WWII boming debate

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

... To start with, this got started by you posting a thread that has nothing to do with Uncommon Valor. You were simply wishing to express a controversial political opinion, your own.

Ike, I started that thread and titled it "Happy Anniversary Guadalcanal," not Todd. As much of the fighting in UV centers around Guadalcanal, how can it not be important news on this forum?

ORIGINAL: Ike99
Second, other country´s are free to name their airports, cities and towns, etc., whatever they choose. They are under no obligation to consult the US Marines or you and probably don´t really care what you or they think anyways ...

A Japanese construction firm rebuilding the airport suggested the name change and tried to convince the government of the Solomons that it would bring more Japanese tourists.

But not only did former Marines object to renaming Henderson Field to chrysamthamum, natives on the island 's capital -- where the airport was situated -- also objected, so that flower didn't fly.

ORIGINAL: Ike99
So if Trolls tweedle dee and tweedle dum would like to hit their green buttons now, please do.

Ike, you're in no position to call anyone a troll, and the last time you launched into a personal attack, the thread was locked by Tankerace; it's as if you haven't learned a thing from that experience, yet you actually know so much about this game.

It's perplexing.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Who is we in the "You know how we feel"? Ask people on my street corner about what? Feel about what?

Nothing Todd.

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.

There's a difference between saying that the strategic bombing had no or little to no effect on German production and saying that the campaign was a waste of resources. Imho the first is wrong, the second arguable. Which is it?

[Ike99]

Joe D.

As much of the fighting in UV centers around Guadalcanal, how can it not be important news on this forum?

How would the renaming of Henderson Field effect UV? Besides it´s not even called Henderson Field in the game but Lunga. So in the game it was renamed a long time ago. Hmmm...don´t look at me. Maybe you should go campaign for the hex to be renamed ¨Henderson Field¨ in CF if it´s sooooo important for you and others.

anarchyintheuk

There's a difference between saying that the strategic bombing had no or little to no effect on German production and saying that the campaign was a waste of resources. Imho the first is wrong, the second arguable. Which is it?

Anarchy, if the strategic bombing campaign had very limited effect on Axis war production and vast resources put into it wouldn´t that make it both?

It is not simply a matter of looking at this from the point of view that it wasn´t very nice. What did it cost and what was the effect?

100,000 Allied airmen were lost doing this. That´s about 5 divisions right there. Then you have the entire force with all their equiptment, the people, training, on and on, everything included in this campaign. This was an enormous investment in resources.

You say it is wrong to say the strategic bombing campaign had little effect on Axis war production. Why do you say this? Facts, figures, speculation, just an opinion?

How do you come to this conclusion? I´m all ears.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Ike99


You charge, try and convict by Articles. In this case, Article 6. You can´t go through and strike words, sentences and paragraphs out of a law because you don´t like them.

A lot of war criminals at Nuremberg would have looooved to have been able to do that.

Article 6 is Article 6. You take it all or reject it all.

[/size]

Ike, I appologize, but I am not sure what Article 6 you are referring to. Article 6 of the 1907 Hague IV conventions refers to POWs and their legal uses. the Geneva Conventions of 1928,29 are limited to the use of chemical weapons and Treatment of POWs.

Section II, Chapter I, Article 22 of the 1907 Hague says:
The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.

Art. 25.
The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Art. 26.
The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.

Art. 27.
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.

I can't find anything else relevant. No surprise, in 1907 there was no discussion of rules of war in the air, but I would assume that the rules of war on land would apply if the land was being bombarded from the air.

By these measures, I don't see any way to charge the bombing campaign as illegal. It must be the 1949 conventions that clarified the air war piece.

[tocaff]

Yes Joe.

[Ike99]

Yes Joe.

Yes Tocaff. Tankerace just opened a thread for what people want to see in ¨CF¨. Tell them you want the Lunga hex renamed ¨Henderson Field¨

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Dixie


I would say not, but I would also say that the civilian deaths do not make the bombing campaign any less right.

People are often quick to condemn the WW2 bombing campaign, but how else could the war have been prosecuted against the enemy?

PS, the second part of the post is not intended as a swipe at you Wirraway_Ace, rather a general comment to the world at large.

No worries Dixie. After reading the 1907 Hague Conventions this morning, I may have defeated my own argument. Can't find anything in the various conventions that existed prior to WWII that makes bombing civilian targets illegal. I may be overlooking something however...

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Joe D.

As much of the fighting in UV centers around Guadalcanal, how can it not be important news on this forum?

How would the renaming of Henderson Field effect UV? Besides it´s not even called Henderson Field in the game but Lunga. So in the game it was renamed a long time ago. Hmmm...don´t look at me. Maybe you should go campaign for the hex to be renamed ¨Henderson Field¨ in CF if it´s sooooo important for you and others.

