WWII boming debate

[Nomad]

For what it is worth, here is a Wiki page refernece: Bengal Famine of 1943

Interesting tidbit from it:

The Bengal government, which at the time had been mostly Indianized [6] reacted to the crisis lazily and incompetently, refusing to stop the export of food from Bengal. The people of Calcutta were also, by and large, indifferent to the fate of people starving. The commercial artist Satyajit Ray admitted he felt "a little callous" about the famine.

Although the British and US governments could have done more, it seems most of the problem was caused by the Indians themselves.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

... What does one call an apologist who calls another an apologist?

A pair of apologists?

ORIGINAL: Ike99
... I´m debating people who say the Japanese threatened Perry so he should have shelled Tokyo ...

Who said Perry should have shelled Edo? He threatened to do so in response to a "welcoming committee" of Japanese gunboats.

But the bottom line was that no one fired upon anyone in this early exchange of gunboat diplomacey.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

For what it is worth, here is a Wiki page refernece: Bengal Famine of 1943

Interesting tidbit from it:

The Bengal government, which at the time had been mostly Indianized [6] reacted to the crisis lazily and incompetently, refusing to stop the export of food from Bengal. The people of Calcutta were also, by and large, indifferent to the fate of people starving. The commercial artist Satyajit Ray admitted he felt "a little callous" about the famine.

Although the British and US governments could have done more, it seems most of the problem was caused by the Indians themselves.

So doe this mean the twisted version we are getting from another party is the result of revsionist history taught him in the schools of his country or merely his personal delusions?

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Nomad

For what it is worth, here is a Wiki page refernece: Bengal Famine of 1943

Interesting tidbit from it:

The Bengal government, which at the time had been mostly Indianized [6] reacted to the crisis lazily and incompetently, refusing to stop the export of food from Bengal. The people of Calcutta were also, by and large, indifferent to the fate of people starving. The commercial artist Satyajit Ray admitted he felt "a little callous" about the famine.

Although the British and US governments could have done more, it seems most of the problem was caused by the Indians themselves.

So doe this mean the twisted version we are getting from another party is the result of revsionist history taught him in the schools of his country or merely his personal delusions?

The only thing I will say is if we are going to start throwing about accusations, then it is time to start providing links to some factual material. Whether or not anyone finds the Wiki reference I provided usefull or not is not my concern.

[tocaff]

I see that nothing changes, though the green button saves me from what I choose not to see.  Why is it that anyone would take on an argument against what seems to be everyone else?  Somebody must truly be stubborn and thick headed as all hell.  

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only thing I will say is if we are going to start throwing about accusations, then it is time to start providing links to some factual material. Whether or not anyone finds the Wiki reference I provided usefull or not is not my concern.

Slavery was commonplace in the world three-hundred years ago. It's odd that its so closely associated with Westerners, seeing how they were the ones who ended it.

Mass starvation was very commonplace, on a regional basis, until the very end of the 20th century. Apart from the government induced variety, it's rare today. Again, it's the West that's largely responsible for the change.

Plague of all sorts held the population in most of the world in check throughout the course of history, recorded and otherwise, until vaccines were made widely available, again attributable to the West.

Now, with the discussion on the verge of yet another wild flight of tangential fancy and mindless equivocation, please tell me that you're not going to compare the unfortunate incident that's described above, a famine, with this:

http://www.csee.umbc.edu/~kunliu1/Nanjing_Massacre.html

Sir?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only thing I will say is if we are going to start throwing about accusations, then it is time to start providing links to some factual material. Whether or not anyone finds the Wiki reference I provided usefull or not is not my concern.

Slavery was commonplace in the world three-hundred years ago. It's odd that its so closely associated with Westerners, seeing how they were the ones who ended it.

Mass starvation was very commonplace, on a regional basis, until the very end of the 20th century. Apart from the government induced variety, it's rare today. Again, it's the West that's largely responsible for the change.

Plague of all sorts held the population in most of the world in check throughout the course of history, recorded and otherwise, until vaccines were made widely available, again attributable to the West.

Now, with the discussion on the verge of yet another wild flight of tangential fancy and mindless equivocation, please tell me that you're not going to compare the unfortunate incident that's described above, a famine, with this:

http://www.csee.umbc.edu/~kunliu1/Nanjing_Massacre.html

Sir?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

I don't understand why you are attacking me? Ike99 stated that the British were responsible for the Bengal Famine of 1943. I provided a link and and a tidbit from that link that indicates that the Indians were much more responsible for the famine than the British.

