Multymegaton ****storm :) Could the Germans win the war?

[Narses]

1. I do not condone what Japanese did.

2. Well... Then one can apply this logic to 9/11.

Well... I believe it's true that Allied leaders were very much similar to Hitler et al. Bombing Hamburg, Dresden, Pforzheim the way that was done is not very different from the Hitler's mass killings of Jews. It's just Hitler lost and Allies won. So German concentration camps are war crimes but the proposal to exterminate 100'000 Wehrmacht officers is not in every school textbook on history. Truly Allies probably did not care much about how many Japanese civilians they should kill to get an "unconditional surrender".

Its odd how totally wrong you are.

Hitler initiated the war in Europe as a matter of conquest for resources and for political-racial interests. Political to reverse the results of WW1 (some of which by Versailles were wrong) and racial to kill the subhuman Slavs and Jews). The Allied countries reacted to aggressionto defend themselves and their allies. The allied nations were at peace and did not initiate any military action against Germany.

The Japanese initiated the war in the Far East as a matter of conquest to acquire resources and gain the overlordship of Asia because of their supposed racial superiority. They attacked peraceful neighbors without any provocation. They initiated bombing of Chinese cities and conducted the infamous rape of Nanking and murder of tens of thousands of civilians. The allies did not attack Japan they were attacked and defended themselves.

There is no logic in your arguments.

[Wildman]

1. I do not condone what Japanese did.

2. Well... Then one can apply this logic to 9/11.

Well... I believe it's true that Allied leaders were very much similar to Hitler et al. Bombing Hamburg, Dresden, Pforzheim the way that was done is not very different from the Hitler's mass killings of Jews. It's just Hitler lost and Allies won. So German concentration camps are war crimes but the proposal to exterminate 100'000 Wehrmacht officers is not in every school textbook on history. Truly Allies probably did not care much about how many Japanese civilians they should kill to get an "unconditional surrender".

Apperently you need to read Douhet, he and other inital airpower pioneers specifically stated that the target of a STRATEGIC airforce should be the civilian population. That the number one thing an airplane could do was break the will of the people and force leaders to end a war because they could see that there was no defense...this is the same set of folks that advocated that the "bomber will always get through", which it did if it wanted to take high causalties.. This strategic airpower thinking is what generated the strategic bomber idea for the US...and Britian. It proved to be a mostly flawed idea because even in a heavily bombed city most of the population survived.

The change to this was nuclear weapons whose overwhelming destruction capability did hold the ENTIRE civilian population at risk in a way it never had been before. Therefore, the bombing of Japan by nukes was a logical extention of airpower theories that were in practice from 1919 on....and guess what...for nukes they were right.

[IMHO]

I feel like the 'war could have been ended without nukes' side is making the same error that started this thread of 'could Germany have won the war'.

Yes, if they had perfect knowledge. But they didn't. It's easy for us to say 'the Japanese would have surrendered', but that doesn't mean the US knew they would. Even if the US was 90% certain that Japan was going to surrender, is that worth taking the risk that will be posed to US soldiers in a full scale land invasion?

1. I've always been convinced Germany would have lost even with the perfect knowledge.

2. What if Japan hadn't surrendered after the nukes? Nuke them more? I mean once you go down the path of "unconditional surrender by all means without loss of American blood" you end up facing a probable need to exterminate the whole nation.

I think society has gotten away from the notion of 'total war' for which we should consider ourselves very blessed. However' date=' in a war the scale of WWII, or a war that Osama Bin Laden probably imagined he was bringing about, attacks on civilians are inevitable. To say that civilians and a military machine can be separated is not true (to reiterate, I'm talking only about something on the scale of WWII).[/quote']

You can take a standard contemporary distinction - whether you've got CIVCAS as collateral and you've made everything possible to prevent them. Or it's an "added bonus" or even the main objective. But if it's the latter then "Allies" brand and full-throttle propaganda does not wash the names of the people who did it.

[IMHO]

Its odd how totally wrong you are.

Hitler initiated the war in Europe as a matter of conquest for resources and for political-racial interests. Political to reverse the results of WW1 (some of which by Versailles were wrong) and racial to kill the subhuman Slavs and Jews). The Allied countries reacted to aggressionto defend themselves and their allies. The allied nations were at peace and did not initiate any military action against Germany.

The Japanese initiated the war in the Far East as a matter of conquest to acquire resources and gain the overlordship of Asia because of their supposed racial superiority. They attacked peraceful neighbors without any provocation. They initiated bombing of Chinese cities and conducted the infamous rape of Nanking and murder of tens of thousands of civilians. The allies did not attack Japan they were attacked and defended themselves.

There is no logic in your arguments.

However ill-logic it may be but starting a war is not a war crime. So even if one country attacks another the defender does not get the right to exterminate civilian population of the aggressor for its own military benefit. Because THAT would be a war crime.

[IMHO]

The thing I wonder about is whether France could have won the war in 1939. If France had launched a major offensive into Germany in September of 1939 maybe a lot of subsequent misery could have been avoided.

Probably there would have been no real WWII at all.