Re-read the quote you posted, esp. the print now in bold type: important news. Obviously, anything in the real world isn't going to affect a PC game, not even virtually. The hex is called Lunga, airfields in UV don't have names, and no one said they should.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

Thanks for the link Prince. Powerful imagery. However, it still brings me back to the question: do the attrocities of your opponent morally justify a bombing campaign that you know is causing significant deaths to a civilian population? The pictures of Koln, Dresden, Toyko after a major bombing are pretty horrific.

Although leaders tend to couch their actions during wartime in moral terms, it's all pretty much relative to time and circumstance. This is not to say that a thoughtful person can't draw a meaningful distinction between the Japanese playing out their master-race schtick in China and attempts by the U.S. to conclude the proceedings that were so abruptly imposed upon it in 1941. Beyond that ability to digest and reject the equivocation and logical fallacy that's typified much of this thread, I don't have much to offer you.

What I'm more comfortable with is discussing the law, or lack thereof, which attaches itself to war. There is no real international law, BTW. There are only agreements. And when a side abandons the provisions of the agreement, either formally, by abrogation, or through its behavior, the "compact" is rendered null and void.

Because of the passions attendant to warfare, the ties that might serve to bind the combatants to such an agreement are far more tenuous than those which might adhere to some other sort of pact, trade or extradition, for instance. As such, they are far less likely to withstand a test like that which typified so much of the latter, desperate stages of WW2.

It's also worth noting that the extremity of Axis behavior in places like Nanking set the stage for their undoing. That they went so far in playing out there fascist/militarist/racist ideology virtually insured that the Allies would respond with a level of brutality commensurate to that which they sought to subdue, albeit grudgingly and with considerable agitation of conscience.

Did the Japanese and Germans commit war crimes in WW2?

Nah, they just opted out of the agreement.

Did the U.S. or Britain?

Nah, how could they be bound to an agreement which had been unilaterally voided by the Axis Powers.

Should the military and civilian leadership of the Axis Powers have been executed for their behavior?

I suspect so, but probably not under the auspices of an international agreement that was largely rent-asunder before the U.S. entered the war. Interested parties among the victorious Allies should simply have divided them up and hung them, Emperor, and all. And China should have gotten first crack at the bastards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqH47MIpuoA

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Ike99]

Wirraway_Ace-Ike, I appologize, but I am not sure what Article 6 you are referring to.

At the end of WW2 the Allies created a legal standard, a set of laws to conduct trials under.

As you mentioned earlier there were many standards, the Hague, Paris Peace Accords, Geneva Convention, League of Nations, dah, dah ,dah, all kinds of standards to go by. Then to put even more complication upon that, what countries had signed on to what and when and who was applicable to what.

So they put all that to the side and came up with princibles called the ¨Nuremburg Princibles¨ to create a standard set of laws that applied to everyone.

Nuremberg Principles

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes
a crime under international law is responsible
therefore and liable to punishment.

Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as
crimes under international law:

(b) War Crimes:

...wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.


Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter

ARTICLE 6 (b) ....Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

This is what I am referring to when I say ¨Article 6.¨

[Tankerace]

Once again, a warning to cease attacking others.

Ike, whether or not you want to admit it, only you are causing the threads to go off on a tangent. Not Todd, not Joe, not me, not anyone else. Cease attacks and insults on other players. Whether or not you feel you are doing it, I'm getting emails or PMs from people who feel you are. I have to respond to that. Just stop.

And also, as a fellow debater, answer the man's question. As your big argument if Truman or Roosevelt accept Japanese CONDITIONAL surrender in early '45 it would have saved a lot of lives, then why don't we condemn Japan for bombing Pearl Harbor and starting the war or invading China in the first place. That would save even more lives.

If you guys wanna debate this that is fine. BUT STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS ON OTHER FORUM MEMBERS. Or better yet take this to the steakhouse. All of you, this is your last warning.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Ike99


Nuremberg Principles

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes
a crime under international law is responsible
therefore and liable to punishment.

Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as
crimes under international law:

(b) War Crimes:

...wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.


Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter

ARTICLE 6 (b) ....Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

This is what I am referring to when I say ¨Article 6.¨[/size]

Thanks Ike, that is helpful.

[Tankerace]

But define military necessity. If wiping Hiroshima off the map will shorten the war, then isn't that a military necessity? It is a grey area, to be determined by the victors in the war.

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: Ike99


Nuremberg Principles

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes
a crime under international law is responsible
therefore and liable to punishment.

Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as
crimes under international law:

(b) War Crimes:

...wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.


Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter

ARTICLE 6 (b) ....Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

This is what I am referring to when I say ¨Article 6.¨[/size]

Thanks Ike, that is helpful.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl



What I'm more comfortable with is discussing the law, or lack thereof, which attaches itself to war. There is no real international law, BTW. There are only agreements. And when a side abandons the provisions of the agreement, either formally, by abrogation, or through its behavior, the "compact" is rendered null and void.

Because of the passions attendant to warfare, the ties that might serve to bind the combatants to such an agreement are far more tenuous than those which might adhere to some other sort of pact, trade or extradition, for instance. As such, they are far less likely to withstand a test like that which typified so much of the latter, desperate stages of WW2.

It's also worth noting that the extremity of Axis behavior in places like Nanking set the stage for their undoing. That they went so far in playing out there fascist/militarist/racist ideology virtually insured that the Allies would respond with a level of brutality commensurate to that which they sought to subdue, albeit grudgingly and with considerable agitation of conscience.

Did the Japanese and Germans commit war crimes in WW2?

Nah, they just opted out of the agreement.

Did the U.S. or Britain?

Nah, how could they be bound to an agreement which had been unilaterally voided by the Axis Powers.

Thanks again Prince.
If you really bored, try reading the conclusions of this 2006 report at http://aupress.au.af.mil/Books/Davis/Davis_B99.pdf
Beware, the conlusion section alone is something like 70 pages, but I think it does a good job laying out successes and failures of the Combined Bombing Campaign.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

But define military necessity. If wiping Hiroshima off the map will shorten the war, then isn't that a military necessity? It is a grey area, to be determined by the victors in the war.

Agreed. Prince seems to concur with you too. The Axis opted out, so the Allies had a great deal of flexibility in prosecuting the war.

On a side, but related note, I was staggered to read in the Davis Report that the deaths in the 8th and 15th AAFs exceed those of the Marine Corps in WWII.

[tocaff]

The number of missions required by a tour of duty in the USAAC and the loss rate made it very unlikely that airmen would survive their tours in Europe.  The German defense was very effective, yet it was eventually overwhelmed by the sheer weight of the attacks.  Of course P-47s and 51s didn't hurt to have around either.  The Japanese, on the other hand, weren't effective against the B-29s and the pilots who did intercept them tended to lack aggressiveness on many occasions.  It also helped to apply the hard lessons learned by the 8th & 15th AAFs to the 20th and it's ops.

[Wirraway_Ace]

[font="times new roman"]The 8th and 15th Air Forces suffered approximately 27,000 dead (out of an estimated 250,000 total personnel), almost all of whom were aircrews.  This compares to approximately 20,000 dead U.S. Marines.  John Terraine, talking about RAF Bomber Campaign, said “it is especially ironic that strategic bombing, a tactic marketed in part for inexpensiveness as compared to trench warfare, resulted in the deaths of so many first-class personnel.”  His comments seem relevant to the experience of the 8th and 15th in Europe.[/font]

[Wirraway_Ace]

[font="times new roman"]RAF Bomber Command loss rates of aircrews were staggering.  56,000 dead out of 125,000 total personnel.  It is interesting to note that the loss rates of aircraft between the 8th AAF and Bomber Command were similar, but the survival rates of the crews in Bomber Campaign were much lower during a shoot-down (1 in 5 vs 3 in 5) due to poor crew escape options primarily in the Lancaster.[/font]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

[font="times new roman"]The 8th and 15th Air Forces suffered approximately 27,000 dead (out of an estimated 250,000 total personnel), almost all of whom were aircrews.  This compares to approximately 20,000 dead U.S. Marines.  John Terraine, talking about RAF Bomber Campaign, said “it is especially ironic that strategic bombing, a tactic marketed in part for inexpensiveness as compared to trench warfare, resulted in the deaths of so many first-class personnel.”  His comments seem relevant to the experience of the 8th and 15th in Europe.[/font]

I find the quote somewhat elitest. Must have been an airman. Of course, airmen look at the loss of 27,000 "first class" personnel as somehow worse than the loss of 27,000 "second class" (read GRUNTS) personnel.

Frankly, from the standpoint of comparison to land warfare, the approximately 10% casulaties suffered by the airmen look pretty damn light.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter

ARTICLE 6 (b) ....Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

This is what I am referring to when I say ¨Article 6.¨[/size]

Ike, I agree that on its face, "wanton destruction of cities, town or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity" within article 6 appears a bit hypocritical; however, do you know if anyone was actually convicted under this portion of Article 6? I think someone else asked the same question. The reason this distinction is important, is there was much debate within both Britain and the U.S. on the "area bombing" missions of the bombing campaign, and it is entirely possible the writers of the Nuremberg Principles were trying to send a message--though I suspect they were trying to convict the authors of the V-1 & V-2 campaign.

If this portion of the Article was used to convict an Axis player, I would agree that you have some argument for hypocrisy.