Languish.org

The topic refers to any use of organized violence in which the primary target is civilians (excluding law enforcement). This includes things like Hiroshima, Dresden, and terrorist suicide bombings.

As collateral damage?

Never as the primary target.

Excluding collateral damage.

Tell me more of the civilians.

Do the civilians in question post on Languish?

Does the suicide bomber count as civilian?

Are the civilians in question Steelers fans, perhaps?

Is nuking the whole middle east considered violence against civilians?

Quote from: lustindarkness on March 23, 2016, 11:40:28 AM
Is nuking the whole middle east considered violence against civilians?

No, that would be collateral damage.

Quote from: The Brain on March 23, 2016, 11:06:39 AM
Does the suicide bomber count as civilian?

Counts as a dead man walking.

Wow, my expectations were really off. I guess the ghost of Curtis LeMay has finally stopped haunting Languish and passed on to Valhalla.

Of course not.
By modern standards the people of WW2 were fucked up

If the majority wills it, violence against minorities is always justified.

Quote from: Tyr on March 26, 2016, 09:31:29 PM
Of course not.
By modern standards the people of WW2 were fucked up

Modern people have no room to judge. Look at what our governments countenance without an existential threat.

Quote from: Tyr on March 26, 2016, 09:31:29 PM
Of course not.
By modern standards the people of WW2 were fucked up

WW2 made everybody lose their shit and do horrible things. But are we really any better? I don't think so.

Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2016, 09:50:44 PM

Quote from: Tyr on March 26, 2016, 09:31:29 PM
Of course not.
By modern standards the people of WW2 were fucked up

WW2 made everybody lose their shit and do horrible things. But are we really any better? I don't think so.

Hmmm, that is actually a really good question.

Quote from: Jaron on March 26, 2016, 09:37:15 PM
If the majority wills it, violence against minorities is always justified.

You mean like when an Illinois mob killed Joe Smith?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 26, 2016, 09:55:26 PM

Quote from: Jaron on March 26, 2016, 09:37:15 PM
If the majority wills it, violence against minorities is always justified.

You mean like when an Illinois mob killed Joe Smith?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: That was a vigilante mob action, not will of the majority.

The mob took a vote.

I may say no, but will probably engage in yes.

Quote from: Jaron on March 26, 2016, 10:11:18 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 26, 2016, 09:55:26 PM

Quote from: Jaron on March 26, 2016, 09:37:15 PM
If the majority wills it, violence against minorities is always justified.

You mean like when an Illinois mob killed Joe Smith?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: That was a vigilante mob action, not will of the majority.

The extermination order was the will of the Majority in Missouri.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2016, 11:17:47 PM

Quote from: Jaron on March 26, 2016, 10:11:18 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 26, 2016, 09:55:26 PM

Quote from: Jaron on March 26, 2016, 09:37:15 PM
If the majority wills it, violence against minorities is always justified.

You mean like when an Illinois mob killed Joe Smith?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: That was a vigilante mob action, not will of the majority.

The extermination order was the will of the Majority in Missouri.

No, that isn't so.

Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 26, 2016, 06:45:32 PM
Wow, my expectations were really off. I guess the ghost of Curtis LeMay has finally stopped haunting Languish and passed on to Valhalla.

I have no idea what you even started the thread to debate.  "Is violence against civilians sometimes justified?" Of course it is.   Self-defense allows me to use violence against a civilian to protect myself or others.  I can even organize with another person to collectively use violence in self-defense.

If we are talking war, then, no, the civilians cannot be the target of violence.  Hiroshima and Dresden were not targeting civilians.

If we are talking terrorism, I don't even know why you think it could be justified.

There are gray areas:  was the bombing of the King David Hotel an illegal attack on civilians, given that the hotel was being used as a headquarters by the British military and the bomb was planted under that portion of the hotel?  You can debate cases of whether or not the collateral damage was excessive, but I don't see that you can debate whether or not attacks targeting civilians as civilians can be justified.

Quote from: Jaron on March 26, 2016, 11:24:05 PM

No, that isn't so.

I'm afraid it is.  It was only reversed in the 1970's.

Quote from: Tyr on March 26, 2016, 09:31:29 PM
Of course not.
By modern standards the people of WW2 were fucked up

They were not fucked up, they were fighting a total war.  And we'd do it today if we fought a total war like that, had nukes not redefined the concept of total war.

Quote from: DGuller on March 28, 2016, 09:09:12 PM

Quote from: Tyr on March 26, 2016, 09:31:29 PM
Of course not.
By modern standards the people of WW2 were fucked up

They were not fucked up, they were fighting a total war.  And we'd do it today if we fought a total war like that, had nukes not redefined the concept of total war.

I'm not so sure.
In a way strategic bombing had a justification. Targeting wasn't particularly good and they wanted to knock out the enemy's industry. Plastering whole cities was the only way to be sure. Particularly with Japan.
But....it went beyond that and into pure terrorism. Killing civilians just for the sake of it in some belief that this would lower morale and hasten the end of the war. This in the modern world is just not appropriate. And besides, it's a waste of resources. It doesn't work. 
Since we have much better targeting these days even hitting a whole city in order to hit industry isn't necessary

Quote from: Tyr on March 29, 2016, 01:17:38 AM
I'm not so sure.
In a way strategic bombing had a justification. Targeting wasn't particularly good and they wanted to knock out the enemy's industry. Plastering whole cities was the only way to be sure. Particularly with Japan.
But....it went beyond that and into pure terrorism. Killing civilians just for the sake of it in some belief that this would lower morale and hasten the end of the war. This in the modern world is just not appropriate. And besides, it's a waste of resources. It doesn't work. 
Since we have much better targeting these days even hitting a whole city in order to hit industry isn't necessary

I know that "the Allies committed terrorism" is a popular narrative, but do you have any actual historical evidence that this was true?  That there was a plan that involved "Killing civilians just for the sake of it?"

I guess it boils down to "Is violence justifiable". And, yes, it is.

Self-defence, protecting your loved ones. Those are prime examples of justifiable violence. If you mean Glasgow kissing the next person you meet, well, less so.

One thing about us humans, we always manage to justify our actions in some way.

If you dehouse people at night, using bombs, you leave yourself open to charges of targeting civilians.

That's why I tend not to do that. As a general rule.

It pains me to say this but as of this morning I cancelled my accounts with all Missouri based businesses.

Quote from: Jaron on March 29, 2016, 11:23:51 AM
It pains me to say this but as of this morning I cancelled my accounts with all Missouri based businesses.

:lol:

Jaron holds grudges.

Quote from: The Brain on March 29, 2016, 10:33:10 AM
If you dehouse people at night, using bombs, you leave yourself open to charges of targeting civilians.

Doing pretty much anything in war or combat leaves you open to charges of targeting civilians.  It's an occupational hazard.

Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2016, 07:38:23 AM
If we are talking war, then, no, the civilians cannot be the target of violence.  Hiroshima and Dresden were not targeting civilians.

What were they targeting then?
And whatever else it was, they must have been rather incompetent if they did not target civilians because that's what they hit.

Quote from: Zanza on March 29, 2016, 12:37:52 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2016, 07:38:23 AM
If we are talking war, then, no, the civilians cannot be the target of violence.  Hiroshima and Dresden were not targeting civilians.

What were they targeting then?
And whatever else it was, they must have been rather incompetent if they did not target civilians because that's what they hit.

They weren't targeting swing sets, either, but they hit them.  They weren't targeting fire hydrants but they hit them.  They weren't targeting bowling balls but they hit them.  they probably weren't targeting trampolines, beauty parlors, paper dolls, size 4 children's sneakers, and probably hit all of those.

How the fuck could such incompetents win a war?  The only thing that probably saved them was the fact that the Japanese were targeting wool blankets when they attacked Pearl Harbor.

It was hoped that the loss of Hiroshima's industrial output would shock the Japanese government into surrendering.

Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2016, 05:11:29 AM

Quote from: Tyr on March 29, 2016, 01:17:38 AM
I'm not so sure.
In a way strategic bombing had a justification. Targeting wasn't particularly good and they wanted to knock out the enemy's industry. Plastering whole cities was the only way to be sure. Particularly with Japan.
But....it went beyond that and into pure terrorism. Killing civilians just for the sake of it in some belief that this would lower morale and hasten the end of the war. This in the modern world is just not appropriate. And besides, it's a waste of resources. It doesn't work. 
Since we have much better targeting these days even hitting a whole city in order to hit industry isn't necessary

I know that "the Allies committed terrorism" is a popular narrative, but do you have any actual historical evidence that this was true?  That there was a plan that involved "Killing civilians just for the sake of it?"

Churchill post Dresden:

Quote'It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed ... The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing.'

The 1942 Area bombing directive's aim:

Quote"To focus attacks on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular the industrial workers. In the case of Berlin harassing attacks to maintain fear of raids and to impose A. R. P. measures".

Bomber Harris in 1943:

Quote"The aim of Bomber Command should be unambiguously and publicly stated. The aim is the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers and the disruption of civilised community life throughout Germany. It should be emphasised that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale and the breakdown of morale at home and at the battlefronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories...It should be made clear that the destruction of factory installations is only part and by no means the most important part of the plan. Acreages of housing devastation are infinitely more important."

Okay, we've got a couple of good answers on what we weren't targeting.  Let's consider that part of the question exhausted.  Now, can we get some answers on what they were targeting?  Let's take Dresden for a specific example.

We were targeting civilians. We used some rather transparent fig leaves to pretend like we were not, and as Harris states it's not like it was so simple as targeting one thing or another.

We were also trying to destroy their industrial capacity to wage war, and in large part we succeeded. Both Germany and Japan were eventually nearly crippled from shortages in all kind of material.

But it is a fiction, IMO, to pretend that area bombing was not also an attempt to just kill a lot of people, and those people, by and large, were civilians.

Total war sucks. I hope we never get into another one.

Is Grumbler going to talk about "De-housing" again?  That was so cute last time.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 29, 2016, 01:45:08 PM
Is Grumbler going to talk about "De-housing" again?  That was so cute last time.