[IMHO]

Apperently you need to read Douhet, he and other inital airpower pioneers specifically stated that the target of a STRATEGIC airforce should be the civilian population. That the number one thing an airplane could do was break the will of the people and force leaders to end a war because they could see that there was no defense...this is the same set of folks that advocated that the "bomber will always get through", which it did if it wanted to take high causalties.. This strategic airpower thinking is what generated the strategic bomber idea for the US...and Britian. It proved to be a mostly flawed idea because even in a heavily bombed city most of the population survived.

The change to this was nuclear weapons whose overwhelming destruction capability did hold the ENTIRE civilian population at risk in a way it never had been before. Therefore, the bombing of Japan by nukes was a logical extention of airpower theories that were in practice from 1919 on....and guess what...for nukes they were right.

I didn't read Douhet himself but certainly know about the doctrine. Well... What can I say... Hitler also wrote his racial theories. Same thing for me.

[sburke]

The change to this was nuclear weapons whose overwhelming destruction capability did hold the ENTIRE civilian population at risk in a way it never had been before. Therefore, the bombing of Japan by nukes was a logical extention of airpower theories that were in practice from 1919 on....and guess what...for nukes they were right.

I don't disagree with the gist of what you are saying however firebombing had I think already changed that equation. The losses from the fire bombing of Tokyo, Dresden and Hamburg had already shown what could be done. The A bomb changed how quickly it could be done and with fewer resources once you had the technical capability to produce and deliver.

Tokyo in particular had more immediate casualties than either of the nuclear bombings and competed in sheer horror. One of the reasons Hiroshima had been selected as a target was it had not been subjected to the same destructive raids as Toyama and Tokyo had been.

[IMHO]

Summary

May I just sum up the discussion before so that we can close the "moral" topic.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki was (un)necessary evil

As it was rightfully said here the answer totally depends on the question of whether Japan would have surrendered and how many months it would have taken. The detailed information should be in the good books named here (thanks a lot for the recommendations, can't say for everyone but I promise to read them).

Laws of war

The current laws of war state that intentionally and/or unnecessary killing civilians to one's military benefit or even to break the nation's will to fight is a war crime. This does not apply to collateral CIVCAS. If one accepts that then 9/11 is an act of terror but Allies did committed a number of war crimes. If one sticks to the concept of total war then one is bound to accept 9/11 as not a terrorist act but a simple act of war for which perpetrators are finally punished.

Now I solemnly promise to refrain as much as possible from engaging in the "moral" sub line of this discussion

[Narses]

Agreed. Lets move on to more germane game related history perhaps. Besides, I'm packing for Yellowstone and the Tetons right now. Leave Saturday.

[JonS]

Tokyo, Dresden, and Hamburg were the result of an accumulation of many different factors, all of which were necessary to create the whole. Hamburg, especially, was the fortuitous (?) intersection of peculiar weather with heavy and sustained attack. If GOMORRAH had taken place a week earlier, or a week later, it would barely be remembered now. Tokyo, of course, depended on the particular and unique construction used in that city.

The trick with nuclear weapons is all that goes out the window. With nuclear weapons the airforce can drop a bucketful of win anywhere, anytime, and weather, architecture, etc be damned.

Edit: this is in response to the last bit of sburke's last post.

[ASL Veteran]

An individual led to a gas chamber and then executed has no chance of escaping their fate. An individual who is in a bomb shelter whilst enemy bombers are dropping bombs on their city has a chance of escaping that day being their last. That is the distinction for me as far as the actual action goes.

However, as far as intent goes everything that I've read from "Bomber Harris" indicates that his intent arguably may have been of a similar nature to the Nazi intent, only driven by a different motivation and vs a different subset of the human race. I don't think Bomber Harris would have minded one bit if he could have annihilated every living breathing German. Whether Germans were deserving or not is up for debate.

[JonS]

Laws of war

The current laws of war state that intentionally and/or unnecessary killing civilians to one's military benefit or even to break the nation's will to fight is a war crime. This does not apply to collateral CIVCAS. If one accepts that then 9/11 is an act of terror but Allies did committed a number of war crimes. If one sticks to the concept of total war then one is bound to accept 9/11 as not a terrorist act but a simple act of war for which perpetrators are finally punished.

This, and especially the conclusions, is badly wrong.

[sburke]

Laws of war apply to signatory Nations. Terrorism by individuals for political agendas whether they be left wing, right wing, religious fanatics etc fall under crimes.

The legal gymnastics our gov't has gone through to justify "enemy combatants" notwithstanding, Al Qaeda is a criminal organization that should be processed through the courts just like that flake in Oslo. It is not protected under the Geneva convention, but falls rather under the rules of International law.

It gets complicated when you have a foreign gov't providing secure bases whether that be the Taliban or Pakistan. But raising them to the level of soldiers with the protections inherent in the Geneva convention is far better than they deserve.

The Allies did undoubtedly commit war crimes and we should not try to justify that behavior. Al Qaeda however did not commit an act of war deserving even of the label of war crime. They simply commited a horrendous criminal act.

