Bomber Command - Page 26 - Historum

CuriousHistorian · July 12th, 2012, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylla1

Your request is indeed oxymoronic, even naive, if your personal definition of "serious" is for any mysterious reason limited to low numbers... or the self-apology of members of the Bomber Command, for that matter (not exactly one of the "victims" this time either, huh?)

Sources on what?
The amazing physical fact that bodies are incinerated during firestorms?
Or that there were myriad major obstacles for the corpse tally during the last days of the Reich with the Soviets above their heads?

The numbers of the Historical Commission are just the lowest possible figure of a wide range; period.

That said, and as previously pointed out, for all purposes your obsession in proving the lowest possible figure is simply useless.

Again, that wouldn't change the evident non-military nature of the civilian population of Dresden as a target for the obvious terror strategy a la Dohuet, BTW so prevalent among the air forces of the time.

So if you would really like to continue some other decades of your life collecting sources on your known-in-advance conclusion, be my guest and do your own homework.

So, in short, you cannot provide sources. Simple statements of what you wish to be the case do not constitute historical argument. You undermine the case you wish to make by failing to support it. If you want to persuade me, and others, you have to actually provide some evidence.

Not sure what is oxymoronic about my request, either. Good word, though.

Incidentally, when I started looking at this, in my late teens, I held the then-common view that the bomber offensive had been excessive and ineffective. It has been the research over the intervening decades that changed my mind.

sylla1 · July 12th, 2012, 09:21 AM

Quote:

A thermal column (or thermal) is a column of rising air in the lower altitudes of the Earth's atmosphere.
Thermals are created by the uneven heating of the Earth's surface from solar radiation, and are an example of convection, specifically atmospheric convection.
The Sun warms the ground, which in turn warms the air directly above it.
Dark earth, urban areas and roadways are good sources of thermals.

The warmer air expands, becoming less dense than the surrounding air mass.
The mass of lighter air rises, and as it does, it cools due to its expansion at lower high-altitude pressures.
It stops rising when it has cooled to the same temperature as the surrounding air.
Associated with a thermal is a downward flow surrounding the thermal column.
The downward moving exterior is caused by colder air being displaced at the top of the thermal.

The size and strength of thermals are influenced by the properties of the lower atmosphere.
Generally, when the air is cold, bubbles of warm air are formed by the ground heating the air above it and can rise like a hot air balloon.
The air is then said to be unstable.
If there is a warm layer of air higher up, an inversion can prevent thermals from rising high and the air is said to be stable.

Thermals are often indicated by the presence of visible cumulus clouds at the apex of the thermal.
When a steady wind is present thermals and their respective cumulus clouds can align in rows oriented with wind direction, sometimes referred to as "cloud streets" by soaring andglider pilots.
Cumulus clouds are formed by the rising air in a thermal as it ascends and cools, until the water vapor in the air begins tocondense into visible droplets.
The condensing water releases latent heat energy allowing the air to rise higher.
Very unstable air can reach the level of free convection (LFC) and thus rise to great heights condensing large quantities of water and so forming showers or even thunderstorms.

Source.

Firestorms were actually described for several bombings of WW2, like Kassel 1943, Darmstdt 1944, Tokyo 1945 and of course Hiroshima 1945.

sylla1 · July 12th, 2012, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuriousHistorian

So, in short, you cannot provide sources. Simple statements of what you wish to be the case do not constitute historical argument. You undermine the case you wish to make by failing to support it. If you want to persuade me, and others, you have to actually provide some evidence.

Not sure what is oxymoronic about my request, either. Good word, though.

Incidentally, when I started looking at this, in my late teens, I held the then-common view that the bomber offensive had been excessive and ineffective. It has been the research over the intervening decades that changed my mind.

Thanks for sharing with us the personal details nobody asked you about.

So in short, I and others have provided here sources that some people will never find "serious" as long as they wouldn't comply enough with their dogmatic agenda.
And in short too, the numerical issue is simply too irrelevant for the OP to merit any further contribution of yours truly on your own exclusively personal homework.

Any other overstatement of the obvious?

CuriousHistorian · July 12th, 2012, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylla1

Thanks for sharing with us the personal details nobody asked you about.

So in short, I and others have provided here sources that some people will never find "serious" as long as they wouldn't comply enough with their dogmatic agenda.
And in short too, the numerical issue is simply too irrelevant for the OP to merit any further contribution of yours truly on your own exclusively personal homework.

Any other overstatement of the obvious?

You have not provided any sources, let alone serious ones. My definition of "serious" here is a respected historian, not simply one who shares my view.

But I am quite impressed by your rhetorical gambit of trying to discount my argument as simply my own personal interest, and thus wriggle off the hook. There is an element of style in the deployment of your smokescreen.

