Damduster bickering thread

[Sankari]

My maternal grandfather fought in WWII (gunnery officer on board the submarine HMS Taciturn) as did my paternal grandfather (artilleryman in the British Army of the Rhine) and I am proud of their achievements.

But I can take no pride in the dambusters. The deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure (particularly on this scale) is simply unjustifiable. Operation Chastise was a propaganda victory, but its strategic value was dubious, and its actual outcome morally reprehensible. Records show that the vast majority of the planes completely missed their targets. At least two hit their target but caused no damage; one flew into power lines and crashed; others failed to locate their targets altogether; only three actually damaged the dams they were aiming for; and nearly half of the entire aircrew lost their lives.

The outcome was not a military success; it was a humanitarian disaster:

In terms of deaths: according to the latest sources, at least 1,650 people were killed: around 70 in the Eder valley, and at least 1,579 bodies were found along the Möhne and Ruhr rivers, with hundreds missing.

1,026 of the bodies found downriver of the Möhne dam were foreign prisoners of wars and forced-labourers in different camps, mainly from the Soviet Union. Worst-hit was the city of Neheim (now part of Neheim-Hüsten) at the confluence of the Möhne and Ruhr rivers, where over 800 people perished, among them at least 526 female forced-labourers from the Soviet Union. (Some non-German sources erroneously cite an earlier total of 749 for all foreigners in all camps in the Möhne and Ruhr valleys as the casualty at a camp just below the Eder Dam.)

[...]

However, on closer inspection, Operation Chastise did not have the military effect that was at the time believed. By 27 June full water output was restored, thanks to an emergency pumping scheme inaugurated only the previous year, and the electricity grid was again producing power at full capacity.
​

Wiki.

I can find nothing to rejoice at here. It was arguably the world's most spectacularly atrocious example of death by friendly fire, with Britain casually wiping out hundreds of her own allies' civilian and military personnel, whilst simultaneously devastating the lives of countless German civilians.

Attacks on dams are now prohibited under a revised Geneva Convention, and a review of the dambusters' moronic, blundering attack on innocent civilians serves to illuminate the rationale.

The only success of the dambusters was in convincing the British public that they had carried out a superbly effective mission to the greater glory of Britain and the ultimate success of the war effort. In reality, the opposite was true.

 

[lokkers]

snip

Whilst not the success it was thought to be (and as you rightly point out, not without its controversy), that doesn't detract from the bravery and skill of the aircrew and the engineering feats of those involved in the projects.

It's all too easy to look back in hindsight and say that it didn't really help the war as much as predicted, but at the time I'm sure those involved believed what they were doing was right. Surely if they believed they could save the lives of many others by stiking the industrial heartland of their enemy, then their course of action was right in the circumstances? Remember WW2 was total war, and the one objective was the unconditional surrender of the Axis forces by whatever means available.

 

[Sankari]

An incredible mission, certainly something to be proud of .

Can you tell me what was incredible about it?

Out of 19 planes, only 3 damaged their targets. Out of 133 aircrew, 53 died. The dambusters failed to achieve their goal (ie. a mortal blow to German industry) and instead killed hundreds of allied civilians and POWs.

If this is "incredible", it is "incredible" for all the wrong reasons.

 

[KNiVES]

Yay let's celebrate dubious warfare where ethics take a backseat to fireworks. Some of you guys need to do a little bit more research before inflating your chests and declaring 'proud to be British'. There are plenty of events in the second world war that leaves many of us with pride, but this isn't one.

 

[Sankari]

Whilst not the success it was thought to be (and as you rightly point out, not without its controversy), that doesn't detract from the bravery and skill of the aircrew and the engineering feats of those involved in the projects.

It's all too easy to look back in hindsight and say that it didn't really help the war as much as predicted, but at the time I'm sure those involved believed what they were doing was right. Surely if they believed they could save the lives of many others by stiking the industrial heartland of their enemy, then their course of action was right in the circumstances? Remember WW2 was total war, and the one objective was the unconditional surrender of the Axis forces by whatever means available.

I agree with you in principle, and of course the aircrew were all brave men; no argument there. And yes, they acted upon their beliefs and convictions; no argument there.

But then, Hitler was also acting upon his beliefs and convictions when he killed 6 million Jews. So too were the ******* Yanks, when they dropped those ******* hideous nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagaski.