So, WTH are you doing accusing me of some kind of "wild flight of fancy and mindless equivocation?" Either get your damn facts right or back off PoE. [&:][:@]

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I don't understand why you are attacking me? Ike99 stated that the British were responsible for the Bengal Famine of 1943. I provided a link and and a tidbit from that link that indicates that the Indians were much more responsible for the famine than the British.

So, WTH are you doing accusing me of some kind of "wild flight of fancy and mindless equivocation?" Either get your damn facts right or back off PoE. [&:][:@]

Nomad,

Please accept my humblest apology. [:)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

For what it is worth, here is a Wiki page refernece: Bengal Famine of 1943

Interesting tidbit from it:

The Bengal government, which at the time had been mostly Indianized [6] reacted to the crisis lazily and incompetently, refusing to stop the export of food from Bengal. The people of Calcutta were also, by and large, indifferent to the fate of people starving. The commercial artist Satyajit Ray admitted he felt "a little callous" about the famine.

Although the British and US governments could have done more, it seems most of the problem was caused by the Indians themselves.

You know, even if the famine was totally a product of food being diverted to feed troops, I don't see the action as being a terrible misdeed. A tragedy, yes, but not a crime.

It's important to note that there were hundreds of thousands of sub-continentals serving with the British and it's commonwealth. They had to be fed, too.

And I don't think that the Japanese would have spared India the depredations that they visited on their other subject populations, given the vicious strain of racism embraced by Tojo and the Emperor.

In the long run, the sacrifice helped save India from the nightmare scenario of Japanese occupation. That there foodstuffs helped make defeat of of that criminal regime possible, should be a source of pride to them all.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I don't understand why you are attacking me? Ike99 stated that the British were responsible for the Bengal Famine of 1943. I provided a link and and a tidbit from that link that indicates that the Indians were much more responsible for the famine than the British.

So, WTH are you doing accusing me of some kind of "wild flight of fancy and mindless equivocation?" Either get your damn facts right or back off PoE. [&:][:@]

Nomad,

Please accept my humblest apology. [:)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

Accepted, I'm sorry, I should not have gone off like that. [:)]

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”Winston Churchill 1942

For goodness sake, the man was an English politician.

I'm sure he said worse about the Irish on a daily basis.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

I see that nothing changes, though the green button saves me from what I choose not to see.  Why is it that anyone would take on an argument against what seems to be everyone else?  Somebody must truly be stubborn and thick headed as all hell.  

Well said that man!

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: DEB

The British Empire was about, subjugation, humiliation and exploitation. Period. Have no illusions. Any resistance was met with brutal reprissals described as ¨glorious victories¨ in the propaganda.

The British Empire was mainly about trade. ( We also set most of it free eventually. ) Subjugation etc. came with Empire; as almost all white men ( Non-British included ) felt themselves superior to the "natives" and that they needed to set "modern" / Western laws/standards.
In a similar way the Samurai felt themselves superior to the Ashigaru; this was common in Britain also between the upper/middle and lower classes and it's therefore not much of a suprise that it was exported.

Resistance/rebellion has always met with brutal reprissals throughout history. Britain was no different here to anyone else, Japan included.

If the British Empire was as BAD as you suggust, why do you think most of our old colonies want to be part of the Commonwealth?

By the way, why is your FROM stated as "Tojo's Loins"?
If I was Japanese ( or picking something Japanese ) I certainly would not pick Tojo as anything to admire! Why not Yamamoto ( like the picture?) ?

What - no comments Ike99?[X(]

[ORANGE]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Wirraway_Ace- I not sure I agree with your use of "the numbers" in this way. I am an economist by training, and all this really tells you is that Germany was able to increase production of key weapon systems in spite of the bombing. It doesn't tell you what their potential production was if their industries had been left alone.

Well it would be impossible to put a number on what German production would have been without strategic bombing but we can compare their rate of expansion with someone who wasn´t bombed at all.

Germany, total aircraft produced by year.

1942-12,822
1943-20,599
1944-35,076

So from 42´ to 43´ German aircraft production rose
by around 60%. From 43´ to 44´around 57%

USA, total aircraft production by year.

1942-46,907
1943-84,853
1944-96,271

So their expansion went 54%, from 42´to 43´. Then
from 43´to 44´ they had a growth rate of just
around 1%. I suppose the industrial base was
maxed out.

