Display:
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 ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series
Agriculture
by afew - Sep 2

Anglo Disease
by Migeru - Sep 2