In any case, there was no need for hindsight to recognised the failure of the mission; the tattered remains of the squadron told its own sorry tale, and there was no hiding the fact that only 3 planes had managed to damage their targets. You don't need hindsight to realise that this is not a triumphant success; they would have known it immediately. ("Where's all the aircrew, man?!" "Nearly half of them dead, sir - and only 3 planes out of 19 actually damaged their targets." "Huzzah! A resounding success! Let's toast the Queen!")

Nor did it take long for Britain to realise that German industry had shrugged off the mosquito bites of the dambusters and carried on regardless; military hardware continued to pour out of German factories at a truly frightening rate.

So they did know, back in 1943, that the mission had not been a success. What they did not know (until perhaps years later) was the scale of the civilian losses - particularly those which they had inflicted upon their allies.

It seems to me that contemporary British knowledge of the dambusters is largely based upon mythology and movie depiction, rather than actual facts. People praise Operation Chastise as some sort of incredible triumph because they just don't know any better. Like the Americans with that ****** stupid Pearl Harbour movie, they've swallowed the own propaganda.

The reality is far more unpleasant, and no triumph at all.

 

[lokkers]

So too were the ******* Yanks, when they dropped those ******* hideous nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagaski.

No the Americans dropped the atomic bombs to spare millions of casualties that would've resulted from the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands.

In any case, there was no need for hindsight to recognised the failure of the mission

Hardly - the tactic mission was a success with 2 dams (primary targets) breached. Given the highly inaccurate area bombing conducted during WW2 by all sides to hit two primary targets in one mission was an amazing success. Strategically it didnt have the effect the War Office hoped for, and yes there were civilian casualties. However, given that "any bomb falling within five miles of the target was deemed a "hit" for statistical purposes" (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II"), you can understand that civilian casualties were expected. This isnt really the thread to discuss the moral and strategic conundrum of bombing cities during the war however.

Also the raid lead to Barnes Wallis' other ideas becoming more accepted, which lead to the development of Tallboy and Grand Slam. These were used to great effect, including attacks on the Tirpitz and the U-Boat pens at Breast.

What they did not know (until perhaps years later) was the scale of the civilian losses - particularly those which they had inflicted upon their allies.

Again, this can be said about ALL strategic bombing raids of WW2 and is unfortunately a feature of bombing campaigns up to the present day!

The reality is far more unpleasant, and no triumph at all.

War is Hell - unfortunately sometimes people have to die for a greater cause. Is that not what war is all about?

 

[Glaucus]

But I can take no pride in the dambusters. The deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure (particularly on this scale) is simply unjustifiable.
uhr valleys as the casualty at a camp just below the Eder Dam.)

what are you on? don't you think those people worked in the factories helping the war effort.

Great British ingenuity and although not a complete success it was a partial success. It breached two of the dams. However they didn't know at the time it would be restored so quickly. But that's war for you. You go by intelligence and it's not always accurate.

A lot off misisons saw even worst casualty rates so I can't see why you included that.

And as for people saying the use of nukes was wrong. War is harsh and things had to be done. The nukes where very necessary.

God bless all that fought for a re freedom.

 

[Werewolf]

Yay let's celebrate dubious warfare where ethics take a backseat to fireworks. Some of you guys need to do a little bit more research before inflating your chests and declaring 'proud to be British'. There are plenty of events in the second world war that leaves many of us with pride, but this isn't one.

In war, sometimes Ethics has to take a back seat compared to the practical situation - there is a damn good reason it's sometimes better to go for the (civlian manned) infrastructure/manufacturing facilities than the armed guys up front, - you take out their ability to arm/supply troops and you stand a good chance of saving your troops (or to put it another way, in war you want the other guy to die for his country, not your guys for yours).
Sometimes the fastest/best way to stop a war is to take out the supply lines and support for the war effort.

It's the same sort of reason it's preferable to injure enemy troops rather than kill them outright - it ties up their support/supply infrastructure treating the wounded, meaning they have less to use against your troops (nothing about being nice/trying to limit casualties).


Personally I'm proud of the engineers etc, and especially the pilots who tried something that was incredibly difficult in the hope that it would help win the war faster/with less casualties on our side.
The fact that in hindsight it might not have had quite the effect we initially wanted is relatively irrelivient, if nothing else it was possibly a big morale hit for the Germans knowing that we could go after things like dams in that manner (and the worry that if it happened again it might be a hell of a lot worse, which probably led to the diversion of some units to cover dams - making it a bit easier for raids on other targets).

