Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
Originally posted by Officer of EngineersView Post
You're not military, so you wouldn't understand.
Turning a blind eye to the civie casualties, no, Bomber Harries did not do that. Did it mattered to him? Yes, it did. Was it even a consideration in his decision? No, it was not.
And Dresden was a military target because we said it was. It's as simple as that.
What wouldnt I understand? I dont say it to get uppity on someone who has life experience that I lack, I truly wonder. Im majoring in history with a concentration on military history, so its honest curiosity here.
In any case, pardoning my lack of knowledge on the subject, I would still submit that there were better targets. I dont doubt that just because something is targeted by the military it is a military target, but shouldnt there be some rational for the targeting in question? Like what will hurt the enemy the most and end the war the quickest? I ask because the point I was attempting to make in far too many words was that the bombing of civilians was not decisive from a military standpoint. So it could be argued against on a strategic as well as humanitarian basis.
On another note, I dont understand how not considering something in your decision is different than turning a blind eye to it.
Im not sure if I should apologize in advance for revealing more civie-ignorance. I must warn that im sure theres more in store though.
Yay, way to go :)
Take the Nam fiasco, the lily-livered politicians of that era fouled up big-time.
"Washington tied one of my arms behind my back, thus preventing me bringing the war to a swift conclusion" - Gen Westmoreland, overall Commander, Vietnam.
HEY SNIPER, you're attributing some quotes to me but they're not mine, some other dood posted them. Adjust your sights huh? ;)
It's fixed bro. I switched back and forth between posts with the quotes, and it got jumbled. Sorry fella.(ps, welcome aboard!)
At any rate, i do not like to kill people. It is actually a very troubling, and very personal endeavour. Should be avoided at all costs.
But to me, when the gloves come off, they come off. Attack my civvies? Attack my country?
Pfffft...."watch THIS" would be my answer to the first reporter that asked what our response should be.
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers to somebody -
You're not military, so you wouldn't understand..
--------------------------------------------------
WHOA BUB, don't even go there ;)
Foul-ups are common throughout military history and I daresay a lot of non-military armchair generals like me could do a better job ;)
Example -
Montgomery before D-Day - "We have plenty of specialied beach-assault tanks to spare, tell us which you want"
Eisenhower - "We'll take all you can give us"
Bradley - "No thanks, it'd take too long to train our tank crews to use them"..
So the GI's went ashore at Omaha without any armoured support..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart's_Funnies
Killing is the business of war. I see little reason to eff around.
JOKER:"How do you shoot women, and children?" MARINE DOOR GUNNER:"Easy, just don't lead 'em so much!"
Right, killing is the business of war. But killing who is a big question for a whole lot of people.
And regarding the killing of civilians, especially women and children: isnt the fact that U.S. armed forces say they dont do this what separates them from the terrorists? Seriously, this sucks.
If you can end human life without your conscience announcing its presence, you should be locked away. I dont understand how you could be proud of that.
Who said i was proud? Who said i have no consciensce? How do you know how it affects me when i'm alone with my thoughts?"
You don't.
PS: The military is full of people that can kill with ease.
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers to somebody -
You're not military, so you wouldn't understand..
--------------------------------------------------
WHOA BUB, don't even go there ;)
Foul-ups are common throughout military history and I daresay a lot of non-military armchair generals like me could do a better job ;)
Example -
Montgomery before D-Day - "We have plenty of specialied beach-assault tanks to spare, tell us which you want"
Eisenhower - "We'll take all you can give us"
Bradley - "No thanks, it'd take too long to train our tank crews to use them"..
So the GI's went ashore at Omaha without any armoured support..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart's_Funnies
I cant tell if your serious or not. But thats just nonsense, you cant put yourself in their position with 60 years of hindsight in your favor and say youd do a better hob. Hogwash.
Right, killing is the business of war. But killing who is a big question for a whole lot of people.
And regarding the killing of civilians, especially women and children: isnt the fact that U.S. armed forces say they dont do this what separates them from the terrorists? Seriously, this sucks.
Some of the things we're doing over there are every bit as evil to the Iraqis as what they've done to us.
Kicking in the doors of peoples homes in the middle of the night, taking away loved ones. Blowing up the odd house(or block) with a GPS guided bomb. Turning their nation into a funeral pyre.
We are not the good guys to them.
And it's perpetual. Endless.
Had the proper violence been applied to begin with, this would all have been long since over. That is one of the greatest lessons of WWII. If you want total victory, act like it....dont pull punches.
I cant tell if your serious or not. But thats just nonsense, you cant put yourself in their position with 60 years of hindsight in your favor and say youd do a better hob. Hogwash.
