Display:


*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 10:24:26 AM EST
Have you got change for a 5?

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 10:41:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well I've got a four, so you'd better give him a 1 as change.

Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship
by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 10:54:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was hitch hiking across the south of Wales  about 20 years ago, I was picked up by a member of that squadron, He hadn't flown on that but was telling me how he'd flown on another Dam destroying raid later in the war. They had destroyed  this dam and drowned over ten thousand retreating Germans, along with the civilians in the Area. We had to stop for ten minutes of contrite tears, for all of the poor boys he'd killed.

Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship
by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 11:00:52 AM EST
Can you remember more details? The only significant dam attacks on the Western front I heard of were during the battle in the Eifel Mountains, but that was an American offensive, and the attacks on the dams were less than successful.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 11:38:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No that was all he said, and the old boy was in tears about it, didn't want to press him as I didn't think he'd be safe getting to his destination after I got out of the car.

Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship
by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 12:05:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I found this: RAF History - Bomber Command 60th Anniversary
Further attacks on dams were made in October/December when the Kembs and Urft dams were attacked; the Kembs dam was successfully breached.

The Urft Dam was attacked during the offensive I named, indeed I find more detailed German sources telling of RAF Dam Buster unit involvement. This dam was only damaged, but it was later blown up by retreating German units (I found no reports of casualties in either attack).

Kembs is in Alsace/today France, near Basel. It has a hydropower dam on the Rhine, but I find the attack concerned an associated weir closing off the original bed of the Rhine (the middle of which is today's border) near Märkt. The successful attack on 7 October caused a 3.5-metre drop of the water level in Basel's port upriver. Again no reported casualties, nor likely - but I could imagine someone unaccustomed with the geography could fear a major city would be swept.

The list of the applications of the Tallboy bomb mentions one more failed attack, a repeat mission on the Sorpke Dam in 1944 (this was the third dam which they failed to breach in the 1943 raid).

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 01:36:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
without a breach of the third dam the whole plan was a complete failure, obtaining none of its objectives in shutting down industrial production for an extended time. The bombs were entirely the wrong type to destroy the third dam, the Penetrator type stood a much better chance to do damage to its structure

Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship
by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 02:07:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't have a specific reference to give you, sorry.

Dams, along with other infra-structures, were systematically targeted by the Allies' Air Forces in ground-support operations.  So-called 'tactical bombing' of dams ahead of the ground forces was conducted to prevent the release water in the capture basins being used as a defensive option.  As this 'tactical bombing' was necessarily directed against targets behind Axis lines the majority of casualties were civilians.  These raids were undertaken in late 1944 through spring of '45.  

Have epistemological model of Complex Information environments. Will Travel.

by ATinNM on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 01:08:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you, Dodo! another reminder how cruel war is. And also that by focusing mainly on the Holocaust, we tend to forget that there were a lot of other victims in that war, an not all victims of the Nazi's.
by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 11:25:58 AM EST
yes, visiting friends in Germany, seeing pictures on grandmothers walls of children in uniform, young brothers, husbands. people looking far to young to have been involved. victims one and all.

Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship
by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 12:08:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Total war sucks, but I feel it was justified in this case. Nazi Germany was a unique combination of power, evil, and expansionism. There's also a difference between an attack on industrial infrastructure which will cause huge civilian casualties and Dresden which involved a primarily civilian target when the war was basically over.

NB the consensus on the effect of the air war on Germany's war capacity seems to be shifting from not much to quite significant.

by MarekNYC on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 01:57:16 PM EST
Re: Consensus

Not surprising.  The rejection of the "not much" consensus is a necessary step for creating the intellectual climate required for bombing Iran.  

Have epistemological model of Complex Information environments. Will Travel.

by ATinNM on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 02:06:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What? You're saying that a shift that began well before the let's bomb Iran stuff, among a generally left wing group, and which concerns a massive sustained bombing campaign has something to do with current political debates?
by MarekNYC on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 02:13:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No.

I'm saying the shift has to occur in the Planning Staffs in the Pentagon and among the decision makers in D.C.

Have epistemological model of Complex Information environments. Will Travel.

by ATinNM on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 02:19:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I wasn't opening a general discussion on the justification of wars - only this (type of) attack. A dam is a public infrastrucutre serving not only the industry, and the destruction it wroughts extends beyond the immediate destruction effort - there is a difference between attacking a weapons factory and attacking a power station or water purification plant, too, and I'd say a dam attack is on yet another higher step.

I wasn't discussing air war in general, either, though the shift you mention would be worth a more explicit discussion. (As ATinNM, I suspect that shift has reasons in reverse justificating current military strategies, also see Rumsfeld's short-time resurrection of the myth of the Werewolf insurgency.)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 02:44:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Again it doesn't have much to do with current politics. The dynamics of academia, yes - if you're working in a well researched field you need to write something new. The old argument was based on the fact that Germany's arms production went up in spite of the air campaign. The new one argues that it did so a lot less than it would have otherwise and that it diverted production into air defense and fighter aircraft.

As far as Iran goes, it would be trivial for the US to cause a collapse of its economy. It would also be a pointless self inflicted negative for US interests but that wouldn't be much consolation for Iran.  There's a difference between a conflict between high tech economic superpowers with the resources of a continent at it's disposal and a medium sized middle income country.

by MarekNYC on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 03:11:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You say total war. At a general level, I do agree with you that, especially given the Gleichschaltung of the entire country, there was no way to crush the Nazi war machine without severely hurting civilians.