It was a civilian dehousing and deanimation campaign.  :mad:

They weren't civilians, they were potential combatants.

Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2016, 12:52:53 PMHow the fuck could such incompetents win a war?

Their deliberate bombing campaign against Axis civilians was probably not a decisive part of their victorious war effort. They would have won regardless.

By the way, I visited Wismar today where the historic town center was bombed on 15th April 1945. It's clear that Germans brought this over themselves especially as we started the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, but it is still sad to see the destruction and imagine the pain inflicted from the bombing campaigns of WW2.

Quote from: Valmy on March 29, 2016, 11:26:50 AM

Quote from: Jaron on March 29, 2016, 11:23:51 AM
It pains me to say this but as of this morning I cancelled my accounts with all Missouri based businesses.

:lol:

Jaron holds grudges.

He is a Rams fan. He wanted to boycott the Missouri businesses long ago, but was deterred by his affinity for the Rams.

Quote from: DGuller on March 29, 2016, 01:14:30 PM
Okay, we've got a couple of good answers on what we weren't targeting.  Let's consider that part of the question exhausted.  Now, can we get some answers on what they were targeting?  Let's take Dresden for a specific example.

The rest of your post, the part where you were making your argument, got cut off.  It is hard to respond to an argument you did not post.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 29, 2016, 01:58:55 PM
They weren't civilians, they were potential combatants.

Which is an interesting point. Especially in Japan's case, civilians including women and children were being instructed and to the extent possible armed (even if inadequately) to fight during an invasion. At the same time, in an industrial war, what is a more valuable target? A boeing neighborhood full of aircraft engineers or some tents of barely trained conscripts?

Quote from: alfred russel on March 29, 2016, 03:18:34 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 29, 2016, 01:58:55 PM
They weren't civilians, they were potential combatants.

Which is an interesting point. Especially in Japan's case, civilians including women and children were being instructed and to the extent possible armed (even if inadequately) to fight during an invasion. At the same time, in an industrial war, what is a more valuable target? A boeing neighborhood full of aircraft engineers or some tents of barely trained conscripts?

That's the hell of true total war - it erases the distinction between civilians and combatants. Sure, some will be higher-quality targets than others, but all are targets.

Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2016, 03:17:35 PM

Quote from: DGuller on March 29, 2016, 01:14:30 PM
Okay, we've got a couple of good answers on what we weren't targeting.  Let's consider that part of the question exhausted.  Now, can we get some answers on what they were targeting?  Let's take Dresden for a specific example.

The rest of your post, the part where you were making your argument, got cut off.  It is hard to respond to an argument you did not post.

You could respond to the part that didn't get cut off, where he was posing a question.

Quote from: Malthus on March 29, 2016, 03:21:51 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on March 29, 2016, 03:18:34 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 29, 2016, 01:58:55 PM
They weren't civilians, they were potential combatants.

Which is an interesting point. Especially in Japan's case, civilians including women and children were being instructed and to the extent possible armed (even if inadequately) to fight during an invasion. At the same time, in an industrial war, what is a more valuable target? A boeing neighborhood full of aircraft engineers or some tents of barely trained conscripts?

That's the hell of true total war - it erases the distinction between civilians and combatants. Sure, some will be higher-quality targets than others, but all are targets.

I assume that our plans are to respond to a nuclear attack on our cities from Russia in kind. So...I don't think the question of whether we have progressed to some higher moral plane that will never attack primarily civilian targets is so abstract. If total war breaks out we will be right back to wiping out cities.

Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2016, 03:17:35 PM

The rest of your post, the part where you were making your argument, got cut off.  It is hard to respond to an argument you did not post.

:lol: You are really the grandmaster in dodging questions. Impressive.

Quote from: alfred russel on March 29, 2016, 03:26:49 PM

Quote from: Malthus on March 29, 2016, 03:21:51 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on March 29, 2016, 03:18:34 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 29, 2016, 01:58:55 PM
They weren't civilians, they were potential combatants.

Which is an interesting point. Especially in Japan's case, civilians including women and children were being instructed and to the extent possible armed (even if inadequately) to fight during an invasion. At the same time, in an industrial war, what is a more valuable target? A boeing neighborhood full of aircraft engineers or some tents of barely trained conscripts?

That's the hell of true total war - it erases the distinction between civilians and combatants. Sure, some will be higher-quality targets than others, but all are targets.

I assume that our plans are to respond to a nuclear attack on our cities from Russia in kind. So...I don't think the question of whether we have progressed to some higher moral plane that will never attack primarily civilian targets is so abstract. If total war breaks out we will be right back to wiping out cities.

Absolutely. A nuclear war will likely be a total war. The most total war.

I remember reading a while ago about some war games in which NATO attempted to model a "limited" nuclear war (in which nuclear weapons were used only for military purposes). As I recall, it didn't stay limited. Once one side started losing ...   

Quote from: Zanza on March 29, 2016, 03:30:43 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2016, 03:17:35 PM

The rest of your post, the part where you were making your argument, got cut off.  It is hard to respond to an argument you did not post.

:lol: You are really the grandmaster in dodging questions. Impressive.

I beg to differ.  It's trivially easy to not answer questions.  Even a small child can do it with enough will.  Dodging the question requires concealing the fact that it is your intent to not answer the question, and not just merely being obstinate.  I don't think we're seeing a mastery of this technique here, to be honest.

Quote from: Berkut on March 29, 2016, 01:34:58 PM
We were targeting civilians. We used some rather transparent fig leaves to pretend like we were not, and as Harris states it's not like it was so simple as targeting one thing or another.

We were also trying to destroy their industrial capacity to wage war, and in large part we succeeded. Both Germany and Japan were eventually nearly crippled from shortages in all kind of material.

But it is a fiction, IMO, to pretend that area bombing was not also an attempt to just kill a lot of people, and those people, by and large, were civilians.

Total war sucks. I hope we never get into another one.

If civilians were, indeed, the targets, why were the bombs aimed at the rail yards, factories, airfields, bridges, chemical and oil production facilities, and the like?  Why place the CEP of the bombing raid away from the highest concentrations of civilians, and risk them being wasted on factories, rail yards, and the like?

And why target civilians?  What was the gain perceived to lie in killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians?

I think most people arguing here either don't understand what "targeting" means, or they do understand but prefer polemics to addressing the real issue.  Sure, civilians were killed, and in large numbers.  That was an accepted cost of targeting German industry and its support infrastructure (including worker housing).

There are certainly questions about the cost-effectiveness and proportionality of some of the raids in World War Two, Dresden being perhaps the chief example.  It is a long stretch, though, from "disproportionate collateral damage was inflicted" to "[the Allies were] killing civilians just for the sake of it," which is the statement I objected to.

Quote from: DGuller on March 29, 2016, 01:14:30 PM
Okay, we've got a couple of good answers on what we weren't targeting.  Let's consider that part of the question exhausted.  Now, can we get some answers on what they were targeting?  Let's take Dresden for a specific example.

Dresden, as far as I understand it, was a one-off. A rather terrible one-off. A show of force not so much made to beat Germany into submission, as that was a done deal pretty much, but to show the Soviets what airpower could do.

LeMay would've gladly started a war against the Soviets together with Patton.

Somewhat calmer minds prevailed at SHAEF.

This thread reminds me of Baghdad Bob. Or Builder Bob? One of the Bobs.

Quote from: DGuller on March 29, 2016, 03:34:06 PM

Quote from: Zanza on March 29, 2016, 03:30:43 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2016, 03:17:35 PM

The rest of your post, the part where you were making your argument, got cut off.  It is hard to respond to an argument you did not post.

:lol: You are really the grandmaster in dodging questions. Impressive.

I beg to differ.  It's trivially easy to not answer questions.  Even a small child can do it with enough will.  Dodging the question requires concealing the fact that it is your intent to not answer the question, and not just merely being obstinate.  I don't think we're seeing a mastery of this technique here, to be honest.

Fair enough, I guess dodging is the wrong category. I could not think of a better word though. I was just impressed by his unconcealed and brash attempt to turn the argument in a different direction by just writing nonsense. I wouldn't have dared and would probably just not have answered at all. So his self-confidence as expressed in his completely ignoring of other posts is impressive.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 29, 2016, 03:25:54 PM
You could respond to the part that didn't get cut off, where he was posing a question.

He could easily Google that.  It isn't like the targets on the Dresden raid are still secret.  The six raids by 8th Air Force over six months targeted the railroad marshaling yards, for instance.

Quote from: The Brain on March 29, 2016, 03:43:40 PM
This thread reminds me of Baghdad Bob. Or Builder Bob? One of the Bobs.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kids-partyshop.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fcatalog%2Fcategory%2FBob_the_Builder.jpg&hash=4719cb60dc3b4431f7f4bab1987bee78bab75977)

Can we commit violence against civilians? Yes we can!

Quote from: Norgy on March 29, 2016, 03:42:28 PM
Dresden, as far as I understand it, was a one-off. A rather terrible one-off.

Not really. It was just one of many. Hamburg in 1942 was probably the first.

EDIT: And of course before that bombardments of e.g. Rotterdam or Shanghai.

Quote from: Zanza on March 29, 2016, 03:30:43 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2016, 03:17:35 PM

The rest of your post, the part where you were making your argument, got cut off.  It is hard to respond to an argument you did not post.

:lol: You are really the grandmaster in dodging questions. Impressive.

I didn't respond to the question because I am not Google.  It is trivial to discover what the targets are.  If there is an argument to be made in order to advance a discussion (see my posts, for examples) it should be made.  Mere factual questions should be Googled.

You can also Google the answers to your question why the Allies targeted civilians. Or you just look at the previous page of the thread where someone already did.

Quote from: Norgy on March 29, 2016, 03:42:28 PM
Dresden, as far as I understand it, was a one-off. A rather terrible one-off. A show of force not so much made to beat Germany into submission, as that was a done deal pretty much, but to show the Soviets what airpower could do.

