If this passes I'll be a bit surprised and impressed. Not good enough, but a definite step in the right direction.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8594625.stm
QuoteSerbia debates Srebrenica apology
Serbia's parliament is debating a resolution condemning the Srebrenica massacre in 1995 - the worst incident of the Bosnian war.
The text apologises that Serbia did not do more to prevent the tragedy.
The killing of nearly 8,000 Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) was carried out by Bosnian Serb forces - allies of then-Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic.
Meanwhile a Dutch court has rejected an attempt to hold the United Nations responsible for the massacre.
Facing the past
The parliamentary resolution comes after years of denial in Serbia that the Srebrenica massacre even took place, says the BBC's Belgrade correspondent, Mark Lowen.
The pro-Western government in Belgrade now believes this resolution would help paint the country in a new light, he says, showing that it is determined to face its past and aiming for regional reconciliation and EU membership.
The resolution has been criticised by Bosniaks and Muslims in Serbia because it does not describe the massacre as an act of genocide. It has been recognised as such by the courts of the international war crimes tribunal in The Hague.
But Serbian nationalists have rejected the resolution, saying it must also denounce crimes committed by Bosniaks and Croats during the 1992-95 war.
It is thought the resolution has enough support to pass, despite nationalist opposition.
In an attempt to win over the nationalists, the government has promised another future resolution, condemning all crimes in the former Yugoslavia.
Several Bosnian Serbs have been convicted over their role in the Srebrenica massacre, when Bosniak men and boys were taken from their families and shot dead. The town had been designated a UN "safe haven" under the protection of Dutch UN troops.
The wartime leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Radovan Karadzic, is currently on trial in The Hague, while the general accused of masterminding Srebrenica, Ratko Mladic, is still on the run.
Lawyers for the victims' relatives have tried to hold the Dutch government and the UN accountable for failing to stop the massacre.
But on Tuesday The Hague Appeals Court upheld a 2008 lower court ruling affirming UN immunity from prosecution, which it said was essential for it to be able to carry out its duties around the world.
Give us Mladic.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2010, 09:54:43 AM
If this passes I'll be a bit surprised and impressed. Not good enough, but a definite step in the right direction.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8594625.stm
Isnt it the truth that it will never be "good enough"...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 30, 2010, 11:09:53 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2010, 09:54:43 AM
If this passes I'll be a bit surprised and impressed. Not good enough, but a definite step in the right direction.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8594625.stm
Isnt it the truth that it will never be "good enough"...
Well if you look at it like from that moral angle, than yeah, nothing can ever be enough to make up for those killed.
However from a practical angle, if they helped catch and prosecute everyone involved, admitted to and apologized for the genocide, and taught in their public schools that it happened and it was wrong, then that would in my opinion be enough.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2010, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 30, 2010, 11:09:53 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2010, 09:54:43 AM
If this passes I'll be a bit surprised and impressed. Not good enough, but a definite step in the right direction.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8594625.stm
Isnt it the truth that it will never be "good enough"...
Well if you look at it like from that moral angle, than yeah, nothing can ever be enough to make up for those killed.
However from a practical angle, if they helped catch and prosecute everyone involved, admitted to and apologized for the genocide, and taught in their public schools that it happened and it was wrong, then that would in my opinion be enough.
What genocide?, killing 8000 men and young boys is mass murder, not genocide...
The word genocide is nothing but a fancy buss word these days, applied to just about any kind of bad effect of war and then milked for political gains...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 30, 2010, 11:37:28 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2010, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 30, 2010, 11:09:53 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2010, 09:54:43 AM
If this passes I'll be a bit surprised and impressed. Not good enough, but a definite step in the right direction.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8594625.stm
Isnt it the truth that it will never be "good enough"...
Well if you look at it like from that moral angle, than yeah, nothing can ever be enough to make up for those killed.
However from a practical angle, if they helped catch and prosecute everyone involved, admitted to and apologized for the genocide, and taught in their public schools that it happened and it was wrong, then that would in my opinion be enough.
What genocide?, killing 8000 men and young boys is mass murder, not genocide...
The word genocide is nothing but a fancy buss word these days, applied to just about any kind of bad effect of war and then milked for political gains...
If a Communist or Fascist dictatorship has 8,000 political prisoners lined up and shot, that's mass murder.