 

[Sankari]

No the Americans dropped the atomic bombs to spare millions of casualties that would've resulted from the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands.

A popular myth, easily debunked.

The Japanese offered their first surrender proposal to Stalin. Stalin told Churchill. Churchill told Truman. Truman insisted on bombing Japan regardless. This is a fact universally recognised by historians, and was admitted even by Truman himself.

"I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over".

Herbert Hoover to President Harry Truman; 28th of May, 1945

It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse.

General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces under President Truman

I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.

It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'… It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender…

My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children.

Admiral William D. Leahy, Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb.

Lieutenant Commander John McCloy, US Navy

"P.M. [Churchill] & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it.

Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace".

President Harry S. Truman, Diary Entry, July 18, 1945

Some of my conclusions may invoke scorn and even ridicule.

For example, I offer my belief that the existence of the first atomic bombs may have prolonged -- rather than shortened - World War II by influencing Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and President Harry S. Truman to ignore an opportunity to negotiate a surrender that would have ended the killing in the Pacific in May or June of 1945.

And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity.

Stewart L. Udall, US Congressman and Author of Myths of August

Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study

Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan.

Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan… It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.

J. Samuel Walker, Chief Historian, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been?

He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power

That's just an overview. Examples could be multiplied.

Hardly - the tactic mission was a success with 2 dams (primary targets) breached. Given the highly inaccurate area bombing conducted during WW2 by all sides to hit two primary targets in one mission was an amazing success.

2 out of 19 is an amazing success?

Strategically it didnt have the effect the War Office hoped for, and yes there were civilian casualties.

And allied casualties.

However, given that "any bomb falling within five miles of the target was deemed a "hit" for statistical purposes" (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II"), you can understand that civilian casualties were expected. This isnt really the thread to discuss the moral and strategic conundrum of bombing cities during the war however.

The moral and strategic conundrum of bombing cities during the war has a very obvious place in a thread created to celebrate an event which under today's Geneva Convention would be condemned as a war crime.

Also the raid lead to Barnes Wallis' other ideas becoming more accepted, which lead to the development of Tallboy and Grand Slam. These were used to great effect, including attacks on the Tirpitz and the U-Boat pens at Breast.

Again, this can be said about ALL strategic bombing raids of WW2 and is unfortunately a feature of bombing campaigns up to the present day!

True enough, but this still doesn't make Operation Chastise some sort of brilliant British success story. Because it wasn't. It was a failure - even when judged by the standards of its own criteria.

War is Hell - unfortunately sometimes people have to die for a greater cause. Is that not what war is all about?

Yes, but that is no justification for shrugging off civilian and allied casualties.

 

[Sankari]

what are you on? don't you think those people worked in the factories helping the war effort.

Which is still no reason to kill them, since they were, after all, civilians.

They were also forced labour from allied nations, including POWs.

Capice?

 

[Glaucus]

Which is still no reason to kill them, since they were, after all, civilians.

civilians? no such thing. They where working for the war effort. Not as soldier. But that makes little difference.

 

[Werewolf]

Which is still no reason to kill them, since they were, after all, civilians.

They were also forced labour from allied nations, including POWs.

Capice?

If the factory is used to make stuff supporting the war effort it is, by definition a target.
It doesn't matter who is working in it, it's nice to try and avoid a factory being manned by forced labour, but it's not practical to do so (if you make it policy to avoid hitting any such facility because it's using forced labour, you'll soon find all the main factories suddenly start using some forced labour).

It's nice to try and avoid hurting civilians, but it's not always (or even often) possible, and as acidhell says once a civilian works in a factory making weapons/stuff of the war effort they become legitimate targets under almost any definition.
We have weapons now that are unbelivably accurate compared to those used in WW2, and it's still damn near impossible to avoid civilian casualties in many situations (at best you can try to limit them).

 

[peetee]

some of the people in here are forgetting that it was civilians working in ammunitions factorys on both sides who were killed during bombing raids too, so it was a bog standard bombing raid and was somewhat successful as discussed above(direct hits on 2/3rd of primary targets??
Civilians fuel war efforts, end of story, during ww2 the civilians in the ammunition factorys were as important as the soldiers in the front lines, therefore although sad that some were knowingly going to die it was generally necessary to help win the war.
It was thought this would be a bigger success, it sadly wasnt, its not like anywhere near as many civilians were affected by this compared to that of the nukes in Japan.