The irony of this argument is that it is precisely correct, but not for the reason assumed.  The three February raids were made at the request of the Russians, for whom the movement of German forces through Dresden was a major concern.  The March and April raids were to demolish the repairs the Germans had made in the aftermath of the February attacks.

Quote from: Zanza on March 29, 2016, 03:53:28 PM
You can also Google the answers to your question why the Allies targeted civilians. Or you just look at the previous page of the thread where someone already did.

Unfortunately, Google does not answer the question, nor do any posters on any previous pages of the thread provide evidence that the allies were "killing civilians for the sake of it."  In fact, searching Google for that phrase yields only three uses:  one referring to the Syrian Army, one referring to ISIS, and one referring to Israel (thought he latter is arguing that thee Israelis are not "killing civilians for the sake of it."

Can you direct me to the web page that contains evidence that the Allies were "killing civilians for the sake of it" in WW2?

I am not Google.  It is trivial to discover what the targets were and that it was also civilians.  If there is an argument to be made in order to advance a discussion it should be made.  Mere factual questions should be Googled.

Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2016, 03:56:53 PM

Quote from: Norgy on March 29, 2016, 03:42:28 PM
Dresden, as far as I understand it, was a one-off. A rather terrible one-off. A show of force not so much made to beat Germany into submission, as that was a done deal pretty much, but to show the Soviets what airpower could do.

The irony of this argument is that it is precisely correct, but not for the reason assumed.  The three February raids were made at the request of the Russians, for whom the movement of German forces through Dresden was a major concern.  The March and April raids were to demolish the repairs the Germans had made in the aftermath of the February attacks.

I love it when you make me realise how stupid I am, gramps.

Quote from: Zanza on March 29, 2016, 04:09:22 PM
I am not Google.  It is trivial to discover what the targets were and that it was also civilians.  If there is an argument to be made in order to advance a discussion it should be made.  Mere factual questions should be Googled.

You argued that the answer to my question "what evidence do we have that the Allies 'killed civilians for the sake of it'" was on Google, and I pointed out that it was not.  Your response now is that it is on Google.  That's the most feeble weasel i have seen in quite some time.  Do you have evidence, or do you not?  That's not something that google can answer.  If there is an argument to be made in order to advance a discussion it should be made.  Mere factual questions should be Googled.

Quote from: Norgy on March 29, 2016, 04:12:52 PM
I love it when you make me realise how stupid I am, gramps.

Sorry you feel stupid, grandma.  :(

Is violence against Grumbler sometimes justified?  Or what about it you were aiming at a bowling ball or swingset and violence just happened to Grumbler?  Discuss.

grumbler should never be capitalized, Mormon killer.

Quote from: Jaron on March 29, 2016, 06:08:51 PM
grumbler should never be capitalized, Mormon killer.

I forgot to reply to your threat not to buy anything from Missouri.  The only thing we produce here is beer and Meth.  Not a lot of sales in Utah.

Jaron only buys the blue stuff.

"There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn't bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders."-LeMay

"Dresden? There is not such a place any longer." "I want to point out, that besides Essen, we never actually considered any particular industrial sites as targets. The destruction of industrial sites always was some sort of bonus for us. Our real targets always were the inner cities."-Harris

Quote

In March 1942 Churchill's War Cabinet adopted the 'Lindemann plan', whereby civilian targeting became official. Working-class homes were preferred to upper-class because they were closer together, and so a greater flesh-incineration-per-bomb could be achieved. The Jewish German émigré Professor Frederick Lindemann, Churchill's friend and scientific advisor had by then become Lord Cherwell. He submitted a plan to the War Cabinet on March 30th urging that German working-class houses be targeted in preference to military objectives, the latter being harder to hit. Middle-class homes had too much space around them, he explained. He was not prosecuted for a ghastly new war-crime, hitherto undreamt-of. Thereby all cities and town over 50,000 inhabitants could be destroyed, or at least brought to ruin. The War Cabinet realised that no inkling of this must reach the public.

IMO it's not hard to make the leap the allies deliberately targeted civilians.

Quote from: 11B4V on March 29, 2016, 08:05:27 PM
IMO it's not hard to make the leap the allies deliberately targeted civilians.

Of course they did. You don't fire bomb Tokyo to keep it from being an effective troop transport hub.

I repeat: during WWII everybody was out of their fucking minds. But you don't have to be a genius to look around at our response to terrorism to see how likely it is everybody lose their minds again.

Quote from: Valmy on March 29, 2016, 08:12:00 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on March 29, 2016, 08:05:27 PM
IMO it's not hard to make the leap the allies deliberately targeted civilians.

Of course they did. You don't fire bomb Tokyo to keep it from being an effective troop transport hub.

I repeat: during WWII everybody was out of their fucking minds. But you don't have to be a genius to look around at our response to terrorism to see how likely it is everybody lose their minds again.

But we were the good guys.

Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2016, 04:45:02 PM

Quote from: Zanza on March 29, 2016, 04:09:22 PM
I am not Google.  It is trivial to discover what the targets were and that it was also civilians.  If there is an argument to be made in order to advance a discussion it should be made.  Mere factual questions should be Googled.

You argued that the answer to my question "what evidence do we have that the Allies 'killed civilians for the sake of it'" was on Google, and I pointed out that it was not.  Your response now is that it is on Google.  That's the most feeble weasel i have seen in quite some time.  Do you have evidence, or do you not?  That's not something that google can answer.  If there is an argument to be made in order to advance a discussion it should be made.  Mere factual questions should be Googled.

Is your argument now that a particular phrase you picked does not find results? Your inability to use Google is funny, but not something worthy of further consideration.

Quote from: 11B4V on March 29, 2016, 08:18:17 PM

Quote from: Valmy on March 29, 2016, 08:12:00 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on March 29, 2016, 08:05:27 PM
IMO it's not hard to make the leap the allies deliberately targeted civilians.

Of course they did. You don't fire bomb Tokyo to keep it from being an effective troop transport hub.

I repeat: during WWII everybody was out of their fucking minds. But you don't have to be a genius to look around at our response to terrorism to see how likely it is everybody lose their minds again.

But we were the good guys.

Actually, that sums up the argument well. It was okay because the good guys did it.

Quote from: Zanza on March 30, 2016, 02:29:27 AM

Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2016, 04:45:02 PM
You argued that the answer to my question "what evidence do we have that the Allies 'killed civilians for the sake of it'" was on Google, and I pointed out that it was not.  Your response now is that it is on Google.  That's the most feeble weasel i have seen in quite some time.  Do you have evidence, or do you not?  That's not something that google can answer.  If there is an argument to be made in order to advance a discussion it should be made.  Mere factual questions should be Googled.

Is your argument now that a particular phrase you picked does not find results? Your inability to use Google is funny, but not something worthy of further consideration.

My comment was an observation that your claim, that the answer to my earlier question was readily available on Google, was false.  If you cannot provide such evidence, then i will assume that you cannot, and that all of this weaseling about Google is just that:  a weasel to avoid admitting that you cannot provide evidence that the Allies were "killing civilians for the sake of it."

Given that you cannot provide the requested evidence, I believe our discussion is concluded.

Well, I can easily find it on Google (and others as well as demonstrated in this thread) so I can only assume you are unable to use Google correctly. Given that I can't teach you how to use it, I agree that we are at the end here.

I'm just curious, how in the world is Churchill's quote about terror bombing under other pretexts not a relevant one?  You would think that he would be the one is the know the most about real objectives of the bombing campaigns.  Did I miss some post here, in between refreshing sarcasm, that explained away that Churchill's quote?

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 06:28:38 AM
I'm just curious, how in the world is Churchill's quote about terror bombing under other pretexts not a relevant one?  You would think that he would be the one is the know the most about real objectives of the bombing campaigns.  Did I miss some post here, in between refreshing sarcasm, that explained away that Churchill's quote?

Thank you for at least addressing the question under discussion.  That's refreshing after all of the weaseling to avoid acknowledging a lack of evidence and the question-begging.

Bombing Germany in such a way as to lower German morale (which is what he refers to frequently as "increasing the terror") is not at all the same thing as killing civilians for the sake of killing them.  One could imagine acts of "terror" that harm no one (blowing up an empty Army recruiting station, for instance).

The quote referred to before, by the way, was from a draft memo.  The final memo read as follows:

QuoteIt seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so called "area bombing" of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our Allies: and we shall be unable to get housing materials out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. We must see to it that our attacks do not do more harm to ourselves in the long run than they do to the enemy's immediate war effort. Pray let me have your views.

You can see here that Churchill is referring to the destruction of German housing, not the deaths of civilians. 

The belief that Churchill using the word "terror" is evidence that the Allies killed civilians for the sake of it is, lacking some link to actual decisions to preferentially kill people than damage things, just a belief.  I prefer to base my historical conclusions on the historical evidence. And the evidence says that the Allies were aiming at material damage, not killing civilians for the sake of it.

Then I'll have to go back to The Brain's argument.  Saying that by bombing houses you're destroying the housing stock is like saying that Colonel Dyer was just dispersing a meeting.

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 09:39:08 AM
Then I'll have to go back to The Brain's argument.  Saying that by bombing houses you're destroying the housing stock is like saying that Colonel Dyer was just dispersing a meeting.

We weren't killing people, we were ruining their clothing to destroy their morale. If people happen to be inside those clothes, that was just collateral damage.  :D

Quote from: Norgy on March 30, 2016, 03:03:11 AM

Actually, that sums up the argument well. It was okay because the good guys did it.

The "okay"-ness of it is pretty controversial actually.

My issue is not so much whether or not people were "good guys" or "bad guys" but rather if we can learn from the experience. The fact that people either rationalize what happened or just say "well Churchill and company were just BAD PEOPLE and we are GOOD PEOPLE" does not make me very optimistic that people understand or care why what happened occurred.

Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2016, 09:45:05 AM

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 09:39:08 AM
Then I'll have to go back to The Brain's argument.  Saying that by bombing houses you're destroying the housing stock is like saying that Colonel Dyer was just dispersing a meeting.

