|
Goering and Donitz (assuming they didn't do significant political party poo poo) both deserved to be let off, or Allied bomber and sub command deserved to be hung too. But I like to think of myself as a radical moderate so I say just hang the people who carried out the London Blitz and Dresden to make it fair. Goebbels should've been hung not for what he said but for being a working leader in a government that committed genocide. fake e: nvm just remembered Goering founded the Gestapo. Shoot the fucker.
|
# ¿ Feb 11, 2017 03:53 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:48 |
|
Spangly A posted:lol no, firebombs and nukes are not ok NO NO STOP DO NOT BRING UP NUKES IN A NON-NUKE THREAD STOP NO
|
# ¿ Feb 11, 2017 23:09 |
|
Uhhh hold up there Dr. Strangelove. What's justified in war is doing things to end the war that are proportional actions. 100,000 German women getting raped by Red Army troops in pacified areas behind the frontlines doesn't further that goal.
|
# ¿ Feb 11, 2017 23:20 |
|
hakimashou posted:I dont have a single kind word to say about the soviets. quote:But everything up to and including just completely wiping out Germany and Japan were justified in WW2. Well good, but you don't have to say anything nice about them in order to be still wrong. FWIW I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 100% justified and less destructive than some conventional bombing raids. But there's a difference between destroying industry and causing collateral damage in an era before laser- or GPS-guided bombs existed and just dunking on civilian areas.
|
# ¿ Feb 11, 2017 23:23 |
|
The funny thing is I didn't even argue against killing civilians employed in vital industries or using incendiaries or nukes or the almost certain fact that 9 out of 10 bombs dropped from B-17/B-29 formations that were spread out across miles from 20,000 feet up hit civilians instead of an actual target. I'm just asking there be some minimal link that could be deduced between "win war" and "do this thing" before causing collateral damage. "LOL literally anything goes get hosed Axis" isn't deductive in the slightest. Intentionally specifically bombing granny out of her home just means she'll die for no reason because any state on a total war footing will prioritize food, medical care, and shelter to people who are actually useful.
|
# ¿ Feb 12, 2017 01:37 |
|
I think we can all agree that terror bombing is a top-shelf tactic that really breaks the enemy. Just look how quick the Brits folded after the London Blitz. And the V1. And the V2.
|
# ¿ Feb 12, 2017 02:48 |
|
OK rudatron you had me going for a while there but I think that last one was a little over the top.
|
# ¿ Feb 12, 2017 05:30 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:48 |
|
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? OK now you're the one being a dumbass. Assuming your fighter plan has merit (lol) and you shoot down every Luftwaffe plane that comes up to challenge you, what are you going to do when they just stop that and instead use flak guns to murder your poo poo, which are way cheaper and faster to manufacture and train on than fighters and fighter pilots are? Strategic bombing did put a crimp on German manufacturing and nobody seriously debates that. Just look at their own reports from the era, Christ. The question raised was whether intentionally targeting civilians instead of just causing collateral damage was a morally acceptable or pragmatically effective strategy. The answer to that question is no on both counts. Now you're trying to stretch that assessment into saying that thousands of civilians don't have to die when you hit enemy infrastructure with WW2 technology, or if they do have to die then somehow that means the strategy ceases to be effective. These are not the same things. Stop it.
|
# ¿ Feb 13, 2017 00:56 |