If Ethnic Group X lines up 8,000 members of Ethnic Group Y and has them shot, that's an act of genocide.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2010, 12:00:51 PM
If a Communist or Fascist dictatorship has 8,000 political prisoners lined up and shot, that's mass murder.
If Ethnic Group X lines up 8,000 members of Ethnic Group Y and has them shot, that's an act of genocide.
Unless Ethnic Group Y is really, really small I think 8,000 is too small a number to qualify for genocide.
Quote from: derspiess on March 30, 2010, 12:09:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2010, 12:00:51 PM
If a Communist or Fascist dictatorship has 8,000 political prisoners lined up and shot, that's mass murder.
If Ethnic Group X lines up 8,000 members of Ethnic Group Y and has them shot, that's an act of genocide.
Unless Ethnic Group Y is really, really small I think 8,000 is too small a number to qualify for genocide.
Also the fact that those targeted was mainly of military age, makes it less likely to qualify as genocide...
Quote from: derspiess on March 30, 2010, 12:09:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2010, 12:00:51 PM
If a Communist or Fascist dictatorship has 8,000 political prisoners lined up and shot, that's mass murder.
If Ethnic Group X lines up 8,000 members of Ethnic Group Y and has them shot, that's an act of genocide.
Unless Ethnic Group Y is really, really small I think 8,000 is too small a number to qualify for genocide.
It was part of a comprehensive policy to wipe the Muslims off the map in large swathes of Bosnia.
They were lined up and shot with the deliberate aim of "changing the facts on the ground". The purpose was clear: eliminate an entire ethnic group and all remnants of their culture within a given space.
If that isn't genocide, then I don't know what is.
Quote from: Warspite on March 30, 2010, 12:42:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 30, 2010, 12:09:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2010, 12:00:51 PM
If a Communist or Fascist dictatorship has 8,000 political prisoners lined up and shot, that's mass murder.
If Ethnic Group X lines up 8,000 members of Ethnic Group Y and has them shot, that's an act of genocide.
Unless Ethnic Group Y is really, really small I think 8,000 is too small a number to qualify for genocide.
It was part of a comprehensive policy to wipe the Muslims off the map in large swathes of Bosnia.
They were lined up and shot with the deliberate aim of "changing the facts on the ground". The purpose was clear: eliminate an entire ethnic group and all remnants of their culture within a given space.
If that isn't genocide, then I don't know what is.
Or maybe it was payback from the raids on Serbian villages around Srebrenica, raids that killed between 1600 and 2300 people. Men, women and children, young and old. Several 1000's more was forced to flee over the mountains to Serbia in the middle of winter. payback in the balkans has always been harsh and tenfold...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 30, 2010, 01:12:54 PM
Quote from: Warspite on March 30, 2010, 12:42:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 30, 2010, 12:09:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2010, 12:00:51 PM
If a Communist or Fascist dictatorship has 8,000 political prisoners lined up and shot, that's mass murder.
If Ethnic Group X lines up 8,000 members of Ethnic Group Y and has them shot, that's an act of genocide.
Unless Ethnic Group Y is really, really small I think 8,000 is too small a number to qualify for genocide.
It was part of a comprehensive policy to wipe the Muslims off the map in large swathes of Bosnia.
They were lined up and shot with the deliberate aim of "changing the facts on the ground". The purpose was clear: eliminate an entire ethnic group and all remnants of their culture within a given space.
If that isn't genocide, then I don't know what is.
Or maybe it was payback from the raids on Serbian villages around Srebrenica, raids that killed between 1600 and 2300 people. Men, women and children, young and old. Several 1000's more was forced to flee over the mountains to Serbia in the middle of winter. payback in the balkans has always been harsh and tenfold...
Those numbers are greatly inflated and include the usual trick of lumping in hundreds of dead combatants into the total.
The fact is that Srebrenica was the last holdout of the Muslim defenders of eastern Bosnia, who made up a sizeable chunk of the population of that part of the country. By 1995, they were pretty much all holed up in Srebrenica having been expelled from their villages and farms from 1992 onwards. And yet for somehow having the temerity to fight for their homeland against a vastly superior aggressor they invited the genocide upon themselves?