We weren't killing people, we were ruining their clothing to destroy their morale. If people happen to be inside those clothes, that was just collateral damage.  :D

You joke but would you do differently if you felt Canada was in existential danger from an aggressive militaristic nation? And even once the Axis seemed to be beaten we were looking at sacrificing tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of our people to ensure peace. Would you be willing to sacrifice your son to bring about peace in order to keep enemy civilians alive?

Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2016, 09:45:05 AM

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 09:39:08 AM
Then I'll have to go back to The Brain's argument.  Saying that by bombing houses you're destroying the housing stock is like saying that Colonel Dyer was just dispersing a meeting.

We weren't killing people, we were ruining their clothing to destroy their morale. If people happen to be inside those clothes, that was just collateral damage.  :D

:XD:

Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2016, 09:50:35 AM

Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2016, 09:45:05 AM

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 09:39:08 AM
Then I'll have to go back to The Brain's argument.  Saying that by bombing houses you're destroying the housing stock is like saying that Colonel Dyer was just dispersing a meeting.

We weren't killing people, we were ruining their clothing to destroy their morale. If people happen to be inside those clothes, that was just collateral damage.  :D

You joke but would you do differently if you felt Canada was in existential danger from an aggressive militaristic nation? And even once the Axis seemed to be beaten we were looking at sacrificing tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of our people to ensure peace. Would you be willing to sacrifice your son to bring about peace in order to keep enemy civilians alive?

Hey, I'm not raising a debate about the morality of measures taken during a total war imposed by ruthless aggressors. Just making a quip about the post facto justification of its techniques.  ;)

Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2016, 09:50:35 AM

Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2016, 09:45:05 AM

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 09:39:08 AM
Then I'll have to go back to The Brain's argument.  Saying that by bombing houses you're destroying the housing stock is like saying that Colonel Dyer was just dispersing a meeting.

We weren't killing people, we were ruining their clothing to destroy their morale. If people happen to be inside those clothes, that was just collateral damage.  :D

You joke but would you do differently if you felt Canada was in existential danger from an aggressive militaristic nation? And even once the Axis seemed to be beaten we were looking at sacrificing tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of our people to ensure peace. Would you be willing to sacrifice your son to bring about peace in order to keep enemy civilians alive?

I would not sacrifice my children for much of anything.

I would be perfectly happy to sacrifice liberty, freedom, others, torture, etc., etc., to save my children.

Which is why it is a really, really dumb question. The metric of "What would a parent do to ensure the safety of their own children" is a pretty terrible metric when it comes to deciding what societies should and should not do...

Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2016, 07:45:53 AM

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 06:28:38 AM
I'm just curious, how in the world is Churchill's quote about terror bombing under other pretexts not a relevant one?  You would think that he would be the one is the know the most about real objectives of the bombing campaigns.  Did I miss some post here, in between refreshing sarcasm, that explained away that Churchill's quote?

Thank you for at least addressing the question under discussion.  That's refreshing after all of the weaseling to avoid acknowledging a lack of evidence and the question-begging.

Bombing Germany in such a way as to lower German morale (which is what he refers to frequently as "increasing the terror") is not at all the same thing as killing civilians for the sake of killing them.  One could imagine acts of "terror" that harm no one (blowing up an empty Army recruiting station, for instance).

The quote referred to before, by the way, was from a draft memo.  The final memo read as follows:

QuoteIt seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so called "area bombing" of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our Allies: and we shall be unable to get housing materials out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. We must see to it that our attacks do not do more harm to ourselves in the long run than they do to the enemy's immediate war effort. Pray let me have your views.

You can see here that Churchill is referring to the destruction of German housing, not the deaths of civilians. 

The belief that Churchill using the word "terror" is evidence that the Allies killed civilians for the sake of it is, lacking some link to actual decisions to preferentially kill people than damage things, just a belief.  I prefer to base my historical conclusions on the historical evidence. And the evidence says that the Allies were aiming at material damage, not killing civilians for the sake of it.

A better summary can be found here:

http://historum.com/war-military-history/100659-war-civilians-3.html (http://historum.com/war-military-history/100659-war-civilians-3.html)

Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2016, 10:01:27 AM
Which is why it is a really, really dumb question. The metric of "What would a parent do to ensure the safety of their own children" is a pretty terrible metric when it comes to deciding what societies should and should not do...

I totally get what you are saying Berkut and I completely agree. But I am not talking about what societies should and shouldn't do at all. I am saying that was the situation the Allied nations were facing. It was not theoretical but very concrete.

I think the quote from the draft memo is rather telling:

QuoteIt seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed.

I am not sure how you can spin that to mean much other than Churchill questioning whether the current policy of bombing for the sake of increasing terror should be reviewed.

It seems like a pretty hard stretch to look at quotes like that, look at what was actually done, and come to some conclusion other than that the Allies were in fact engaged in an effort to kill large numbers of civilians as at least one of several primary goals of area bombing.

Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2016, 10:08:18 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2016, 10:01:27 AM
Which is why it is a really, really dumb question. The metric of "What would a parent do to ensure the safety of their own children" is a pretty terrible metric when it comes to deciding what societies should and should not do...

I totally get what you are saying Berkut and I completely agree. But I am not talking about what societies should and shouldn't do at all. I am saying that was the situation the Allied nations were facing. It was not theoretical but very concrete.

Of course - but again, putting the question in the context of what would a parent do to protect their child basically removes any and all restrictions on actions.

The question is "what would/should the Allies, as a society, contemplate when it comes to fighting the Axis". And even at that, the answer is different for the different Allies - the Soviets were facing a very different kind of threat than the Brits, who were facing a very different threat than the Americans. And we saw that in the savagery of the response.

Hell, even the Americans had radically different environments between the war against Germany and the war against Japan, and with radically different standards for how we fought them in detail. We routinely did things fighting the Japanese that would be considered over the line in Western Europe. But that is, admittedly, simply a difference in scale and degree.

In all cases, both sides were fighting a savage total war. I hope we never have to do so again. However, I would not be surprised that if we saw US troops engaged in significant ground combat against ISIS, you would see a level of brutality come back into play we probably don't much care to contemplate.

The primary fighting vehicle of ISIS is the Toyota Tundra. I really doubt that a fight against ISIS is going to be Verdun 2.0.

Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2016, 10:16:41 AM
Of course - but again, putting the question in the context of what would a parent do to protect their child basically removes any and all restrictions on actions.

Naturally. But that is the rub isn't it? When everybody in the society is putting everything on the line what wouldn't they do?

QuoteThe question is "what would/should the Allies, as a society, contemplate when it comes to fighting the Axis". And even at that, the answer is different for the different Allies - the Soviets were facing a very different kind of threat than the Brits, who were facing a very different threat than the Americans. And we saw that in the savagery of the response.

Hell, even the Americans had radically different environments between the war against Germany and the war against Japan, and with radically different standards for how we fought them in detail. We routinely did things fighting the Japanese that would be considered over the line in Western Europe. But that is, admittedly, simply a difference in scale and degree.

In all cases, both sides were fighting a savage total war. I hope we never have to do so again. However, I would not be surprised that if we saw US troops engaged in significant ground combat against ISIS, you would see a level of brutality come back into play we probably don't much care to contemplate.

Yep.

Quote from: alfred russel on March 30, 2016, 10:18:49 AM
The primary fighting vehicle of ISIS is the Toyota Tundra. I really doubt that a fight against ISIS is going to be Verdun 2.0.

The Hilux is their primary vehicle, but they do use any and all Toyota 4x4 it seems.

Quote from: alfred russel on March 30, 2016, 10:18:49 AM
The primary fighting vehicle of ISIS is the Toyota Tundra. I really doubt that a fight against ISIS is going to be Verdun 2.0.

I am pretty sure nothing I said suggested it would have any resemblance to Verdun.

Quote from: alfred russel on March 30, 2016, 10:18:49 AM
The primary fighting vehicle of ISIS is the Toyota Tundra. I really doubt that a fight against ISIS is going to be Verdun 2.0.

What does that have to do with the brutality of possible fighting?

Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2016, 09:59:55 AM
Hey, I'm not raising a debate about the morality of measures taken during a total war imposed by ruthless aggressors. Just making a quip about the post facto justification of its techniques.  ;)

Same here.  I've said at the beginning of the thread that if we're ever in total war again, we will again do "immoral things".  When it comes down to it, survival is the highest priority.  That's also why I really dislike it when people say "everyone was crazy during WWII", as if that conduct was irrational.

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 10:36:09 AM

Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2016, 09:59:55 AM
Hey, I'm not raising a debate about the morality of measures taken during a total war imposed by ruthless aggressors. Just making a quip about the post facto justification of its techniques.  ;)

Same here.  I've said at the beginning of the thread that if we're ever in total war again, we will again do "immoral things".  When it comes down to it, survival is the highest priority.  That's also why I really dislike it when people say "everyone was crazy during WWII", as if that conduct was irrational.

Do people say that often? My apologies for being one of those 'people' you dislike. I suck.

But it sounds like we agree completely. I am just trying to get people to understand the dynamics involved when I say things like that.

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 10:36:09 AM

Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2016, 09:59:55 AM
Hey, I'm not raising a debate about the morality of measures taken during a total war imposed by ruthless aggressors. Just making a quip about the post facto justification of its techniques.  ;)

Same here.  I've said at the beginning of the thread that if we're ever in total war again, we will again do "immoral things".  When it comes down to it, survival is the highest priority.  That's also why I really dislike it when people say "everyone was crazy during WWII", as if that conduct was irrational.

Indeed - I think you can even be more generally nuanced though.

The imposition of violence is in itself inherently "immoral". We tolerate varying level of increasingly outside the norms of morality in response to threats to those norms.

If I walked up to you and threw you to the ground, breaking your face, and put you in cuffs, that would be considered a pretty terrible thing for me to do. If I do that because I am a police officer, and you just shot someone, it would be perfectly ok.