So as far as aircraft production is concerned I
would think the strategic bombing campaign had
at most a very minor effect if any at all. Germany
was able to expand it´s aircraft production by
actually a larger percentage than the USA who was
not being bombed at all.

I´m thinking what is effecting this a lot also is
simple manpower numbers. Getting pilots.

If you move over to armored vehicles etc, you will
find comparable numbers.

Take strictly tanks. Germany produced give or take
20,000 tanks during the war. The USA produced
61,000. About a 3-1 margin.

So by comparing tank production 3-1 total. Aircraft
production close to 3-1, I would conclude the
strategic bombing had about zero effect on German production, at least in these two categories.

You have Germany being bombed daylight and dark with the USA not being bombed at all and the production figures in these 2 areas, adjusting for the size of their respective industrial bases seems just about identical.

Now this does not take into account every single
item of war, artillery, etc., and I don´t feel like looking it up right now but unless you can show
me something else I still say the strategic bombing
campaign was a waste of resources. It didn´t do
much from what I see as far as reducing war time production.

One could say, well the Allies had to build all those
ships too so that used up a lot of their industrial
capacity but they would have had to build them
anyways.

I think I got all my numbers right. If not I´m sure I´ll be corrected.

Your numbers do nothing to support what you are trying to say. Comparing German production with US production also does not support what you are trying to prove at all.

You give numbers but not “facts” to support those numbers. The bombing campaign, whether you wish to admit it or not, did effect production and the German war effort. You give numbers but those numbers themselves do not include other factors such as the Germans not going into full war production (i.e.: Working more than a single shift in their factories which in theory should have tripled production but did not) until late in the war after the bombing campaign was in effect which skews your theory, quality not just numbers produced and transportation of the finished product to where it was needed after production. These are just a few points I can think of off the top of my head.

Comparing German production in Airplanes to US production in Airplanes tells us nothing. There are many factors that could have limited US production of Airplanes that have nothing to do with available materials or factory space.

From a timeline for the ME-262 alone:

• Feb. 1944 - allied bombardment of Messerschmitt factories delays initial production by two more months.
• April 1944 - the first production series of the Me-262 is destroyed in another allied bombardment of Messerschmitt factories. The Allies begin to concentrate bombing efforts in destroying the German oil industry.
• Aug. 1944 - Ploesti, Germany's only source of natural oil, is destroyed by systematic bombardments, and then occupied by the Russian army. The shortage of fuel quickly becomes unbearable, and until the end of the war the German Air Force will have much more aircraft than it can actually fly, because of fuel shortage. Furthermore, allied fighters achieve air superiority all over Germany, and will keep it until the end of the war. They also begin to raid German air bases. The Me-262 (bomber version) makes its debut, bombing mostly in France, causing insignificant damage.
• Sept. 1944 - The Luftwaffe's 60 Me-262 bombers are destroyed on the ground by American bombers. The Luftwaffe's first six evaluation Me-262 fighters are scrambled to protect them, but too late. (just imagine what if all the 66 Me-262s were operated by fighter pilots and scrambled..)

From the book Why the Allies Won "At the end of January 1945 Albert Speer and his ministerial colleagues met in Berlin to sum up what bombing had done to production schedules for 1944. They found that Germany had produced 35 percent fewer tanks than planned, 31 percent fewer aircraft and 42 percent fewer lorries as a result of bombing. The denial of these huge resources to German forces in 1944 fatally weakened their response to bombing and invasion and eased the path of Allied armies."

And Admiral Dönitz, noted in his memoirs that failure to get the revolutionary Type XXI U-boats into service was entirely the result of the bombing.

Your cherry picking of numbers does nothing to support your argument to an educated audience who knows better.

At the end of the day the fact remains that there was no need for allied bombing and it was a waste of lives and resources. Too bad that Germany and Japan did not realize this and pursued war and brutality making allied bombing a necessity.

If I could change one thing it would not be the bombing campaign it would be the barbaric cruelty and animal aggression on the part of Germany and Japan that made it necessary.

[Armygrognard]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Imagine this for a moment. Truman tells McArthur..

...pass along to the Japanese, we will break our aggreement of no seperate peace with the communist, accept their surrender with the Emporer condition as soon as the Germans surrender. This is done.

There is no Iwo Jima
There is no Okinawa
No Hiroshima
No Nagasaki
No Korean War
China probably doesn´t go Communist
Possibly no Vietnam

You see? I just won WW2. Saved a lot of lives and stuck it to Uncle Joe all at the same time. Still came out smelling like a flower.

