European Tribune

Display:
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
Recommended Diaries
Recent Diaries
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series