Everything is just a scaling of that basic principle, right up to the most horrific things we do in a total war. That does NOT mean that anything goes - each step much be a reasonable (and ideally minimal) level of violence necessary to prevent further violence from an aggressor. This is a very difficult path to walk though.

Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2016, 10:40:40 AM
Everything is just a scaling of that basic principle, right up to the most horrific things we do in a total war. That does NOT mean that anything goes - each step much be a reasonable (and ideally minimal) level of violence necessary to prevent further violence from an aggressor. This is a very difficult path to walk though.

Indeed, as the last fifteen years have shown. You wonder what another 9/11 type attack could mean.

Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2016, 10:40:40 AM
Everything is just a scaling of that basic principle, right up to the most horrific things we do in a total war. That does NOT mean that anything goes - each step much be a reasonable (and ideally minimal) level of violence necessary to prevent further violence from an aggressor. This is a very difficult path to walk though.

Yes, at its most basic, tit-for-tat is the only concept that reliably works when the shit hits the fan, as dangerous to morality as it can potentially be.  An eye-for-an-eye sometimes ensures that the world keeps both eyes.

Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2016, 10:47:08 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2016, 10:40:40 AM
Everything is just a scaling of that basic principle, right up to the most horrific things we do in a total war. That does NOT mean that anything goes - each step much be a reasonable (and ideally minimal) level of violence necessary to prevent further violence from an aggressor. This is a very difficult path to walk though.

Indeed, as the last fifteen years have shown. You wonder what another 9/11 type attack could mean.

I have no doubt that we are going to find out eventually.

Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2016, 09:45:05 AM
We weren't killing people, we were ruining their clothing to destroy their morale. If people happen to be inside those clothes, that was just collateral damage.  :D

Some people understand the concept of collateral damage, and some think it a mockery.  Either position is tenable, but neither is an argument in and of itself.

A thought experiment will clarify the issue for you:  a bomb is falling out of a british bomber, and Winston Churchill is given, miraculously, the power to direct that bomb to one of two positions, at his discretion.  Position one will destroy an apartment building but kill no one.  The second will kill one little old lady on a bicycle but harm no other person nor any building.

Which position does Churchill direct the bomb to?  If you believe that he was trying to "kill civilians for the sake of it," then you believe that he will target the woman, not the building.  If you believe that he would target the building, then you acknowledge that he is not (in that case) targeting civilians.

Quote from: Habbaku on March 30, 2016, 10:35:39 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on March 30, 2016, 10:18:49 AM
The primary fighting vehicle of ISIS is the Toyota Tundra. I really doubt that a fight against ISIS is going to be Verdun 2.0.

What does that have to do with the brutality of possible fighting?

Everything.

I mean, in GW1 we bulldozed trenches to bury the guys alive, and killed a large part of the army as it retreated in the last days of the war. From their point of view it was really brutal. But that brutality didn't incline us to nuke Baghdad because we weren't on the receiving end of it.

ISIS doesn't have the means to push us into fighting a total war against them.

Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2016, 11:35:20 AM
A thought experiment will clarify the issue for you:  a bomb is falling out of a british bomber, and Winston Churchill is given, miraculously, the power to direct that bomb to one of two positions, at his discretion.  Position one will destroy an apartment building but kill no one.  The second will kill one little old lady on a bicycle but harm no other person nor any building.

Which position does Churchill direct the bomb to?  If you believe that he was trying to "kill civilians for the sake of it," then you believe that he will target the woman, not the building.  If you believe that he would target the building, then you acknowledge that he is not (in that case) targeting civilians.

The problem with this thought experiment is that when you get down to it, the only people that ever kill civilians for the sake of it are those engaging in genocide, or serial killers.  In every other situation, you can make an argument that death of civilians is just a cost incurred along the way to achieving an objective.  Even terrorists are not be killing people for the sake of it, that's just the means to an end.

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 12:02:45 PM

The problem with this thought experiment is that when you get down to it, the only people that ever kill civilians for the sake of it are those engaging in genocide, or serial killers.  In every other situation, you can make an argument that death of civilians is just a cost incurred along the way to achieving an objective.  Even terrorists are not be killing people for the sake of it, that's just the means to an end.

That seems like a poor analogy. Terrorists killing civilians may be a means to an end, but it is the means.

The theoretical distinction grumbler poses is that the means to the end of defeating nazi germany was destroying the industrial infrastructure, including apartment buildings for armament workers and I presume the apartment workers themselves. The old lady was collateral damage, and not a part of the means to the end.

Quote from: mongers on March 30, 2016, 10:05:07 AM
A better summary can be found here:

http://historum.com/war-military-history/100659-war-civilians-3.html (http://historum.com/war-military-history/100659-war-civilians-3.html)

:huh: Uh, that's an online forum.  It is as authoritative as anything written here.

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 12:02:45 PM
The problem with this thought experiment is that when you get down to it, the only people that ever kill civilians for the sake of it are those engaging in genocide, or serial killers.  In every other situation, you can make an argument that death of civilians is just a cost incurred along the way to achieving an objective.  Even terrorists are not be killing people for the sake of it, that's just the means to an end.

Ding Ding Ding!  You win the prize.  This is the position I have been arguing all along; that it is absurd to argue that the Allies were killing civilians for the sake of it unless you have some pretty extraordinary evidence to support that assertion.

:lol:

Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2016, 11:35:20 AM

Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2016, 09:45:05 AM
We weren't killing people, we were ruining their clothing to destroy their morale. If people happen to be inside those clothes, that was just collateral damage.  :D

Some people understand the concept of collateral damage, and some think it a mockery.  Either position is tenable, but neither is an argument in and of itself.

A thought experiment will clarify the issue for you:  a bomb is falling out of a british bomber, and Winston Churchill is given, miraculously, the power to direct that bomb to one of two positions, at his discretion.  Position one will destroy an apartment building but kill no one.  The second will kill one little old lady on a bicycle but harm no other person nor any building.

Which position does Churchill direct the bomb to?  If you believe that he was trying to "kill civilians for the sake of it," then you believe that he will target the woman, not the building.  If you believe that he would target the building, then you acknowledge that he is not (in that case) targeting civilians.

Your thought experiment addresses the question of which target was higher status to Churchill.

It does not address the question of whether Churchill thought killing enemy civilians was overall a good thing, and added bonus of the bombing campaign - or a regrettable necessity for reaching other, vital war targets.

It creates, in short, a false dilemma. Your hypothetical Churchill could well say 'if given only those two choices I'd prefer the building - but best of all is getting the building and the woman, too: that's more likely to break civilian morale and shorten the war'.

I don't think anyone seriously argues that the *only* reason for the bombing campaign was to kill people, only that it was one of a list of benefits the allies hoped to derive from the bombing campaign, ranking higher in some circumstances, lower in others. In short, the killing of civilians was not "collateral", but additive: not a regrettable necessity for attacking other targets, but a target as well (albeit, of course, not the only target).

Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2016, 11:35:20 AM

Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2016, 09:45:05 AM
We weren't killing people, we were ruining their clothing to destroy their morale. If people happen to be inside those clothes, that was just collateral damage.  :D

Some people understand the concept of collateral damage, and some think it a mockery.  Either position is tenable, but neither is an argument in and of itself.

A thought experiment will clarify the issue for you:  a bomb is falling out of a british bomber, and Winston Churchill is given, miraculously, the power to direct that bomb to one of two positions, at his discretion.  Position one will destroy an apartment building but kill no one.  The second will kill one little old lady on a bicycle but harm no other person nor any building.

Which position does Churchill direct the bomb to?  If you believe that he was trying to "kill civilians for the sake of it," then you believe that he will target the woman, not the building.  If you believe that he would target the building, then you acknowledge that he is not (in that case) targeting civilians.

I think the better though experiment is whether he would drop the bomb on some random civilian (where the civilian was the only damage done) and letting it drop in the ocean.

Your hypothetical just ranks two relative values, it doesn't determine whether one of them has zero intrinsic value.

Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2016, 09:49:51 AM

Quote from: Norgy on March 30, 2016, 03:03:11 AM

Actually, that sums up the argument well. It was okay because the good guys did it.

The "okay"-ness of it is pretty controversial actually.

My issue is not so much whether or not people were "good guys" or "bad guys" but rather if we can learn from the experience. The fact that people either rationalize what happened or just say "well Churchill and company were just BAD PEOPLE and we are GOOD PEOPLE" does not make me very optimistic that people understand or care why what happened occurred.

I agree with you fully.
Now, Churchill was like Bismarck someone who understood realpolitik. He was also a leader of a country that basically had little else to offer than bombing the shit out of Germany. He was often stopped by the Norwegian government in exile wanting to send commandos out for raids. You could say the Norwegian cabinet was cowardly in some sense, not wanting to anger the occupier unnecessarily, because there would be reprisals. After one raid in 1941, the Germans killed 150 civilians. While it may not seem like much, in a country counting just 3 million plus souls, it was.

I wasn't born with the moral absolutist gene that some here have.

Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2016, 12:32:55 PM

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 12:02:45 PM
The problem with this thought experiment is that when you get down to it, the only people that ever kill civilians for the sake of it are those engaging in genocide, or serial killers.  In every other situation, you can make an argument that death of civilians is just a cost incurred along the way to achieving an objective.  Even terrorists are not be killing people for the sake of it, that's just the means to an end.

Ding Ding Ding!  You win the prize.  This is the position I have been arguing all along; that it is absurd to argue that the Allies were killing civilians for the sake of it unless you have some pretty extraordinary evidence to support that assertion.

So your position is to define away the question without ever addressing the substance of it?

Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2016, 11:35:20 AM
If you believe that he was trying to "kill civilians for the sake of it," then you believe that he will target the woman, not the building.  If you believe that he would target the building, then you acknowledge that he is not (in that case) targeting civilians.

Grumbler:

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/04/a2/98/04a298cdbb45ec82a89bca90fb98bda5.jpg)

Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2016, 12:36:19 PM
Your thought experiment addresses the question of which target was higher status to Churchill.

