Damduster bickering thread

[Hitman_Leon]

Dambusters raid was a propaganda coup and and a sucess in boosting the morale or the British people at the time. No matter the material damage or lack of impact on the German war effort it was a propaganda coup. The misson did not do what it said on the tin but was made to do other things with the media it gave civilians a boost by saying, "We punched fritz where it hurts" this in turn lifted the spirits of the country and fortified the war effort. In 1943 the countrys population needed every lift of morale it could get and that raid regardless of success fitted the bill.

 

[Macro]

Stuff

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[Spitfir3]

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

Hear hear! - well written, sir.

 

[KNiVES]

I am afraid it is far from ample justification. Even in desperation it amounted to very little other than a giant propaganda coup (and it worked).

 

[Glaucus]

I am afraid it is far from ample justification. Even in desperation it amounted to very little other than a giant propaganda coup (and it worked).

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

 

[Rilot]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

My stepfarther was a Dehavilland Mosquito recon pilot and he took part in one of the very last missions the RAF flew in WW2. His mission was to identify ships that were escaping from northern Germany supposidly loaded with escaping Nazi officers. The locations of these ships was then reported back to base and a squadron of Hawker Typhoon naval attack aircraft were launched to sink the ships.

After the event is was assertained that the ships didn't in fact contain Nazi officers and in fact contained a large number of PoWs and Jewish prisoners whom the Nazis were attempting to hide from the allies. All the ships were sank and hundereds of innocents lost their lives.

I asked my stepfarther if he felt guilt over being directly responsible for deaths of those people and his reply was "No, we were following orders to identify ships. Those orders did not say 'go kill civilians'" He added that if those orderes had instructed him to kill civilians he would have refused to carry them out.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ex-RoNiN]

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

That's the basic issue here.

The assumption was that these dams would take out the Ruhr's Electricity supply and thus stop all factories in the Ruhrgebiet. As such, it was thought to be reasonable to end up killing several villages.

The problem is that this assumption was not true - no factories were destroyed, the dams were back online by the end of the year and the interruption lasted a few weeks only. With the initial assumption wrong and the death of those civilians (who were at home, sleeping) thus becomes questionable.

Killing civilians to justify war victory is always morally doubtful, but considering the nature of the war, this was not an issue. Today's ethics do not have any bearing on ethics then.

Looking at it from the other side, if the raid did work as intended (electricity in the Ruhrgebiet gone, all factories in that area offline for years), would the dead civilians have been worth it?

It depends on your ethics and what kind of a human you are - end justifies the means, or it doesn't

 

[Housey]

Well I loved the film

 

[Ex-RoNiN]

The men fought and died for our country and in that respect are heroes and should be remembered.

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.

So basically anyone who fought in a war should be automatically be excluded from having his/her actions evaluated and morally/ethically/professionally judged?

 

[Glaucus]

Killing civilians to justify war victory is always morally doubtful, but considering the nature of the war, this was not an issue. Today's ethics do not have any bearing on ethics then.

Looking at it from the other side, if the raid did work as intended (electricity in the Ruhrgebiet gone, all factories in that area offline for years), would the dead civilians have been worth it?

It depends on your ethics and what kind of a human you are - end justifies the means, or it doesn't

But it was not known it could be repaired so fast. It stilled tied up resource and brought power down for a few weeks. It still gave England a massive high and undoubtedly dented German morale. It was worth it in any aspect you look at it. It also has nothing to do with what type of humane you are. Wars do not afford the luxuries of such thoughts.

 

[Kemik]

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.

 

[Ex-RoNiN]

But it was not known it could be repaired so fast.

Hence the meaning of the word 'assumption'. They turn out to be wrong sometimes.

It stilled tied up resource and brought power down for a few weeks. It still gave England a massive high and undoubtedly dented German morale.

Good - how is this relevant to the debate?

It was worth it in any aspect you look at it.

That's your judgment, not THE judgment.

It also has nothing to do with what type of humane you are. Wars do not afford the luxuries of such thoughts.

It has everything to do with this. It is plain obvious from your postings that you think that the ends justify the means, it's obvious that you are this kind of person.

Wars do afford the luxuries of such thoughts and it is primarily those thoughts that determine the conduct of the war.

 

[4T5]

Are you German ?
I vote Bannage for disrespecting WWII & Soldiers & all our Wonderful killing & bombing history.
In fact i think this thread alone is enough to start another World War.