That´s why all this came out again in Korea when McArthur and Truman had their dust up. I´m sure McArthur threw it up in Trumans face they wouldn´t even be fighting Korea if he had just accepted Japanese surrender back in 44´.

Bad call.

You assume that Tojo would have accepted this. You can't expect your enemy to be rational.

[ezzler]

You should really also look at the German and UK production, not USA.
The USA never went into total war production like the other countries.
The USA still had many resources devoted to the production of civillian products. At any time it could have ignificantly increased its military production.

Further, the USA was supplying the WORLDS transport aircraft and military transport and shipping transport and locomotive and rollingstock needs. German military transport and railway production was woeful throughout the war.

What the figures do show is a willingness of the Germans to focus on key areas of production and to maximise those areas even at the expense of others.
Flak production and fighter production were high. Arguably these are the easiest items to mass produce along with small arms and vehicles so it was a sensible policy. Clearly tank , Maritime aircraft ,Bomber and transport aircraft,half track and lorries production was always inadequate even from 1940.

Comparing aircraft between countries is also a misleading exercise as the UK and USA produced vast fleets of 4 engined bombers that use far more resources and man hours and factory capacity to create than single engine fighters. And they were producing far far more twin engine aircraft than Germany, Italy or Japan also.

The Germans never had to concentrate on their navy at all. U boats and a handfull of coastal craft and destroyers.
Compare this to the production of Commonwealth and USA Navies and merchant marine.

I would guess the best ways to compare production is between Germany and USSR where small arms , tanks , armoured vehicles , single engined aircraft and AT AA and ART guns were the main productions. USSR production also suffered a 'shock' of relocation which must be the equal to some sort of strategic bombing.

The pictures of Nazi factories carved out of cliffs to prove that the bombing did not harm production surely demonstrates the opposite ?

What would be the cost in time, manpower and treasure to create these caverns? Only slaves would work in them. If the bombing was ineffective the factories would remain above ground where four walls and a roof are sufficient to protect them. The UK and USSR did not put production underground because they did not need to.

The strategic bombing campaign may well not have produced the Air Marshall's promises, but to dismiss it as totally ineffective is to ignore the evidence.

[Marauders]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

While I can't speak for anyone else I doubt any minds will be changed on either side.

Being ex-military my view is when confronted with aggression or war is brought to your very own doorstep you use any means neccesary to break the enemies will to fight or even think about waging war again.

The war was thrust upon the allies by aggressive nations that wanted to dominate the world.

Just to be clear, does this statement justify 9/11 as a response by Arabs to having war at their doorstep and troops on their land?

Are the thoughts behind the arguments really any different?

Articles 51 and 57 (Part IV) of the Geneva Convention Protocols now hold these actions as war crimes.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Marauders

Articles 51 and 57 (Part IV) of the Geneva Convention Protocols now hold these actions as war crimes.

What do articles enacted after ww2 have to do with this discussion?
What actions do you consider a war crime under arts. 51 and 57?

[ORANGE]

ORIGINAL: Marauders
Just to be clear, does this statement justify 9/11 as a response by Arabs to having war at their doorstep and troops on their land?

Are the thoughts behind the arguments really any different?

Articles 51 and 57 (Part IV) of the Geneva Convention Protocols now hold these actions as war crimes.

I believe the US was invited into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? I may be missing something here so please let me know if I just don't get it.

[Carl Myers]

Imagine this for a moment. Truman tells McArthur..

...pass along to the Japanese, we will break our aggreement of no seperate peace with the communist, accept their surrender with the Emporer condition as soon as the Germans surrender. This is done.
BZZZT, the Potsdam meeting would have been a real hoot.
There is no Iwo Jima
BZZZT, already captured.
There is no Okinawa
BZZZT, the battle for Okinawa has been ongoing for 7 weeks.
No Hiroshima
No Nagasaki
BZZZT, with 'no need' to use A-bombs, the dozen cities that were on the A-bomb list get firebombed, you just increased the number of Japanese dead.
No Korean War
Correct, the Soviets overrun the whole pennisula.
China probably doesn´t go Communist
BZZZT, the Red army has been fighting the Japanese and the National government for years.
Possibly no Vietnam
Correct, with no French forces available to go into Indochina, the Viet Minh take charge.

And to those who wondered whether if Tojo would have surrendered in 1945? He lost power in July of 1944.