**diddyriddick** · July 12th, 2012, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beorna

That's a big number for a single unit, if we keep in mind, that the Chinese losses were at around 15-20 millions (including 4-5 million military losses).
I have my doubts here

You're not alone:

"According to the 2002 International Symposium on the Crimes of Bacteriological Warfare, the number of people killed by the Imperial Japane Army's germ warfare and human experiments is around 580,000. According to other sources, the use of biological weapons researched in Unit 731's bioweapons and chemical weapons programs resulted in possibly as many as 200,000 deaths of military personnel and civilians in China."

And these deaths were NOT the result of any bombing.

Unit_731

sylla1 · July 12th, 2012, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuriousHistorian

You have not provided any sources, let alone serious ones. My definition of "serious" here is a respected historian, not simply one who shares my view.

But I am quite impressed by your rhetorical gambit of trying to discount my argument as simply my own personal interest, and thus wriggle off the hook. There is an element of style in the deployment of your smokescreen.

If you are either able to so plainly lie or unable to detect the sources and even textual quotations presented by yours truly here, that would be your problem, not mine.

And your personal definition of "serious" couldn't be any more crystal clear.

And as I have no time or guts to derail this nice thread any more, please consider yourself ignored & have a nice day.

sylla1 · July 12th, 2012, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diddyriddick

You're not alone:

"According to the 2002 International Symposium on the Crimes of Bacteriological Warfare, the number of people killed by the Imperial Japane Army's germ warfare and human experiments is around 580,000. According to other sources, the use of biological weapons researched in Unit 731's bioweapons and chemical weapons programs resulted in possibly as many as 200,000 deaths of military personnel and civilians in China."

And these deaths were NOT the result of any bombing.

Unit 731 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please be aware that this particular wiki-article seems to have some serious problems with its primary source identification, at least as suggested by their own talk section

Talk:Unit_731

In any case, it seems quite likely that such evidence would not meet the standards that have been required for let say the evidence on the death toll of Dresden 1945 all along this thread.

CuriousHistorian · July 12th, 2012, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimald

The quote may indeed go back to a similar sentence by Bismarck, who supposedly said in the Reichstag:

Der ganze Balkan ist mir nicht die gesunden Knochen eines einzigen pommerschen Grenadiers [Musketiers] wert.

The whole of the Balkans to me is not worth the healthy bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier [musketeer].

However, I have not found a reliable source for that quote. Bismarck probably meant by these words that Germany did not have any interest in the Balkans, and thus would not risk the life of German soldiers. So the meaning is totally different from Harris' quote, who obviously did not want to spare the lives of German civilians if that would mean more British military casualties.

Concerning the conclusion from this quote, I am very skeptical. I think that we are in danger of going down a slippery slope when we put the lives of our own soldiers above every other consideration. For example, it could be used to justify the shooting of surrendering enemy soldiers, as often the situation of making POWs bears a lot of dangers. Or in partisan warfare, it is easier and safer for the own soldiers to just burn down a whole village with all its inhabitants than sorting out the real partisans.

I agree it is a difficult area, and clearly civilian lives should be protected where possible. Your partisan example is a good one.

However, this is not simply a case of protecting soldiers above other considerations, it is one of how best to defeat an enemy in industrial warfare. In the case of the bomber offensive, should a combattant surrender a military advantage? Especially when this would mean fighting on terms established by the aggressor for the aggressor's own advantage? Had the Western Allies forgone use of the strategic air weapon, the war would have continued longer and resulted in higher casualties (higher casualties for the German military, also).

There is also the question of what constitutes a civilian in industrial warfare. Harris did not regard all civilians as targets. He specified "industrial workers" although he recognised other civilians would die. There was an expectation that Germany would adopt evacuation procedures in the way Britain had done (as did happen?). The purpose of the offensive was to destroy Germany's ability to wage war. It was not simply to kill as many German civilians as possible.

This is not an easy area in which to reach a conclusion. Of course, it would have been better if the same military impact could have been achieved at the cost of fewer lives and less destruction. But how far can protection of civilians be paramount in these circumstances? Should German civilians be protected when those in other countries are being killed? If German civilians are killed in order to shorten the war and thus save lives overall, is that an absolute moral crime? To decide on no bombing at all would have been to accept a human shield around military facilities and the prolongation of the war.

I am afraid I am a moral relativist on this issue. I accept that some raids in the latter months of the war could have been reduced in size or forgone. There were errors of targetting. These do not negate the role the bomber offensive played in the allied victory. Nor do they make the purpose of that offensive immoral. The true immorality woulkd have been to lose the war, or fail to win it as quickly as possible.

sylla1 · July 12th, 2012, 10:26 AM

In strict realpolitik terms, and aside from achieving victory by any possible mean, moral has never really been an issue for military strategy for any party involved all along History.

**diddyriddick** · July 12th, 2012, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylla1

Please be aware that this particular wiki-article seems to have some serious problems with its primary source identification, at least as suggested by their own talk section Talk:Unit 731 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In any case, it seems quite likely that such evidence would not meet the standards that have been required for let say the evidence on the death toll of Dresden 1945 all along this thread.

You are correct, of course. I was just trying to put the burden of proof on Amazedkat to produce reliable sources.