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.