HANG THE HERETIC !!!

 

[Glaucus]

Good - how is this relevant to the debate?

Because that part of *** mission brief. It was to destroy *** dams and tie up resources it didn;'t achieve that for as long as they wanted. It still took out infastructure and tied up resources.

It has everything to do with this. It is plain obvious from your postings that you think that the ends justify the means, it's obvious that you are this kind of person.

Wars do afford the luxuries of such thoughts and it is primarily those thoughts that determine the conduct of the war.

No it's not the choice is basically kill 200 POW or let them make bullets which will kill thousands of your soldiers.
It has nothing to do with morales or anything else. It's simple tactics and anyone who cant separate that from there mind should say how wrong it is.

 

[Rilot]

So basically anyone who fought in a war should be automatically be excluded from having his/her actions evaluated and morally/ethically/professionally judged?

No, that is not what I said. These men were following orders, those orders were legal and they carried them out to the letter.
What I am saying is what gives you the right to judge past servicemen for following the perfectly legal orders from their superiors?

If they were ordered to bomb dams and instead decided to drop some bombs on a village, they would have commited an illegal act. These airmen were not specifically ordered to kill civilians. They were ordered to destroy a target of percieved military significance and they carried that out to the best of their abilities.

If you wish to critisise anything about the operation, damn the officers who's plan it was and who's intelligence was flawed, not the men who carried out the operation and who we honor today.

 

[neil3k]

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.

 

[Skii]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Excellent post. Well Said.

 

[Ex-RoNiN]

Because that part of *** mission brief. It was to destroy *** dams and tie up resources it didn;'t achieve that for as long as they wanted. It still took out infastructure and tied up resources.

Great, so yet again you show that the end justifies the mean Nobody's saying whether that's right or wrong, it is just an observation.

No it's not the choice is basically kill 200 POW or let them make bullets which will kill thousands of your soldiers.
It has nothing to do with morales or anything else. It's simple tactics and anyone who cant separate that from there mind should say how wrong it is.

This is an academic debate on this particular subject, as I doubt the mission designers even knew about the POWs in the area - Germany was not in the habit of announcing these sort of things.

It does become more interesting if we assume they did know, however - do you think they would have gone ahead with the bombing? You are saying the objectives are worth the collateral damage; however, that is you, not everyone else. It is a moral issue and depends on the individuals involved.

Tactics do not determine ethical/moral choices, it is the other way around actually. You have a sniper down the alley, do you search the houses individually (and risk getting killed) or do you flatten the entire block? You have a civilian ship in your sight, do you sink it without identifying it or do you spend time assessing whether its actually civilian or a troop ship? You get an immoral and illegal order - do you follow it or do you stand your ground and get shot as a deserter?

Such choices were made all the time and the actions show the morals of the people in charge in those situations. War does not automatically put you into an "ends justify the means" mindset. You have the freedom to make the choice.

Therefore, it is a question of morals and in my opinion we simply don't have enough information to make that judgment call on the mission designers. We don't know about their knowledge of POW presence in the area, we don't know about their knowledge of civilian presence in the area.

 

[LOAM]

Its a remembrance event you idiots not a celebration, To remember the dead (on both sides of the equation). The ins and outs of how and why it was done are moot now as it was 65 years ago.

to the op and shame on you tbh

 

[Ex-RoNiN]

No, that is not what I said. These men were following orders, those orders were legal and they carried them out to the letter.
What I am saying is what gives you the right to judge past servicemen for following the perfectly legal orders from their superiors?

If they were ordered to bomb dams and instead decided to drop some bombs on a village, they would have commited an illegal act. These airmen were not specifically ordered to kill civilians. They were ordered to destroy a target of percieved military significance and they carried that out to the best of their abilities.

If you wish to critisise anything about the operation, damn the officers who's plan it was and who's intelligence was flawed, not the men who carried out the operation and who we honor today.

Good, thanks for clearing that up. Giving people a blanque cheque like that is dangerous.

I am not judging the servicemen for following legal orders, I am merely saying that history/the powers that be do not only have the right, but the duty to judge the legality and morality of any/all orders. Further to this, the servicemen's knowledge/awareness of legality and morality have to be assessed.

My assessment on this particular mission is in the post above - we don't know.