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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Sankari]

The Dambusters did indeed kill many civilians but you have to look at the context in which the attacks took place. Britain was standing alone against Germany. France had fallen and America had yet to get involved. The British public needed a boost to keep on fighting and this attack gave them that boost. The targets were legitimate but it matters not how effective the attacks were at disabling German infrastructure.

My point is that the dambusters killed allied civilians and allied POWs. Doesn't that concern you?

The pilots and crew were heroes doing what they were ordered to do (which was destroy a target which was of significant benefit to German infrastructure) and for that reason, we should salute their bravery and resolve.

Who gives a damn how effective the raid was. The men fought and died for our country and in that respect are heroes and should be remembered.

I salute their bravery and resolve. I do not salute a botched mission which did not achieve the stated aim.

People who pour scorn on the achievements and sacrifices of the service men and women who founght and died for us (you) aren't fit to lick the boots of people like my stepfarther.

I am NOT "pouring scorn on the achievements and sacrifices of the service men and women who fought and died for us". My two grandfathers served in WWII, for crying out loud.

Didn't you read my first post in this thread? It's right here.

 

[Sankari]

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.

So that includes the allied civilians and POWs forced to work in factories? Fair game? We can shoot them all?

 

[Sankari]

you don't think destroying 3 huge dams would have set there war effort back ?

It might have, if that's what had been achieved.

But it wasn't. They cocked the mission up, and failed to put a dent German industry.

 

[Sankari]

Whilst your argument looks factual and compelling from the comfort of a warm house in safe secure 2008 I believe it is flawed.

You've taken into account facts and figure, all with the hindsight of 65years of history. What you've not done is take into account the situation, morals, imperatives and quite frankly desperation of the situation at the time.

Not at all. I simply observe that they make no difference to the facts.

The facts are these:

(a) Britain tried to cripple Germany industry by destroying the dams which fuelled her hydoelectric plants (an attack now ruled illegal by the Geneva Convention)
(b) The attack was a failure, with only one dam significantly damaged
(c) The resulting floods killed hundreds of civilians, including allied civilians and POWs forced to work in German factories (an unintended outcome)
(d) German industry shrugged off the attack and kept going

Those are the facts.

I don't see how your grandfather’s contribution to the argument is relevant to your criticism. They obviously did their duty at the time, much the same as I would expect you would if you were conscripted and in the same position. I'm sure, much like the rest of us now, they didn't want to go to war, but they did what they did to survive, and secure their loved ones.

My purpose in mentioing my grandfathers' contributions was to show that I am not a pacifist, that I am proud of Britain's military achievements, that I have proper knowledge of the war from family members who fought in it, and that I am not a "veteran-hater".

Unfortunately, some people on this thread are either blind or just plain ******* stupid, and I have now been accused (incredibly) of "pouring scorn on the achievements and sacrifices of the service men and women who fought and died for us".

Which is almost amusing, in an ironic sort of way.

617 Sqn did the same thing.

At the time there was still a very real chance that Britain could lose the war and, as your examples illustrate, it's population killed, enslaved or repressed in the worst way. British cities (as well as German) had been bombed to rubble with thousands of dead civilians.

Britain and her allies at the time were fighting for their very lives and didn't have the known facts, security and the luxury of hand wringing that your post suggests we now have.

The RAF, did what it could to hit back at an enemy that had over run and enslaved most of europe in any way it could.

If they had of known of the effectiveness, IF they had of known the cost in aircrew lives, IF they had of known the allied prisoner death toll, IF IF IF...

The point is they didn't. They did the best with the tools and information they had at the time in the moral climate of the time. The Dambusters raid isn't celebrated as a military victory, it's celebrated and was publicised at the time as a celebration of the will to fight back, to damage the Nazi war industry it a way not yet done and to give the public, and forces the hope that they were not suffering and fighting in vain.

As I said before, I am aware that the dambusters did not intend to kill civilians. They were aiming for the dams; they were not aiming for the factories. I am not accusing them of killing civilians deliberately. The point I am making is that the mission is widely celebrated as a success, when in fact it was a failure. That is my central point.

I'm afraid your cold analysis of the figures just ignores the entire setting and context for the raid.

No it doesn't. I entirely appreciate the setting and context of the raid. Britain was desperate, and was trying every avenue to stop the Nazi advance. She resorted to bombing the dams in a vain attempt to stifle German industry (an act now ruled illegal by the Geneva Convention).

The bottom line is that she failed to achieve that goal, and killed hundreds of allied civilians and POWs in the process.

Frankly I find it narrow, disrespectful, ungrateful and clearly written as a criticism by someone who has not been in the position of spending the last 4 years fighting or wondering if you and your family would live to survive another day.

Empty rhetoric; I remain unmoved. You haven't "been in the position of spending the last 4 years fighting or wondering if you and your family would live to survive another day" either, so does that make your opinion any more or less valid?

"Narrow" - in what way?

"Disrespectful" and "ungrateful" - in what way? As I've said before, I respect the aircrew for their bravery and I respect the engineers for their technical expertise. So who am I disrespecting, and what am I being ungrateful for? Nobody and nothing, as far as I can see.

Without context bare figures are not a great guide for deciding to criticise an action or not.

I apologise if I sound rude, but the original post really annoyed me.

I don't care about whether or not you sound rude; on the contrary, I applaud your candour, even though your blinkered, Boys Own Journal view really annoys me too.