Quote from: Warspite on March 30, 2010, 01:38:10 PM
Those numbers are greatly inflated and include the usual trick of lumping in hundreds of dead combatants into the total.
The fact is that Srebrenica was the last holdout of the Muslim defenders of eastern Bosnia, who made up a sizeable chunk of the population of that part of the country. By 1995, they were pretty much all holed up in Srebrenica having been expelled from their villages and farms from 1992 onwards. And yet for somehow having the temerity to fight for their homeland against a vastly superior aggressor they invited the genocide upon themselves?
The same could be said for the Serbs in the area, it wasnt until the middle of 1993 they gained any kind of superiority around Srebrenica...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 30, 2010, 01:12:54 PM
Quote from: Warspite on March 30, 2010, 12:42:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 30, 2010, 12:09:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2010, 12:00:51 PM
If a Communist or Fascist dictatorship has 8,000 political prisoners lined up and shot, that's mass murder.
If Ethnic Group X lines up 8,000 members of Ethnic Group Y and has them shot, that's an act of genocide.
Unless Ethnic Group Y is really, really small I think 8,000 is too small a number to qualify for genocide.
It was part of a comprehensive policy to wipe the Muslims off the map in large swathes of Bosnia.
They were lined up and shot with the deliberate aim of "changing the facts on the ground". The purpose was clear: eliminate an entire ethnic group and all remnants of their culture within a given space.
If that isn't genocide, then I don't know what is.
Or maybe it was payback from the raids on Serbian villages around Srebrenica, raids that killed between 1600 and 2300 people. Men, women and children, young and old. Several 1000's more was forced to flee over the mountains to Serbia in the middle of winter. payback in the balkans has always been harsh and tenfold...
Even if that was true, motivations don't matter, it's still an act of genocide.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2010, 05:23:38 PM
Even if that was true, motivations don't matter, it's still an act of genocide.
Actually, motivations are totally relevant to whether an act is an act of genocide or not, as genocide requires acts committed with "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." You are correct that the reason behind that intent is irrelevant, though.
And the victims lost their lunatic lawsuit against the UN.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2010, 05:23:38 PM
Even if that was true, motivations don't matter, it's still an act of genocide.
Do you even know what genocide is?
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 30, 2010, 01:12:54 PM
Or maybe it was payback from the raids on Serbian villages around Srebrenica, raids that killed between 1600 and 2300 people. Men, women and children, young and old. Several 1000's more was forced to flee over the mountains to Serbia in the middle of winter. payback in the balkans has always been harsh and tenfold...
Two acts of genocide don't equal zero acts of genocide...
Quote from: ulmont on March 30, 2010, 06:50:50 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2010, 05:23:38 PM
Even if that was true, motivations don't matter, it's still an act of genocide.
Actually, motivations are totally relevant to whether an act is an act of genocide or not, as genocide requires acts committed with "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." You are correct that the reason behind that intent is irrelevant, though.
Thus, Srebrenica was obviously an act of genocide, as it was clearly an act committed with intent to destroy a part of an ethnic group.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2010, 09:20:13 PM
Quote from: ulmont on March 30, 2010, 06:50:50 PM
Actually, motivations are totally relevant to whether an act is an act of genocide or not, as genocide requires acts committed with "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." You are correct that the reason behind that intent is irrelevant, though.
Thus, Srebrenica was obviously an act of genocide, as it was clearly an act committed with intent to destroy a part of an ethnic group.
While it may be accurate, your point is orthogonal to mine, as I took no position regarding the genocide or lack thereof in Srebrenica, but merely noted that to be genocide, an act must have a certain intent, and thus motivations are at issue.
I think Serbia's actually been about as forthcoming on admitting to Genocide and attempting to make up for wrongs of the past as any offending country...ever. Really impressive. Too bad the Albanian Kosovars don't seem to have learned the lesson that cultural annihilation is wrong, and have spent the last decade destroying Churches and going on pogroms. <_<
Why did we let that country pretend to be independent again?
Quote from: Queequeg on March 31, 2010, 04:15:55 AM
I think Serbia's actually been about as forthcoming on admitting to Genocide and attempting to make up for wrongs of the past as any offending country...ever. Really impressive. Too bad the Albanian Kosovars don't seem to have learned the lesson that cultural annihilation is wrong, and have spent the last decade destroying Churches and going on pogroms. <_<
Why did we let that country pretend to be independent again?
