they even derive sexual pleasure from their wicked acts. There is no need to fret about breaking a few eggs to make an omelette if the best omelettes are actually made from soya beans. In reality, the expedient and the ethical are not always so neatly allied. Sometimes people have to make value judgements. Not you, though. You can sleep like a baby, secure in the knowledge that everything is black and white and you hold the objectively correct position. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 12:11 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:This thread is over right? Everyone agrees that Goebbels should have been hanged? No, hanging Goebbels would be wrong. He should instead have been executed via inert gas asphyxiation or lethal injection (but not with the dumb drug cocktail the U.S. currently uses).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It's more humane to let people die quickly while they are fully conscious. Hanging or firing squad imo Okay, let the condemned choose from a list. But I’m going to take issue if inert gas asphyxiation isn’t an item on that list.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
JFairfax posted:Goebbels should have been hung drawn and quartered If we’re going for maximum brutality, scaphism is worse, IMO.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 04:22
|
|