War is harsh and nasty, its very dirty and civilians suffer because of it, its also somewhat natural.

 

[Sankari]

civilians? no such thing. They where working for the war effort. Not as soldier. But that makes little difference.

If the factory is used to make stuff supporting the war effort it is, by definition a target.
It doesn't matter who is working in it, it's nice to try and avoid a factory being manned by forced labour, but it's not practical to do so (if you make it policy to avoid hitting any such facility because it's using forced labour, you'll soon find all the main factories suddenly start using some forced labour).

It's nice to try and avoid hurting civilians, but it's not always (or even often) possible, and as acidhell says once a civilian works in a factory making weapons/stuff of the war effort they become legitimate targets under almost any definition.

Let's review.

You both believe it is perfectly legitimate to kill allied civilians who are working against their will in forced conditions, alongside allied POWs who are members of allied military forces.

Correct?

I'm glad you guys weren't on the scene when Auschwitz was liberated. You would have slaughtered all the Jews without a second thought.

 

[Glaucus]

Let's review.

You both believe it is perfectly legitimate to kill allied civilians who are working against their will in forced conditions, alongside allied POWs who are members of allied military forces.

Correct?

if it's unavoidable yes.

Say they where forced to make a nuke and use it against you. Would you not bomb the place to prevent this. Even though it's forced labour?

Thank God you where not leading the war effort we would all of died.

 

[peetee]

its collateral damage, end of, sacrifice of the few for the gain of the many. What if the evil germans crippled all our ammunition manufacture, and then we were too goody goody to do them the favour in return, our soldiers would retreat, die, they would advance and then it would be basically GB up for grabs.

 

[Sankari]

if it's unavoidable yes.

It was avoidable in the case of Operation Chastise.

Say they where forced to make a nuke and use it against you. Would you not bomb the place to prevent this. Even though it's forced labour?

Your hypothetical fails, because (a) building a nuke requires specialised technicians (not a round-up of the latest POWs) and (b) no POW would be permitted to work on such a sensitive project.

Thank God you where not leading the war effort we would all of died.

******* nonsense.

What you are failing to realise here is that the deaths of those allied civilians and POWs were an unintended outcome of Operation Chastise. They died when their factories were deluged by the broken dams. The British dambusters weren't aiming at the factories at all; they were aiming at the dams. They had no intention of hitting the factories, and they had no intention of killing the workers in those factories.

Their aim was to destroy the dams and cut off Germany's hydroelectric power, thereby shutting down production in the nearby factories. Their aim was not to kill Britain's allies.

 

[Sankari]

its collateral damage, end of, sacrifice of the few for the gain of the many. What if the evil germans crippled all our ammunition manufacture, and then we were too goody goody to do them the favour in return, our soldiers would retreat, die, they would advance and then it would be basically GB up for grabs.

What if giant aliens from the planet Zork had come down and helped the Nazis to win the day?

"What if" is no substitute for a legitimate argument.

The war was not won by killing German and allied civilians.

 

[Werewolf]

The war was won by beating the German (and Japanese) "war machine", that includes anything that supported the front line troops, including but not limited to
Support staff (the engineers who repaired the tanks/guns/aircraft etc)
The factories that supplied the guns/aircraft/tanks etc - regardless of who was in them at the time.
The transport network that allowed the stuff to be moved - which would also have had a large number of "civilians" working on it.

Once you are inside a building/facility used for the war effort you're inside a target.

 

[Vasquez]

Let's review.

You both believe it is perfectly legitimate to kill allied civilians who are working against their will in forced conditions, alongside allied POWs who are members of allied military forces.

Correct?

I'm glad you guys weren't on the scene when Auschwitz was liberated. You would have slaughtered all the Jews without a second thought.

Its was war, its not like they could let them Germans know in advance "could you have all the Allies out of these factory's on these dates please".

They had to do something and this was it, in hindsight it maybe didn't work as intended but I'm sure there is far more heinous deeds that happened that had less net effect.

It was an incredible engineering feat, awesome in fact. Lets celebrate that.