Because Western politicians at the time seemed to have a conditioned response, "Serb bad, anyone else good"?
And here I was thinking that we got rid of the balkantards a long time ago?
Quote from: Queequeg on March 31, 2010, 04:15:55 AM
Why did we let that country pretend to be independent again?
Because Europe in general and Italy in particular were worried about refugees.
I'll wait for gays to apologize. :mad:
Quote from: derspiess on March 30, 2010, 12:09:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2010, 12:00:51 PM
If a Communist or Fascist dictatorship has 8,000 political prisoners lined up and shot, that's mass murder.
If Ethnic Group X lines up 8,000 members of Ethnic Group Y and has them shot, that's an act of genocide.
Unless Ethnic Group Y is really, really small I think 8,000 is too small a number to qualify for genocide.
By that reasoning, there has never been genocide of Jews or Armenians, because some got away.
Quote from: Agelastus on March 31, 2010, 04:20:48 AM
Because Western politicians at the time seemed to have a conditioned response, "Serb bad, anyone else good"?
And they're right. Everything bad that happens to Serbia is owed to them, for destroying civilization and any hope for the future of humanity, back in 1914.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 31, 2010, 04:15:55 AM
I think Serbia's actually been about as forthcoming on admitting to Genocide and attempting to make up for wrongs of the past as any offending country...ever.
Uh, only the forward-looking adminstration of Tadic has made efforts to repair ties with neighbours. But they still haven't apologised for
genocide. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but the Bosnians who spent the war holed up in the murder alleys of Sarajevo for example are a little more sensitive about these things.
Scratch beneath the surface, and you'll find plenty of Serbs with a victim-complex, many of whom sit in the Serbian parliament in the nationalist parties.
QuoteReally impressive. Too bad the Albanian Kosovars don't seem to have learned the lesson that cultural annihilation is wrong, and have spent the last decade destroying Churches and going on pogroms. <_<
The Kosovar Albanians have done some pretty shameful things but what they have done over the last ten years cannot compare with the systematic eradication the Serbs tried in 1998-9; it doesn't help that Milosevic managed to discredit the moderate movement of Rugova. It's the same thing that happened in Northern Ireland: instead of moderate unionists and catholics, it's the nutjobs and thugs from each side that sit in power now.
QuoteWhy did we let that country pretend to be independent again?
Because it was a fiction to pretend it would ever be part of Serbia again.
I spoke to plenty of Serbs who saw the province as gangrenous limb that needed to be cut off. It was the poorest province of Yugoslavia in 1919; it was still the same in 1989. Plenty of Kosovar Serbs couldn't wait to emigrate to Belgrade in the intervening 70 years. There are two kinds of Serbs that have a grievance over Kosovo. The first lot have a legitimate concern - that their sovereign territory has forcibly been sliced off with dubious legality. The second are the nutcases: they think that Serbia has a God-given right to an Albanian majority province because they fought the Turks there centuries ago. Unfortunately, the latter happily organised the very campaign of domination and violence that pushed the moderate Albanian scene off the stage.
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2010, 06:42:32 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 30, 2010, 12:09:14 PM
Unless Ethnic Group Y is really, really small I think 8,000 is too small a number to qualify for genocide.
By that reasoning, there has never been genocide of Jews or Armenians, because some got away.
To be fair, Spicy has never been good at reading comprehension, so the bit about "in whole or in part" went right past him. Picking on him for that may be unfair.
Quote from: Warspite on March 31, 2010, 09:54:31 AM
The second are the nutcases: they think that Serbia has a God-given right to an Albanian majority province because they fought the Turks there centuries ago.
Claims like that didn't stop Israel. :P
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2010, 08:19:42 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on March 31, 2010, 04:20:48 AM
Because Western politicians at the time seemed to have a conditioned response, "Serb bad, anyone else good"?
And they're right. Everything bad that happens to Serbia is owed to them, for destroying civilization and any hope for the future of humanity, back in 1914.
Indeed. We would be far more technologically advance if it werent for WW1, the serbians, and the muslims.
I want my damn flying car!