But the context makes no difference to the facts. And the facts are these: the mission was a strategic failure, a propaganda success, and a humanitarian disaster.

Those are the facts, and no amount of frenzied emotivism will change them.

 

[Sankari]

So while while Operation Chastise was morally reprehensible what you have failed to mention is the Luftwaffe attacks on Coventry and the east end of London. Were they morally reprehensable too? The German bombing of Coventry was a justifiable war target due to the large amount of arms factories same with the East end due to the Docks. This goes the same with the German Dams.

I entirely agree.

The Luftwaffe attacks on Coventry and London were morally reprehensible. There is no high moral ground for Britain or Germany here.

What people keep missing is that the dambusters didn't know that the broken dams would kill hundreds of allied civilians and POWs. They had no idea that this would happen. It was not a stated aim of the mission; it was an unintended, unexpected outcome.

People like AcidHell2 are talking as if this was an expected outcome, calculated by the dambusters in advance and deemed an acceptable sacrifice for the purpose of the mission. But it was no such thing.

The dambusters did not kill those civilians deliberately, as some part of a calculated comparison between collateral damage and strategic outcome. It was just raw, unintentional, collateral damage.

 

[Sankari]

and how do you work that out?

the bombs where shown to work, 2 out 3 targets where damaged, power was knocked out for 2 weeks and took many more months to be fully repaired. it wasn't a total success but it was a success.

Germans know how to spend resources countering a new weapon.

The intention was to destroy all targets and ruin German industry.

Instead, 2 out of 3 targets were damaged by 3 out of 19 attacks, none of them were destroyed, and Germany industry recovered quickly.

Not a success.

 

[Sankari]

Are you German ?

No. Didn't you read my first post? My maternal grandfather served as gunnery officer on the submarine HMS Taciturn, and my paternal grandfather served as an artilleryman in the British Army of the Rhine.

Both were English.

 

[Sankari]

I know it was known before hand. But even if it was I'm sure the mission would still of been accepted.

It might have been. Britain was certainly making some difficult choices during the later stages of the war.

She may have condoned the deliberate killing of known allied targets in the pursuit of a greater tactical achievement. But I don't think we can be sure either way.

 

[Sankari]

That has nothing to do with it. Many more missions saw high casualty rates and where still outstanding success.
As I said it wasn't a complete success. But it certainly wasn't a failure. The targets where damaged and took weeks to repair.

It has everything to do with it, because if more attacks had been successful the mission would have been achieved!

 

[Sankari]

Evangelion I find it amusing that you can sit here and rip in to our guys on forums. You and me have no idea what it was like in those days. Constant war compared to your lifestyle today.

They were doing anything they could to help end the war asap.

Can you show me one place where I have "ripped into our guys", please?

 

[Sankari]

So how would you have it?

I would have it the way it is today: missions are planned for maximum military casualties and minimum civilian casualties. Then everyone goes out and does their best to achieve this goal.

If they are not entirely successful, they can at least sleep soundly in the knowledge that they did their best to avoid collateral damage.

This is not how things were done in times past.

 

[Sankari]

I'm afraid this is why I fundamentally disagree with you. The context makes all the difference to facts. £10 is not a lot of money to a millionaire; it's a banquet to a starving man. So does giving someone £10 make a difference? It depends on the context, even if the facts are both men eat a meal.

I'm afraid the 20:20 vision of hindsight makes for a poor tool in judging the effect and success of past events.

Just for the sake of it, let’s hypothesise further.

Do you categorically know the raid didn't delay production of a war supply that because it was now 2 months late only killed 100 people instead of 10,000?

Do you know categorically the vulnerability of the Dams didn't force the Nazis to redistribute AA and night fighters away from other targets like Peenemunde to protect the dams, allowing successful raids elsewhere that shortened the war.

Nope.

Do you know what effect the dams’ raid had on the NAZI moral and will to fight?

I know that it had a devastating effect on Nazi moral. This is well documented.

Do you know for a fact that none of the killed workers wasn't critical to the Nazi war effort?

Do you know how the raid influenced British moral, will to fight, military and scientific research and advances, all of which that could have significantly contributed to the defeat of the Axis powers?

Nope to all of the above.

No, you don't, and neither do I.

And that's my point, and why I think your argument is flawed. You don't have the context, you judge the success or failure criteria based on today’s ethical and moral standards and not the situation of the time. You don't even have all the facts, your analysis is very narrow in scope and naive in that it completely avoids looking at the larger picture.

The dams raid, much like the other actions of the war, any war, have to be viewed in context and as a whole. You could just as easily argue that if you grandfather was responsible for only killing one single Nazi soldier his contribution to the war was a failure. What if that soldier was a young boy from the Volkstrum, would you judge your grandfather then? How about if the soldier was an unwilling conscript, would you judge his actions as a failure or insignificant?

You have to have context and the complete picture, something your (and my) arguments do not have in this thread. That is why I believe your argument is flawed.

I am not sure what you are trying to justify here: the fact that the dams were bombed, or the fact that their collapse killed allied civilians and POWs. Either way, I see nothing which identifies flaws in my argument.

I do view the bombings in context, and I judge their success by the criteria established by their planners.

In the context of the day, the bombings were deemed legitimate. In the context of today, they are deemed illegitimate (which is why such bombings are now illegal under the Geneva Convention). This is the only relevance of context to the argument.

By the criteria laid down by their planners, the bombings were a strategic failure but a propaganda success. This is a simple fact to which context has no relevance.