Damduster bickering thread

[Hitman_Leon]

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

Its not how they "pilots and crew or planners" would want it, in an ideal world they would call up and say move the civ's out we are going to do so and so on this date at this time. But its not an ideal world because we have wars in the first place which is the furthest from ideal that you can get. Also the enemy would take advantage by deploying defensive forces for the best effect if you told them what you were going to do.

So how would you have it?. The truth is a lot of effort did go into and always has for the most part, Not to kill civillians!

"remember for the most part because some raids were planned for ultimate destruction and stuff the casualties, some-one will point this out"

It is a sad and brutal fact of war, the set battles of previous centuries were replaced by total war. Total war dictates casuaties in the civilian populous, mostly unintentional, some brutally intentional but casualties none the less. unintentional casualties being seen as a means to an end.

The unfortunate deaths of some civillians being a lesser price to pay than not destroying an important piece of an enemy war machine and saving countless lives both civillian and military "on both sides". saving those lives by taking away or limiting the production or support that any instalation would supply to the enemy if not destroyed.

 

[Glaucus]

So how would you have it?. The truth is a lot of effort did go into and always has for the most part,

I think the trouble is many people can't or don't want to comprehend such action, so it's a bit pointless arguing.

 

[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?

 

[Macro]

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.

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.

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

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?

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? Or was it the fact that even though his individual contribution was small it was the larger picture, the fact that thousands of men were willing to fight because their friends and families did, that made his (theorical I grant you) seemingly minor military result part of the greater victory?

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.

 

[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.

 

[Glaucus]

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.

and that's your flaw a huge flaw at that. We did not have military supremacy, we did not have the resources, we weren't fighting a 3rd world army. These are the things that make it possible in current conflicts.

You are trying to compare and apple with an orange. they simply do not fit. It's very short sighted and you obviously have yet to comprehend how a world war works.

 

[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.

 

[Glaucus]

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.

and you really think that holds any weight what so ever.

I know my king, we have this plan but we can't do it as we would have war crimes filed against us. If another country which has already been captured suddenly regains it's foot hold. We better lay down are arms and walk ourself to the firing squad.

You are naive if you think these laws hold any weight other than in small conflicts.

 

[Hitman_Leon]

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.

Todays raids with supposed smart weapons and all the technology behind todays actions still produce civilian casualties. When you drop high explosive or launch high explosive you might as well wish for no collateral damage because that is as close as you will ever get to not risking civilian casualties.

The only area of war where you will not risk civilian deaths or injury is probably naval actions, navy vs navy way out at sea where no projectile can go off course and hit the wrong target. Even naval actions can get messy when too close to shore with the range of weapons.

 

[Sankari]

and that's your flaw a huge flaw at that. We did not have military supremacy, we did not have the resources, we weren't fighting a 3rd world army. These are the things that make it possible in current conflicts.

LOL! There have been more modern conflicts than the wars in Iran and Iraq. (Falklands, anyone?)

It's not about military supremacy. It's not even about resources or fighting a 3rd World army. It's about superior technology and a different ethos.

You don't need military supremacy or a 3rd World enemy to plan missions which minimise civilian casualties. You simply require the right technology, and the will to avoid collateral damage.

Hell, even a bunch of soldiers with Steyr AUG A2s can carry out a mission like that. All they need is a set of strict directives and the will to obey them. "Challenge; question; fire only when fired upon". That sort of thing.

You are trying to compare and apple with an orange. they simply do not fit. It's very short sighted and you obviously have yet to comprehend how a world war works.

Now you are just babbling randomly.

 

[Sankari]

and you really think that holds any weight what so ever.

I know my king, we have this plan but we can't do it as we would have war crimes filed against us. If another country which has already been captured suddenly regains it's foot hold. We better lay down are arms and walk ourself to the firing squad.

You are naive if you think these laws hold any weight other than in small conflicts.

You are clearly no student of military history. Come back when you've learned some. Then we'll talk.

Nuremberg trials, anyone?

Small conflicts my ****.

 

[Sankari]

Todays raids with supposed smart weapons and all the technology behind todays actions still produce civilian casualties. When you drop high explosive or launch high explosive you might as well wish for no collateral damage because that is as close as you will ever get to not risking civilian casualties.

The only area of war where you will not risk civilian deaths or injury is probably naval actions, navy vs navy way out at sea where no projectile can go off course and hit the wrong target. Even naval actions can get messy when too close to shore with the range of weapons.

Agreed.

 

[Hitman_Leon]

You are clearly no student of military history. Come back when you've learned some. Then we'll talk.

Nuremberg trials, anyone?

Small conflicts my ****.

If you know so much we await to be educated .

 

[Glaucus]

You are clearly no student of military history. Come back when you've learned some. Then we'll talk.

Nuremberg trials, anyone?

Small conflicts my ****.

Oh right so a nation that lost a war gets tried by a country who won. Exactly. They didn't think they would lose and so any treats would be forfeit. You point does not stand up.

 

[Azagoth]

Does OcUK have any form of "ignore list"? I've looked, but my tired eyes couldn't see it.

 

[Glaucus]

LOL! There have been more modern conflicts than the wars in Iran and Iraq. (Falklands, anyone?)

It's not about military supremacy. It's not even about resources or fighting a 3rd World army. It's about superior technology and a different ethos.

You don't need military supremacy or a 3rd World enemy to plan missions which minimise civilian casualties. You simply require the right technology, and the will to avoid collateral damage.

.

Yes it is about military supremacy. When you have supremacy you can plan to minimize casualties at all costs. Not so in the world war.

We have not had any large scale wars since ww2.

 

[Glaucus]

Does OcUK have any form of "ignore list"? I've looked, but my tired eyes couldn't see it.

yep user cp buddy/ignore list at bottom.

 

[Hitman_Leon]

Yes it is about military supremacy. When you have supremacy you can plan to minimize casualties at all costs. Not so in the world war.

We have not had any large scale wars since ww2.

Korea and Vietnam being two notable small scale conflicts, .

 

[Glaucus]

Korea and Vietnam being two notable small scale conflicts, .

and at what point where America about to get invaded? they might be larger than Iraq but there still small scale.

World wars are huge, really huge we are talking about millions of troops.

 

[Hitman_Leon]

and at what point where America about to get invaded? they might be larger than Iraq but there still small scale.

World wars are huge, really huge we are talking about millions of troops.

The USA has never been about to get invaded, the closest they have come to invasion is small islands and dependancies being invaded during WW2, the closest to the USA was the threat by the Japanese to the Aleutian Islands. Vietnam and Korea were in all essence total war and the conflicts within the war zones were not unlike WW2.

Attacks on cities and areas of industry and infrastructure,
Mass movements of civilian poulations,
Some indescriminate use of;
air power,
heavy weapons,
disproportionate use of force to threat,
area denial and destruction of facilities and infrastructure essential to civilian populations and of no military significance or advantage.
massacres and war crimes on all sides if looked at with todays so called morals.

in short total war, not unlike WW2 just smaller scale.