It addresses the question of what the bomb is targeting, yes.

QuoteIt does not address the question of whether Churchill thought killing enemy civilians was overall a good thing, and added bonus of the bombing campaign - or a regrettable necessity for reaching other, vital war targets.

It creates, in short, a false dilemma. Your hypothetical Churchill could well say 'if given only those two choices I'd prefer the building - but best of all is getting the building and the woman, too: that's more likely to break civilian morale and shorten the war'.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'd argue that, before you conclude that Churchill would rather see civilians die than live, you really should look to see if there is any evidence that supports that view.

Churchill talked about burning out German cities and creating as many refugees as possible to burden the German social net and complain to their soldiers sons/brothers/fathers/husbands.  He never, insofar as I am aware, mentioned that he preferred that the civilians be dead.

QuoteI don't think anyone seriously argues that the *only* reason for the bombing campaign was to kill people, only that it was one of a list of benefits the allies hoped to derive from the bombing campaign, ranking higher in some circumstances, lower in others. In short, the killing of civilians was not "collateral", but additive: not a regrettable necessity for attacking other targets, but a target as well (albeit, of course, not the only target). 

And, again, I'd have to see evidence before I believed that Churchill and his cabinet were lying about the objectives of the bombing campaign they ordered.  the public record with which I am familiar has them (including Lindemann) arguing for "dehousing" as the means to break German morale; refugees, not corpses, were the goal.  Again, uyou may have evidence to refute this argument, but you have not presented it.

Will you at least concede my initial point that that the Allies were not "killing civilians for the sake of it?"

Quote from: Tyr on March 30, 2016, 01:23:48 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2016, 11:35:20 AM
If you believe that he was trying to "kill civilians for the sake of it," then you believe that he will target the woman, not the building.  If you believe that he would target the building, then you acknowledge that he is not (in that case) targeting civilians.

Grumbler:

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/04/a2/98/04a298cdbb45ec82a89bca90fb98bda5.jpg)

You never tire of the ad hom, do you!  :lol:

At least you are willing to tacitly concede defeat by abandoning any pretense to adult intellectual discourse and relying on infantile personal attacks.  My job here is done.

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 01:11:02 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2016, 12:32:55 PM
Ding Ding Ding!  You win the prize.  This is the position I have been arguing all along; that it is absurd to argue that the Allies were killing civilians for the sake of it unless you have some pretty extraordinary evidence to support that assertion.

So your position is to define away the question without ever addressing the substance of it?

My position is to object to a classification for the Allied attacks on German and Japanese cities that i thought was absurd hyperbole.  You have acknowledged my position to be correct; in fact, you joined me in considering the idea absurd by noting that " the only people that ever kill civilians for the sake of it are those engaging in genocide, or serial killers."

I didn't define the question of whether it was inaccurate to argue that the Allies "killed civilians for the sake of it" away at all; I raised it and answered it, and you agreed with me.  The end.

Now, if you have another issue you want to debate, then I'd be willing to debate that.  But, you will have to make an argument, else there is nothing to debate.

Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2016, 12:36:19 PM
I don't think anyone seriously argues that the *only* reason for the bombing campaign was to kill people

Well this all started when Jos said that the Allies killed people just for the sake of it but then he also called it terrorism and also said it was done in a belief that it would lower morale and hasten the end of the war. So perhaps just a confused post.

DG, why do you debate with grumbler? He is challenged.

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 01:11:02 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2016, 12:32:55 PM

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 12:02:45 PM
The problem with this thought experiment is that when you get down to it, the only people that ever kill civilians for the sake of it are those engaging in genocide, or serial killers.  In every other situation, you can make an argument that death of civilians is just a cost incurred along the way to achieving an objective.  Even terrorists are not be killing people for the sake of it, that's just the means to an end.

Ding Ding Ding!  You win the prize.  This is the position I have been arguing all along; that it is absurd to argue that the Allies were killing civilians for the sake of it unless you have some pretty extraordinary evidence to support that assertion.

So your position is to define away the question without ever addressing the substance of it?

Does he know how ridiculous he is?  I mean, I know how ridiculous I am, and I point it out occasionally.  He does not. 

Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2016, 12:45:47 PM
I think the better though experiment is whether he would drop the bomb on some random civilian (where the civilian was the only damage done) and letting it drop in the ocean.

Your hypothetical just ranks two relative values, it doesn't determine whether one of them has zero intrinsic value.

if we are talking targeting, when is the empty ocean the target? 

Now, if you changed the hypothetical to ask "if  Churchill could send a 50-plane raid that he knew would kill exactly 50 German grandmothers and inflict no other damage (let's say they are on a beach on an otherwise empty island in the North Sea) or cancel the raid, which would he do?" I think that he would scrub the mission.  Do you agree?

Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2016, 02:42:04 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2016, 12:45:47 PM
I think the better though experiment is whether he would drop the bomb on some random civilian (where the civilian was the only damage done) and letting it drop in the ocean.

Your hypothetical just ranks two relative values, it doesn't determine whether one of them has zero intrinsic value.

if we are talking targeting, when is the empty ocean the target? 

Now, if you changed the hypothetical to ask "if  Churchill could send a 50-plane raid that he knew would kill exactly 50 German grandmothers and inflict no other damage (let's say they are on a beach on an otherwise empty island in the North Sea) or cancel the raid, which would he do?" I think that he would scrub the mission.  Do you agree?

Cancelling the raid would save on fuel and the bombs, so that misses the point of Berkut's point.  Then you would have to weigh the cost of fuel and bombs for 50 bombers against the benefit of offing 50 grannies.  What Berkut wants to arrive at is whether the benefit of dead grannies is positive or negative, in Churchill's mind, and keep all other variables exactly the same.

Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2016, 02:42:04 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2016, 12:45:47 PM
I think the better though experiment is whether he would drop the bomb on some random civilian (where the civilian was the only damage done) and letting it drop in the ocean.

Your hypothetical just ranks two relative values, it doesn't determine whether one of them has zero intrinsic value.

if we are talking targeting, when is the empty ocean the target? 

When the option is between the empty ocean and the little old ladies, of course.

It is a magical hypothetical, we can set the terms however we like.

Does Churchill choose zero damage over killing the little old ladies? Which is more valuable to him?

Quote

Now, if you changed the hypothetical to ask "if  Churchill could send a 50-plane raid that he knew would kill exactly 50 German grandmothers and inflict no other damage (let's say they are on a beach on an otherwise empty island in the North Sea) or cancel the raid, which would he do?" I think that he would scrub the mission.  Do you agree?

Nah, that gets us back to relative costs - are 50 little old ladies worth the cost of the raid.

My hypothetical assumes the cost of the raid is sunk already - it has been launched and paid for. You can't bring the bombs back, much too dangerous.

Do we drop them on nothing, or go ahead and take out some civilians?

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 02:44:26 PM
Cancelling the raid would save on fuel and the bombs, so that misses the point of Berkut's point.  Then you would have to weigh the cost of fuel and bombs for 50 bombers against the benefit of offing 50 grannies.  What Berkut wants to arrive at is whether the benefit of dead grannies is positive or negative, in Churchill's mind, and keep all other variables exactly the same.

We are talking whether or not the Allies were targeting civilians (i.e. launching raids to kill civilians), so I think my scenario is the more realistic one for examining the case we are actually considering.  I don't think Churchill would expend effort to solely kill grannies (i.e. I don't believe that he considered the deaths of German civilians per se to be desirable), and so I don't think that he would accept, say, a Mafia offer to assassinate, for free, 50 German grandmothers in order to increase German death tolls.

Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2016, 03:18:20 PM
Nah, that gets us back to relative costs - are 50 little old ladies worth the cost of the raid.

Which is the situation Churchill faced in the war, according to you.  The Allies conducted about 1.4 million bomber sorties over Germany to kill some 300,000-500,000 civilians.  If killing the civilians was the object (i.e. they were the targets), that's a remarkably small return.

Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2016, 03:48:40 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2016, 03:18:20 PM
Nah, that gets us back to relative costs - are 50 little old ladies worth the cost of the raid.

Which is the situation Churchill faced in the war, according to you.  The Allies conducted about 1.4 million bomber sorties over Germany to kill some 300,000-500,000 civilians.  If killing the civilians was the object (i.e. they were the targets), that's a remarkably small return.

Not really - since my position doesn't claim that civilians were the only targets, just one of many.

I would turn that around and note that killing half a million civilians when they are NOT your target seems like a pretty hard to swallow figure.

I think civilians were the targets, but they were one of several different priorities.

Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2016, 04:18:33 PM
Not really - since my position doesn't claim that civilians were the only targets, just one of many.

What were the targets, then, according to your sources, and how many sorties (or what percentage of the sorties) do your sources estimate were made against each target type?

What percentage of bombs dropped were anti-personnel (fragmentary) bombs?

QuoteI would turn that around and note that killing half a million civilians when they are NOT your target seems like a pretty hard to swallow figure.

Yes. That is the entire basis of the "acceptable collateral damage" debate.  I don't share your view, but it is a reasonable one.

I wonder where discovery of firestorms fit in this picture? 

Yes. Bathe in their blood.

Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2016, 05:02:00 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2016, 04:18:33 PM
Not really - since my position doesn't claim that civilians were the only targets, just one of many.

What were the targets, then, according to your sources, and how many sorties (or what percentage of the sorties) do your sources estimate were made against each target type?

Come on grumbler, you know I am not going to go trot out sources that list out every single target type. You can read Overy just as well as I can. This is a Langush discussion, not an academic paper.

I will throw out a bone though - this is from Overy's "The Bombing War: Europe 1939-1945", page 617:

QuoteThe RAF, by contrast, soon abandoned conventional economic warfare in favour of deliberately attacking the German civilian workforce and their urban environment. This was done not simply because night-time bombing was so inaccurate - and continued to be throughout the war - but because the bombing of a city or urban quarter was deemed to be an effective economic target. Killing workers, destroying their houses and amenities, and reducing their willingness to work were designed in the long run to reduce German war production in many rather than a few factories. In a people's war, 'the people themselves', as Sir Richard Pierse put it, became a legitimate objective. This meant particular people, those living and working in industrial cities, where the population was attacked indiscriminately.