What he's saying is that history demonstrates that we usually make mistakes that are readily apparent after the fact, and we should learn from them.
For instance, going into Iraq 1/4 asssed, BIG mistake.
What wouldnt I understand? I dont say it to get uppity on someone who has life experience that I lack, I truly wonder. Im majoring in history with a concentration on military history, so its honest curiosity here.
Ultimately, it comes down to life and death decisions, not just for yourself, but for the people on your side as well as for the people on the bad guys' side. You make good decisions, bad decisions, no decision, but ultimately in a war, someone will die either on your side or on the bad guys' side by what you do and what you do not do. Can you live with what you did do and more importantly, can you live with what you didn't do? Can you shoot a child to save your mother?
In any case, pardoning my lack of knowledge on the subject, I would still submit that there were better targets. I dont doubt that just because something is targeted by the military it is a military target, but shouldnt there be some rational for the targeting in question? Like what will hurt the enemy the most and end the war the quickest? I ask because the point I was attempting to make in far too many words was that the bombing of civilians was not decisive from a military standpoint. So it could be argued against on a strategic as well as humanitarian basis.
From hindsight, maybe there was and maybe there wasn't but at the time, Harris had a single focus in mind and Dresden was the means to accomplish that. Was he wrong? Maybe. Did it achieve what Harris wanted? Yes, it did.
On another note, I dont understand how not considering something in your decision is different than turning a blind eye to it.
It was not going to stop Harris from achieving his objective. That is the difference. Objectively, there is no difference between the two actions. Subjectively, the civilian casualties were made known, considered, and put aside as irrevelent to the objective.
Im not sure if I should apologize in advance for revealing more civie-ignorance. I must warn that im sure theres more in store though.
My advice here is to grow a thick backbone because the military people here will only explain so much and expects you to fill in the gaps through your own research.
Apparently what you are not understaing is that the application of unrestrained violence in order to maximize the death and destruction is by far the fastest way- and most politically fulfilling(wrt your objectives) way to end a war ever devised by man.
A lesson that "civilized" people choose to ignore, thereby ensuring endless cycles of the half-assed application of limited war featuring "Smart bombs" and "precision/surgical strikes".
You may note we've had very little trouble with the Germans and Japanese lately precisely BECAUSE the lesson we taught them both was so god-damned painful.
I could put forth many historical quotes from some very famous generals/presidents/rulers to back this rationale. In fact, i have.
...I would still submit that there were better targets. I dont doubt that just because something is targeted by the military it is a military target, but shouldnt there be some rational for the targeting in question? Like what will hurt the enemy the most and end the war the quickest? I ask because the point I was attempting to make in far too many words was that the bombing of civilians was not decisive from a military standpoint.
We decisively removed Dresden from the target list. Dresden was a major transportation node, and had a huge population of Nazi enablers(factory workers, tailors, repairmen, farmers, school teachers, doctors, etc, etc, etc....ALL are part of the Nazi infrastructure, and therefore, were perfectly legitimate and valuable targets).
Key word: Was.
And then it was a burnt out hulk that used to be a city full of Nazi supporters.
From Mick - So the GI's went ashore at Omaha without any armoured support..
From GSpot - I cant tell if your serious or not. But thats just nonsense
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure I'm serious mate, although I'm having trouble taking you seriously with a name like GSpot ;)
Now get your finger out and go check the pre-Normandy chapters in Chester Wilmots classic book "The Struggle For Europe"
I say again, Bradley fouled up unless you agree with his decision to land troops on Omaha without tank support? No wonder Tom Hanks got the shakes..
Naturally it's been largely hushed up ever since but the truth will out..
"V Corps's plan for Omaha eschewed tactical subtleties, the use of British specialized armour.." http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/lewis_omaha.html
I think many military minds of the past, and quite certainly some of the present, would suggest that one needs to apply the violence judiciously when occupying a hostile nation. Killing the civilians all over the place isnt going to make things easier in the long run, not in a world where a single man or device can so easily take the lives of so many others. I mean, to a certain extent you must befriend the population, especially when certain members of it profess not to fear the death you are dealing.
That being said, yeah, when the killings going on you gotta bury the opposition.
I see. Well since it's midnight and I'm tired, I don't want to get into a "race war" with you. I will admit, I'm surprised and ashamed at your comments about the Japanese people, for the majority of "them" consider Americans their friends. I suppose you don't know many Japanese.
I will respond later, and do my best to be respectful. That's the most I can offer at this moment.
Tweet
Comment