The morality of city bombing vs. regular warfare in WWII

[Neil]

Strategic bombing is immoral because it is ineffective.

It never lived up to the claims it made.  Indeed, the strategic bombing offensive actually hindered the war effort by taking resources away from Coastal Command and the Battle of the Atlantic, and wasting them by dropping bombs on the German countryside nowhere near their target.

[The Brain]

Chemical bombs are useless.

[Neil]

Chemical bombs are useless.

Not at all.  Chemical bombs are perfect for obtaining limited objectives.  Ground support and tank-busting are places where chemical bombs really shine, for example.

[The Brain]

Chemical bombs are useless.

Not at all.  Chemical bombs are perfect for obtaining limited objectives.  Ground support and tank-busting are places where chemical bombs really shine, for example.

Rarely done in strategic bombing.

[Neil]

Chemical bombs are useless.

Not at all.  Chemical bombs are perfect for obtaining limited objectives.  Ground support and tank-busting are places where chemical bombs really shine, for example.

Rarely done in strategic bombing.

But you didn't say that chemical bombs are useless for strategic bombing.  You just said they're useless.

[The Brain]

Chemical bombs are useless.

Not at all.  Chemical bombs are perfect for obtaining limited objectives.  Ground support and tank-busting are places where chemical bombs really shine, for example.

Rarely done in strategic bombing.

But you didn't say that chemical bombs are useless for strategic bombing.  You just said they're useless.

Really, Neil?

[Neil]

Chemical bombs are useless.

Not at all.  Chemical bombs are perfect for obtaining limited objectives.  Ground support and tank-busting are places where chemical bombs really shine, for example.

Rarely done in strategic bombing.

But you didn't say that chemical bombs are useless for strategic bombing.  You just said they're useless.

Really, Neil?

Really.  Besides, even nuclear strategic bombing isn't all that useful, because of the stigma.

[Syt]

If the definition is doing everything possible then has there ever been an occasion of total war?

Germany after Feb 1942 v USSR after June 1941.

Also, North Vietnam.

[The Brain]

If the definition is doing everything possible then has there ever been an occasion of total war?

Germany after Feb 1942 v USSR after June 1941.

Also, North Vietnam.

Congress didn't declare war.

[Ideologue]

Strategic bombing is immoral because it is ineffective.

We've discussed this before.  Atomic weapons count as strategic bombing.  They're very effective.  Edit: Stigma aside, I suppose.

Also, leaving aside the direct damage done by bombs at Hamburg, Dresden, Ploesti and elsewhere, the Luftwaffe was destroyed defending the Reich.  Without the threat of bombing, Germany would have produced more bombers and also still maintained a stronger fighter force.  Further, the constant need to deploy its large fighter force exacerbated the fuel issue.  All in all, that war of attrition in the skies over Germany was more important for Overlord and subsequent operations on the continent than marginally improving the results obtained in the Battle of the Atlantic.

(Also, it moved 88s back to Germany and off the Eastern Front, as well as forcing Germany to employ its artillery production capacity in the anti-air mission, instead of arming its divisions with more and better anti-tank weapons.  This is a minor, but not insubstantial effect, of bombing as well.)

[Viking]

If the definition is doing everything possible then has there ever been an occasion of total war?

Germany after Feb 1942 v USSR after June 1941.

Die Sportpalastrede doesn't happen until february 1943 and the patriachate or moscow isn't reformed until september 1943.

[grumbler]

Die Sportpalastrede doesn't happen until february 1943 and the patriachate or moscow isn't reformed until september 1943.

Okay. 

[Neil]

Strategic bombing is immoral because it is ineffective.

We've discussed this before.  Atomic weapons count as strategic bombing.  They're very effective.  Edit: Stigma aside, I suppose.

Also, leaving aside the direct damage done by bombs at Hamburg, Dresden, Ploesti and elsewhere, the Luftwaffe was destroyed defending the Reich.  Without the threat of bombing, Germany would have produced more bombers and also still maintained a stronger fighter force.  Further, the constant need to deploy its large fighter force exacerbated the fuel issue.  All in all, that war of attrition in the skies over Germany was more important for Overlord and subsequent operations on the continent than marginally improving the results obtained in the Battle of the Atlantic.

(Also, it moved 88s back to Germany and off the Eastern Front, as well as forcing Germany to employ its artillery production capacity in the anti-air mission, instead of arming its divisions with more and better anti-tank weapons.  This is a minor, but not insubstantial effect, of bombing as well.)

The strategic bombing campaign was totally irrelevant in keeping the flow of supplies open to Britain, and that's how the war was won, not some silly sideshow in the skies over Germany.

[PDH]

I would put forth Paraguay late in the War of the Triple Alliance could be an early contender for a state engaged in total war.  While not industrialized, the mobilization of manpower in the military and women to farm was unprecedented.  Of course, such mobilization led to horrible losses, maybe 60% of the population (and a post-war very highly skewed male:female ratio).

[Razgovory]

I would put forth Paraguay late in the War of the Triple Alliance could be an early contender for a state engaged in total war.  While not industrialized, the mobilization of manpower in the military and women to farm was unprecedented.  Of course, such mobilization led to horrible losses, maybe 60% of the population (and a post-war very highly skewed male:female ratio).

That's a pretty good example.  I forgot about that one.