Excuse any typos, they are mine since I typed this out from the text.

Quote

What percentage of bombs dropped were anti-personnel (fragmentary) bombs?

I have no idea, nor is it pertinent to the discussion.

I do know, however, that the US dropped thousands of tons of incendiary bombs on population centers in Japan. That strikes me as pretty anti-personnel to me.

I guess at the end of the day I don't really care much how you go about justifying it - sending 1000 B-29s over Tokyo at night at low level armed with incendiary bombs targeting population centers is terror bombing of civilians with the intent of killing as many of them as possible. You can call it what *you* like, "de-housing" or some other euphemism, but that strikes me as kind of obscene.

Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2016, 08:21:02 PM
Come on grumbler, you know I am not going to go trot out sources that list out every single target type. You can read Overy just as well as I can. This is a Langush discussion, not an academic paper.

I will throw out a bone though - this is from Overy's "The Bombing War: Europe 1939-1945", page 617:

QuoteThe RAF, by contrast, soon abandoned conventional economic warfare in favour of deliberately attacking the German civilian workforce and their urban environment. This was done not simply because night-time bombing was so inaccurate - and continued to be throughout the war - but because the bombing of a city or urban quarter was deemed to be an effective economic target. Killing workers, destroying their houses and amenities, and reducing their willingness to work were designed in the long run to reduce German war production in many rather than a few factories. In a people's war, 'the people themselves', as Sir Richard Pierse put it, became a legitimate objective. This meant particular people, those living and working in industrial cities, where the population was attacked indiscriminately.

Excuse any typos, they are mine since I typed this out from the text.

I would say that Overy is saying what I am saying:  that the British were bombing the "urban environment," not targeting civilians qua civilians.  Sure, some workers could get killed, but they weren't the targets (since they were in the bomb shelters, and the Allies dropped no penetrating bombs on the cities, which they would need to do to get at the civilian populace).  Maybe he describes somewhere else in the book how many civilians per moth/raid/sortie the British were aiming to kill?

Quote

QuoteWhat percentage of bombs dropped were anti-personnel (fragmentary) bombs?

I have no idea, nor is it pertinent to the discussion.

It is relevant to the discussion if we are debating whether or not civilians were the targets, since frag bombs are what you use to attack personnel.  A hint:  the percentage is near-zero if not actually zero.  The Allies dropped anti-materiel bombs (HE and incendiary).

QuoteI do know, however, that the US dropped thousands of tons of incendiary bombs on population centers in Japan. That strikes me as pretty anti-personnel to me.

Actually, incendiary bombs are anti-materiel weapons:  people are not particularly flammable.

QuoteI guess at the end of the day I don't really care much how you go about justifying it - sending 1000 B-29s over Tokyo at night at low level armed with incendiary bombs targeting population centers is terror bombing of civilians with the intent of killing as many of them as possible. You can call it what *you* like, "de-housing" or some other euphemism, but that strikes me as kind of obscene.

I am fine with you sticking to the popular narrative that the purpose of the Allied bombing campaigns was to kill people.  I am just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support that interpretation.  No bombing MOE used in Europe or the Pacific by the Allies included number of civilians killed.   MOEs were things like percentage of buildings destroyed, number of factories hit, estimated reductions in output, rail lines or bridges destroyed, and the like. Civilians were killed, but there is no evidence that the Allies regarded these deaths as a goal.

Even more interestingly, the USAAF dropped leaflets on Hiroshima and Nagasaki urging the people to leave because the cities were about to be destroyed.  How was that calculated to add to the body count?

But feel free to believe what you wish.

Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2016, 08:54:52 PM
It is relevant to the discussion if we are debating whether or not civilians were the targets, since frag bombs are what you use to attack personnel.  A hint:  the percentage is near-zero if not actually zero.  The Allies dropped anti-materiel bombs (HE and incendiary).

Would fragmentation bombs be effective at killing personnel inside masonry buildings?

Originally, I had typed a much longer post, but I decided not to post most of it, because this was the last line, and really is about all that needs to be said with regards to many of the bombing missions flown by the USAAF and even more by the RAF in WWII:  if area bombing of cities isn't targeting civilians, it's close enough in practical terms to make no difference.

I think on the note that we can be certain that civilians were not the target of massive fire raids because people are not very flammable, I am out of the discussion.

Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2016, 09:39:07 PM
I think on the note that we can be certain that civilians were not the target of massive fire raids because people are not very flammable, I am out of the discussion.

I started was laughing my as s off at that. But was too embarrassed at the time to post. Would;

"civilians were not the target of massive fire raids because people are not very flammable, "

qualify as a straw man?

Quote from: 11B4V on March 30, 2016, 09:44:50 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2016, 09:39:07 PM
I think on the note that we can be certain that civilians were not the target of massive fire raids because people are not very flammable, I am out of the discussion.

I started was laughing my as s off at that. But was too embarrassed at the time to post. Would;

"civilians were not the target of massive fire raids because people are not very flammable, "

qualify as a straw man?

Grumbler has no tears for those people because his heart is made of tin.

I think the problem is, it doesn't matter that civilians arent very flammable, its an irrelevant statement including it in the same sentence as incendiary bombs.

The accelerant (incendiaries) makes the whole claim, that civilians aren't very flammable, irrelevant.

Picture of damaged materiel:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg)

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 10:24:34 PM
Picture of damaged materiel:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg)

Yea, when you add an accelerant like napalm. :P

The naked girl later became a US citizen.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2016, 03:27:59 AM
The naked girl later became a US citizen.

Doesn't matter. You shouldn't be punished for future crimes.

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 09:01:46 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2016, 08:54:52 PM
It is relevant to the discussion if we are debating whether or not civilians were the targets, since frag bombs are what you use to attack personnel.  A hint:  the percentage is near-zero if not actually zero.  The Allies dropped anti-materiel bombs (HE and incendiary).

Would fragmentation bombs be effective at killing personnel inside masonry buildings?

The civilians would not be inside the buildings, they would be in bomb shelters or outside, fighting the fires, or whatever.

Quote from: dps on March 30, 2016, 09:06:09 PM
Originally, I had typed a much longer post, but I decided not to post most of it, because this was the last line, and really is about all that needs to be said with regards to many of the bombing missions flown by the USAAF and even more by the RAF in WWII:  if area bombing of cities isn't targeting civilians, it's close enough in practical terms to make no difference.

Again, this is the argument that the collateral damage was excessive to the primary damage, and so that strategic bombing was disproportionate use of force.  That is a perfectly  reasonable stance.

Quote from: 11B4V on March 30, 2016, 09:44:50 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2016, 09:39:07 PM
I think on the note that we can be certain that civilians were not the target of massive fire raids because people are not very flammable, I am out of the discussion.

I started was laughing my as s off at that. But was too embarrassed at the time to post. Would;

"civilians were not the target of massive fire raids because people are not very flammable, "

qualify as a straw man?

Straw people because they are targeted by incendiary bombs?  An interesting argument.  I suppose you would use incendiary bombs on a straw man.

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 10:24:34 PM
Picture of damaged materiel:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg)

Wrong war, and those are not material, nor were they hi by incendiary bombs.  But, 0 for 3 is a great score for a troll.  :lol:

Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2016, 03:48:40 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2016, 03:18:20 PM
Nah, that gets us back to relative costs - are 50 little old ladies worth the cost of the raid.

Which is the situation Churchill faced in the war, according to you.  The Allies conducted about 1.4 million bomber sorties over Germany to kill some 300,000-500,000 civilians.  If killing the civilians was the object (i.e. they were the targets), that's a remarkably small return.

I would also add that the RAF lost 80,000 men in the allied strategic air offensive as did the USAAF (79,265 and 79,281 - almost exactly the same). If they were consistently going for civilian casualties then they chose a remarkably costly way of going about it.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 31, 2016, 05:15:40 AM
I would also add that the RAF lost 80,000 men in the allied strategic air offensive as did the USAAF (79,265 and 79,281 - almost exactly the same). If they were consistently going for civilian casualties then they chose a remarkably costly way of going about it.

Those aren't the numbers I have seen, interestingly enough.  According to the official US figures, (http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/utils/getfile/collection/p4013coll8/id/128/filename/117.pdf (http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/utils/getfile/collection/p4013coll8/id/128/filename/117.pdf)) the USAAF lost 36,461 total in the entire Atlantic area.  That includes tactical air forces like the Ninth and twelfth Air Forces, and the other strategic air force (in the Med), the Fifteenth.

I don't know what would account for the discrepancy.  I think the RAF numbers are a bit higher than I have seen before (I recall something like 60,000 BC personnel KIA, but don't have a good source for that to hand).

In any case, however, you are correct:  the cost and effort would certainly seem disproportionate to the return.

@grumbler - the Imperial War Museum has an offshoot at Duxford which focuses on the air war. There is an American building with a commemorative wall showing downed planes and casualties. The figures I recall from that are also given in the wiki article on the subject which has the following reference for the table they give : http://www.wwiiarchives.net/servlet/action/document/page/113/7/0

The discrepancy probably has something to do with how the casualties were categorised.

Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2016, 05:04:54 AM

Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2016, 10:24:34 PM
Picture of damaged materiel:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg)

Wrong war, and those are not material, nor were they hi by incendiary bombs.  But, 0 for 3 is a great score for a troll.  :lol:

1)  People become more flammable since WWII?
2)  Yes, that was the point, the people in this picture who were targeted are not materiel, and were not inside any materiel or nearby any materiel.
3)  Napalm bombs are not incendiary bombs?

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 31, 2016, 07:19:36 AM
@grumbler - the Imperial War Museum has an offshoot at Duxford which focuses on the air war. There is an American building with a commemorative wall showing downed planes and casualties. The figures I recall from that are also given in the wiki article on the subject which has the following reference for the table they give : http://www.wwiiarchives.net/servlet/action/document/page/113/7/0

The discrepancy probably has something to do with how the casualties were categorised.