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2010, 11:17:37 AM
Quote from: Warspite on March 31, 2010, 09:54:31 AM
The second are the nutcases: they think that Serbia has a God-given right to an Albanian majority province because they fought the Turks there centuries ago.
Claims like that didn't stop Israel. :P
Yeah, but Israel won the war, and are therefore right. Serbia was crushed, and was therefore wrong.
Quote from: Siege on March 31, 2010, 11:45:52 AM
Indeed. We would be far more technologically advance if it werent for WW1, the serbians, and the muslims.
I want my damn flying car!
What have muslims done to retard technology?
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2010, 01:51:51 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 31, 2010, 11:45:52 AM
Indeed. We would be far more technologically advance if it werent for WW1, the serbians, and the muslims.
I want my damn flying car!
What have muslims done to retard technology?
Perfected it?
Quote from: The Brain on March 31, 2010, 02:23:13 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2010, 01:51:51 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 31, 2010, 11:45:52 AM
Indeed. We would be far more technologically advance if it werent for WW1, the serbians, and the muslims.
I want my damn flying car!
What have muslims done to retard technology?
Perfected it?
:lol:
Nicely done.
Quote from: The Brain on March 31, 2010, 02:23:13 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2010, 01:51:51 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 31, 2010, 11:45:52 AM
Indeed. We would be far more technologically advance if it werent for WW1, the serbians, and the muslims.
I want my damn flying car!
What have muslims done to retard technology?
Perfected it?
Brilliant! :lol:
Last time I checked, the World Wars were the catalysts for nearly every great invention of the past century. :huh:
Quote from: Queequeg on March 31, 2010, 08:03:39 PM
Last time I checked, the World Wars were the catalysts for nearly every great invention of the past century. :huh:
Not really, but they did help drive innovation and adoption.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 31, 2010, 08:03:39 PM
Last time I checked, the World Wars were the catalysts for nearly every great invention of the past century. :huh:
Immense amounts of human, physical and fiscal capital was lost. I think the argument that that was made up for by the extra incentive and drive provided by the Wars is questionable.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 31, 2010, 08:47:47 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 31, 2010, 08:03:39 PM
Last time I checked, the World Wars were the catalysts for nearly every great invention of the past century. :huh:
Immense amounts of human, physical and fiscal capital was lost. I think the argument that that was made up for by the extra incentive and drive provided by the Wars is questionable.
Particularily WWI.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 31, 2010, 08:47:47 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 31, 2010, 08:03:39 PM
Last time I checked, the World Wars were the catalysts for nearly every great invention of the past century. :huh:
Immense amounts of human, physical and fiscal capital was lost. I think the argument that that was made up for by the extra incentive and drive provided by the Wars is questionable.
That would be an argument from a hypothetical alternative history, an alternative (World War-less) reality so different from our own as to be unrecognizable.
What we do know is that war and violence have been at the forefront of technological and social development for as long as there is an anthropological record. I don't doubt that it has pushed our species forward, even as it has brought out our worst instincts. Not pretty, necessarily, but true.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 01, 2010, 02:42:45 AM
That would be an argument from a hypothetical alternative history, an alternative (World War-less) reality so different from our own as to be unrecognizable.
All hypothetical arguments are made from hypotheses. :huh:
I dunno about what an "argument from a hypothetical alternative history" even is, though.
QuoteWhat we do know is that war and violence have been at the forefront of technological and social development for as long as there is an anthropological record. I don't doubt that it has pushed our species forward, even as it has brought out our worst instincts. Not pretty, necessarily, but true.
We don't "know" this and this is not "true." We suspect it of war (though not necessarily of violence). You are engaging in the classic
post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; one could as easily say "what we do know is that breathing and shitting have been at the forefront of technological and social development for as long as there is an anthropological record."
I'll wager some of the best ideas in the world have come while pondering the universe on a porcelain throne.
War can perhaps accelerate certain aspects of our technological development, but there were no technologies AFAIK that were uniquely a result of industrial war - ie that we could reasonably consider that we would have not had otherwise.
Against this, we have to weigh up the destruction, opportunity cost of the economic distortion of total war, and the loss of labour and entrepreneurship in the fields.