Meanwhile, at a much more specific level, I wonder what you think about another angle of my diary: the present-day public image, worsip and fascination with the Dambusters as shown bny the British media.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 02:52:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can only say that I've been made aware of this facet of  the 'Dambusters' since the word go. I don't feel like the truth about how many innocent were killed has ever really been hidden from me. In fact, I well remember the figure of '1,000 POWs drowned' being given. I think that sometimes worship and fascination with people like soldiers and airmen - people who kill for their country - is an attempt to cover up ambivalent feelings. It may be the media's way of reassuring us that they are definitely heroes by exaggerating their achievements, and downplaying their faults.

I can't speak for the efficacy of the bombing raid, obviously, only that in a state of total war, the difference between 'civilian' and 'military' is not always present. Which is all the more reason to avoid war like the plague it is.

Member of the Anti-Fabulousness League since 1987.

by Ephemera on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 02:08:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The efficacy was actually on the morale of the people.

The British had been taking a pasting, Hitler's march across europe was more or less unopposed, only the channel saved the UK. Although the Battle of N Africa was going well it still hung in the balance, the battle of the Atlantic was still raging and Britain faced starvation. Losses of Bomber Command over Germany were colossal and the luftwaffe were still bombing British cities seemingly at will. Meanwhile on the Eastern Front the Battle of Kursk, which turned the tide against the germans, had yet to be fought.

So morale amongst the allies was as low as it could get. Suddenly there came news of this incredibly complex, technically difficult raid that had been carried out against the odds. Using british technical expertise etc etc.

It even convinced Stalin that the British were beginning to make a fight of things. It also provided Roosevelt with the ability to tell America Britain was fighting back when US public opinion was indifferent to Europe and wondering if the UK was just waiting for US to do their fighting for them.

War is hell and bad things happen. I sometimes wonder if the bad things that are done are there to remind us we shouldn't do such things lightly. But we prefer to sanitize it, sweep the bad things under the carpet. All the better to do it again soon.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun May 18th, 2008 at 01:01:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think the consensus has been shifting. I still believe that area bombing (or as it was called, "dehousing") was both immoral and inefficient, just like Lidell Hart felt. After all, German war production kept increasing (thanks to the organisative genius of Albert Speeer) during the bombing and maxed out just before the end of the war.

Precision bombing (well, what was achievable in those days) against mainly oil depots and oil facilities made a world of difference though. I guess the attack against the dams falls under precision bombing. And the civilian casualties were pretty small, after all.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 03:35:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sort of, a good distinction would be between the bombing that was primarily aimed at killing random Germans and that aimed at harming the war effort but which also wound up killing a lot of random Germans. The former was worse than useless - didn't hurt the German war effort but it did waste resources that could have been used for the latter. Bombing key economic infrastructure, particularly energy and transport, but also heavy industry, was useful.  Given the state of bombing technology at the time, that meant anybody anywhere near such infrastructure. A rational bombing campaign would have avoided much of the area bombing, on the other hand folks in the Ruhr would have been even more fucked than they actually were.
by MarekNYC on Sat May 17th, 2008 at 12:01:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, nitpicking, much of the area bombing did affect Ruhr area cities, so it's not clear to me that exclusive focus on hitting factories and railway junctions and such would have meant higher civilian casualties.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Sun May 18th, 2008 at 12:47:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What I meant is that an exclusive focus on infrastructure targets would have shifted casualties. I'm also not sure if it would have meant higher civilian casualties, in fact I suspect they would have been lower. However, they would have still been very high, and yet IMO, it would have been the right thing to do.
by MarekNYC on Sun May 18th, 2008 at 01:03:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
First of all, this mission was in the long tradition of attacking civilian installations of the enemy as a resource war, with willful disregard of results for the civilian population (practised with even more consistency by the Nazis, but with a real long and unbroken tradition in colonial warfare).

Actually this is understating things. My bookmarks are about 350 km away from me at the moment, so I can't give you links, but it is my understanding that deliberately targeting the civilian population was the general reasoning behind what was euphemistically known as "strategic bombing." The logic was that a factory can be replaced in a month - but replacing a worker takes 15 years.

- Jake

Your representatives may not listen to you. But they do read your e-mail.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 11:46:26 AM EST

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
The Political Mind by George Lakoff
by ARGeezer - Jul 19
5 comments

LQD: Oil - let's shine some light
by ChrisCook - Jul 19
9 comments

The July 18 in Spain
by PerCLupi - Jul 18
2 comments

Ryanair warms global argumentation
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 19
13 comments

The Real Jesse Helms: An LTE
by Drew J Jones - Jul 19
1 comment

Can the US/EU be Self-Sufficient?
by rdf - Jul 18
8 comments

Obama in Berlin
by jandsm - Jul 18
28 comments

LQD: "How to stop the next bubble?"
by Melanchthon - Jul 10
14 comments

Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series
Anglo Disease
by Migeru - Jul 17

Most Commented threads ever
by Migeru - Jul 8
10 comments

Agriculture
by afew - Jul 7

Countdown to $200 oil
by Migeru - Jul 2

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris - Jul 2
1 comment

Train Blogging
by DoDo - Jul 1

TOC: Socratic Economics
by Migeru - Jun 26

Germany
by DoDo - Jun 22