Yeah, "personnel lost in action" is kinda vague, but what is especially interesting is that source you cite has more US personnel lost in the bomber offensive than the official record has for US Air Corps deaths in action for all theaters over the entire war (52,173).  Maybe the number in your source includes POWs?  That would move the figures a lot closer.

Quote from: DGuller on March 31, 2016, 07:25:23 AM
1)  People become more flammable since WWII?
2)  Yes, that was the point, the people in this picture who were targeted are not materiel, and were not inside any materiel or nearby any materiel.
3)  Napalm bombs are not incendiary bombs?

1) I doubt it.  What would cause that?
2) Okay.
3) Though some of the incendiaries used in WW2 were called "napalm" (and they were, in fact, actual "napalm" - naptha and palm oil - unlike the substance used in Vietnam), the type of napalm used in Vietnam was not available in WW2.

Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2016, 08:32:53 AM
3) Though some of the incendiaries used in WW2 were called "napalm" (and they were, in fact, actual "napalm" - naptha and palm oil - unlike the substance used in Vietnam), the type of napalm used in Vietnam was not available in WW2.

Quotenor were they hi by incendiary bombs

What does availability during WWII have to do with whether something is an incendiary bomb or not?  :hmm:

Quote from: DGuller on March 31, 2016, 08:40:21 AM
What does availability during WWII have to do with whether something is an incendiary bomb or not?  :hmm:

Why do you even bring up Vietnam-era napalm in a discussion about WW2? :hmm:

Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2016, 09:43:24 AM

Quote from: DGuller on March 31, 2016, 08:40:21 AM
What does availability during WWII have to do with whether something is an incendiary bomb or not?  :hmm:

Why do you even bring up Vietnam-era napalm in a discussion about WW2? :hmm:

Because the question is whether incendiary bombs are anti-materiel or anti-personnel.  Of course, the answer is both, people are flammable enough for the purposes.

Quote from: DGuller on March 31, 2016, 09:56:23 AM
Because the question is whether incendiary bombs are anti-materiel or anti-personnel.  Of course, the answer is both, people are flammable enough for the purposes.

You are engaged in begging the question, but go ahead with that debate if you wish.  I already know the answer to that question, so will abstain from your debate; it wouldn't be fair for me to participate.

Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2016, 11:23:45 AM

Quote from: DGuller on March 31, 2016, 09:56:23 AM
Because the question is whether incendiary bombs are anti-materiel or anti-personnel.  Of course, the answer is both, people are flammable enough for the purposes.

You are engaged in begging the question, but go ahead with that debate if you wish.  I already know the answer to that question, so will abstain from your debate; it wouldn't be fair for me to participate.

I think you're the one engaged in the ludic fallacy.

Quote from: DGuller on March 31, 2016, 11:36:29 AM
I think you're the one engaged in the ludic fallacy.

:huh:  Do you understand what the ludic fallacy is?  I'm not referencing any statistical models at all.  I do have first-hand professional experience is modelling air strike targeting and weaponization, but that only really informs my knowledge about what weapons would be used on which targets, and thus conclusions about what is being targeted by a given bomb load.

I think if you have a good debate with whomever you are debating regarding which versions of napalm bombs are designed for various types of targets, you will learn a lot.  Unless, of course, as I warned, you beg the question before you even begin.

Good luck!

I was diagnosed with a "ludic phallus".  Yeah, the judge didn't buy that one either.

Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2016, 12:12:21 PM

Quote from: DGuller on March 31, 2016, 11:36:29 AM
I think you're the one engaged in the ludic fallacy.

:huh:  Do you understand what the ludic fallacy is? 

Not really, I just picked it randomly from a list of fallacies.  Was that not the game we played? :unsure:

Nay-Palm to napalm, ok?

Quote from: DGuller on March 31, 2016, 01:24:59 PM
Not really, I just picked it randomly from a list of fallacies.  Was that not the game we played? :unsure:

If that is the game you wan  to play, I can play it, sure:  You are arguing post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Quote from: Norgy on March 31, 2016, 01:58:58 PM
Nay-Palm to napalm, ok?

Nap-Palm to napalm, actually.

Sometimes, we talk about dropping sleepy trees.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2016, 01:22:15 PM
I was diagnosed with a "ludic phallus".  Yeah, the judge didn't buy that one either.

They told you to go to the ER if it lasted more than 4 hours.

A little more evidence for Languish to consider.  It took me some time to find this, but I'd seen it before.  It is from the Air Force's Historical Analysis of the 14-15 February Bombings of Dresden, published 1945, and deals with the response of the USAAF to the stories being circulated about the bombing of Dresden in the immediate aftermath of the February raids:

QuoteConfronted with the sensational news stories and German propaganda "plants"... Headquarters, US Air Forces... demanded at once a full explanation from American air forces in Europe... and insisted that American bombing forces must not deviate from official bombing policy either as to objectives and priorities, or as to bombing methods.

Headquarters, United States Strategic Air Forces Forces in Europe, strongly emphasized the following... points in their reply... (1) it had always been the policy of American  forces that civilian targets were not suitable military objectives, (2) there had been no change in the American policy of precision bombing of military objectives...

(a probably imperfect transcription of http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110208-030.pdf (http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110208-030.pdf)).

Of course, people can argue that this is just the USAAF lying to itself, but it is evidence that the Americans, at least, were officially forbidden from targeting civilians.  I'd be surprised to find that the British, who were coordinating their efforts so closely with the Americans, would have had a completely different targeting strategy, since bothwere governed by the Casablanca Directiv, which stated that

QuoteDirective to the appropriate British and U.S. Air Force Commanders to govern the operation of the British and U.S. Bomber Commands in the United Kingdom (Approved by the Combined Chiefs of Staff at their 65th meeting on January 21, 1943)
1. Your Primary object will be the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial, and economic system, and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened.
2. Within that General concept, your primary objectives, subject to the exigencies of weather and tactical feasibility, will for the present be in the following order of priority:
(a) German submarine construction yards.
(b) The German aircraft industry.
(c) Transportation.
(d) Oil plants.
(e) Other targets in enemy war industry.

No mention of civilians as targets.

Contrary evidence may exist, but no one here has so far provided it.  The most I have seen is some read-between-the-line arguments about a memo Harris wrote to Churchill trying to get the objectives of Bomber Command changed (quoted by Tyr on the first page).

Well, Grumbler is really defensive on this issue, isn't he?  I wonder what he was doing in the navy.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2016, 06:48:56 PM
Well, Grumbler is really defensive on this issue, isn't he?  I wonder what he was doing in the navy.

He set Majorian's fleet afire at Cathago Nova.

Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2016, 06:53:31 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2016, 06:48:56 PM
Well, Grumbler is really defensive on this issue, isn't he?  I wonder what he was doing in the navy.

He set Majorian's fleet afire at Cathago Nova.

But at least he was targeting the oars, and not the galley slaves.

Fucking Vandals.  :mad:

Grumblah Ben-Hurl

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 31, 2016, 07:15:16 PM
Grumblah Ben-Hurl

the hurl part was certainly true of my second deployment to the Indian Ocean.  That's when I realized what the handles on the trash cans were really designed for...

I bet that whole side of the fucking planet smells like feet.

And Diharrea.

A little more on topic, it's quite easy to believe that the US army lied to itself, and rather difficult to reconcile statements about not targeting civilian targets and dehousing.  I mean, a house is a civilian structure.  Unless it has been militarized and is a danger to bomber pilots they are civilian targets.  The US did build a Japanese and German housing in Utah and dropped bombs on them see how best to burn them down.  Unless they were testing what not to do, that sure looks like an effort to destroy civilian targets.

Quote from: grumblerI'd be surprised to find that the British, who were coordinating their efforts so closely with the Americans, would have had a completely different targeting strategy, since bothwere governed by the Casablanca Directiv, which stated that...

Quote...1. Your Primary object will be the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial, and economic system, and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened.

They weren't specifically trying to kill civilians, per se, they were trying to target civilian morale.  And yes, the general British targeting strategy did differ radically from that of the Americans, not as to aims, but as to methods.  Nighttime area bombing, IMO, was essentially terror bombing.  And frankly, I don't really have a problem with that in the context of the times.

Quote from: dps on March 31, 2016, 10:39:34 PM
They weren't specifically trying to kill civilians, per se, they were trying to target civilian morale.  And yes, the general British targeting strategy did differ radically from that of the Americans, not as to aims, but as to methods.  Nighttime area bombing, IMO, was essentially terror bombing.  And frankly, I don't really have a problem with that in the context of the times.

Terror bombing in the sense that they wanted the people to be constantly afraid that their night's rest will be shattered by air raid sirens and they will have to go to the shelters, and come out to find their homes gone, yes.  This is a far cry from "killing civilians for the sake of it," which is, after all, the argument I am opposing.

Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2016, 07:20:34 PM
And Diharrea.

They have Chipotle there too? :unsure:

Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2016, 04:27:41 AM

Quote from: dps on March 31, 2016, 10:39:34 PM
They weren't specifically trying to kill civilians, per se, they were trying to target civilian morale.  And yes, the general British targeting strategy did differ radically from that of the Americans, not as to aims, but as to methods.  Nighttime area bombing, IMO, was essentially terror bombing.  And frankly, I don't really have a problem with that in the context of the times.

Terror bombing in the sense that they wanted the people to be constantly afraid that their night's rest will be shattered by air raid sirens and they will have to go to the shelters, and come out to find their homes gone, yes.  This is a far cry from "killing civilians for the sake of it," which is, after all, the argument I am opposing.

So Allied air forces restricted themselves into only bombing areas with adequate air shelters?  Cause burning someone's house down when you know they are likely to be in it sounds a lot like trying to kill people.

They'd "come out" and find their homes shattered, as Germans were notoriously slutty back in the day. And a bit gay.