Quote from: Warspite on April 01, 2010, 06:34:16 AM
War can perhaps accelerate certain aspects of our technological development, but there were no technologies AFAIK that were uniquely a result of industrial war - ie that we could reasonably consider that we would have not had otherwise.
Against this, we have to weigh up the destruction, opportunity cost of the economic distortion of total war, and the loss of labour and entrepreneurship in the fields.
Indeed, arguments have been successfully made that wars have emphasized the development of the wrong kinds of technologies and the wrong elements of the right tech, while delaying the right kinds of tech.
Container shipment technology was available for a long time before it was implemented, but was delayed because there were so many break bulk Liberty and Victory ships available so cheaply that container ships couldn't be economically built.
Aircraft developments in WW1 emphasized speed and maneuverability, when what was needed to further the utility of aircraft was range and carrying capacity.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2010, 06:29:14 AM
I'll wager some of the best ideas in the world have come while pondering the universe on a porcelain throne.
Which indeed often is much like a war.
:P
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2010, 07:58:15 AM
Aircraft developments in WW1 emphasized speed and maneuverability, when what was needed to further the utility of aircraft was range and carrying capacity.
I'm not sure that I can agree with that. True, the popular conception of WWI in the air focuses on fighter aircraft, but by the end of the war there were very large bombers available that had far, far more carrying capacity than anything from before the war. The aircraft of 1918 were also studier and more reliable than the aircraft of 1914.
Quote from: dps on April 01, 2010, 02:05:51 PM
I'm not sure that I can agree with that. True, the popular conception of WWI in the air focuses on fighter aircraft, but by the end of the war there were very large bombers available that had far, far more carrying capacity than anything from before the war. The aircraft of 1918 were also studier and more reliable than the aircraft of 1914.
If you read aviation technology histories, what you will discover is that, while there were some unsuccessful large bombers built during the war, the greatest advancements during the war came in the areas thought most useful for war (and these were not load nor range). Aircraft of 1922 were more reliable and sturdy than those of 1918, and this was a period without major wars. Ditto for aircraft of 1926 compared to 1922. And so forth.
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2010, 02:33:45 PM
Quote from: dps on April 01, 2010, 02:05:51 PM
I'm not sure that I can agree with that. True, the popular conception of WWI in the air focuses on fighter aircraft, but by the end of the war there were very large bombers available that had far, far more carrying capacity than anything from before the war. The aircraft of 1918 were also studier and more reliable than the aircraft of 1914.
If you read aviation technology histories, what you will discover is that, while there were some unsuccessful large bombers built during the war, the greatest advancements during the war came in the areas thought most useful for war (and these were not load nor range). Aircraft of 1922 were more reliable and sturdy than those of 1918, and this was a period without major wars. Ditto for aircraft of 1926 compared to 1922. And so forth.
My reading hasn't indicated that late WWI large bombers were "unsuccessful" in general. Sure, there were some unsuccessful designs, but there were unsuccessful fighter designs as well. What was wrong with the late-war bombers in general was that they were, well, too late.
Quote from: dps on April 01, 2010, 02:44:39 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2010, 02:33:45 PM
Quote from: dps on April 01, 2010, 02:05:51 PM
I'm not sure that I can agree with that. True, the popular conception of WWI in the air focuses on fighter aircraft, but by the end of the war there were very large bombers available that had far, far more carrying capacity than anything from before the war. The aircraft of 1918 were also studier and more reliable than the aircraft of 1914.
If you read aviation technology histories, what you will discover is that, while there were some unsuccessful large bombers built during the war, the greatest advancements during the war came in the areas thought most useful for war (and these were not load nor range). Aircraft of 1922 were more reliable and sturdy than those of 1918, and this was a period without major wars. Ditto for aircraft of 1926 compared to 1922. And so forth.
My reading hasn't indicated that late WWI large bombers were "unsuccessful" in general. Sure, there were some unsuccessful designs, but there were unsuccessful fighter designs as well. What was wrong with the late-war bombers in general was that they were, well, too late.
Read some more. Look at the carrying capacity of bombers like the Handley-Page, Caproni, Gotha, etc - none could carry more than about 500KG of bombs. That is a pittance. No aircraft with payloads that small could be used for anything other than maybe mail delivery. It was in peacetime that the great transport planes were developed.
The Great War brought few improvements to dreadnought technology.