[sburke]

The trick with nuclear weapons is all that goes out the window. With nuclear weapons the airforce can drop a bucketful of win anywhere, anytime, and weather, architecture, etc be damned.

LOL "a bucketful of win". Probably the only funny way I have ever heard for a nuke to be described.

[IMHO]

This, and especially the conclusions, is badly wrong.

JonS, I fully agree that the conclusion that I should stop writing is badly wrong But... May I...

[Michael Emrys]

The thing I wonder about is whether France could have won the war in 1939. If France had launched a major offensive into Germany in September of 1939 maybe a lot of subsequent misery could have been avoided.

The "missed opportunity" that truly breaks my heart is that France did not take action when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936. At that time Germany's military strength was relatively negligible and could have easily been brushed aside. I have read that that is in fact what the German generals expected and they were prepared to arrest Hitler, put him on trial, and shoot him. But he won his gamble and the army and the rest of the country was willing to go along with him as long as he was on a winning streak.

There are several lessons to be drawn from that, but I fear the most important one, namely that a seeming winner may in fact be a disaster waiting to happen, has not been attended as well as it deserves.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

The current laws of war state that intentionally and/or unnecessary killing civilians to one's military benefit or even to break the nation's will to fight is a war crime.

But the crucial factor is what the laws of war provided at the time in question. A lot of the present rulings on the subject came about after the war and as a reaction to its horrors. But still, the bottom line is that when nations feel that their very survival is at stake, they will take whatever measures are available to protect themselves. I think it will only be when humanity is ready to give up war altogether that truly binding legislation on the subject will be possible, although I applaud any efforts in that direction, however limited and stumbling they may be. However long it takes us to get there, we should continue to seek non-destructive means to settle international disputes. War is just too costly.

Michael

[sburke]

However long it takes us to get there, we should continue to seek non-destructive means to settle international disputes. War is just too costly.

Michael

Now that gentleman is what I call a good point to end on.

[C'Rogers]

The current laws of war state that intentionally and/or unnecessary killing civilians to one's military benefit or even to break the nation's will to fight is a war crime.

IMHO, you are coming off as the most Lawful Neutral person I've seen debate (sorry to those who don't get what I'm talking about, I wasted my life).

I thought we were debating moral action (err, could Germany have won the war)? If someone is murdered we don't say 'well that was wrong because it is against the law'. Murder is wrong because it is immoral (under pretty much any philosophical or religious guideline you want).

If you want to argue that the actions taken by the US in WWII were immoral that's fine. I disagree, but I see the argument. However, I can't possibly see the rational behind 'someone said it's a war crime, therefore it's wrong' as justifying the argument. If it was necessary for the allies to drop nukes on Japan to prevent even larger casualties to the US and Japan, to use that example, and the UN had voted it a war crime (who somehow magically came into existence early and knew about the potential of nukes), the US still should have done it.

If it was wrong however, but legal, then its still wrong.

[Magpie_Oz]

If it was wrong however' date=' but legal, then its still wrong.[/quote']

Who would have though that the den of hedonism in the desert would provide the kernel that restores my faith in the ol' USA?

[IMHO]

The "missed opportunity" that truly breaks my heart is that France did not take action when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936. At that time Germany's military strength was relatively negligible and could have easily been brushed aside. I have read that that is in fact what the German generals expected and they were prepared to arrest Hitler, put him on trial, and shoot him. But he won his gamble and the army and the rest of the country was willing to go along with him as long as he was on a winning streak.

There are several lessons to be drawn from that, but I fear the most important one, namely that a seeming winner may in fact be a disaster waiting to happen, has not been attended as well as it deserves.

Michael

Michael, you're absolutely right. Seems like you normally are I agree that it's also an interesting lesson of the history. The horrors of WWII as a compelling need to overreact on the Allied part after they underreacted when they could stop it easily. I don't mean any "moral" charge here - just history.

[IMHO]

IMHO, you are coming off as the most Lawful Neutral person I've seen debate (sorry to those who don't get what I'm talking about, I wasted my life).

I thought we were debating moral action (err, could Germany have won the war)? If someone is murdered we don't say 'well that was wrong because it is against the law'. Murder is wrong because it is immoral (under pretty much any philosophical or religious guideline you want).

If you want to argue that the actions taken by the US in WWII were immoral that's fine. I disagree, but I see the argument. However, I can't possibly see the rational behind 'someone said it's a war crime, therefore it's wrong' as justifying the argument. If it was necessary for the allies to drop nukes on Japan to prevent even larger casualties to the US and Japan, to use that example, and the UN had voted it a war crime (who somehow magically came into existence early and knew about the potential of nukes), the US still should have done it.

If it was wrong however, but legal, then its still wrong.

You're right and I'm wrong. I was stressing the point but I should have mentioned it was really no excuse for Hitler.

[IMHO]

But the crucial factor is what the laws of war provided at the time in question. A lot of the present rulings on the subject came about after the war and as a reaction to its horrors. But still, the bottom line is that when nations feel that their very survival is at stake, they will take whatever measures are available to protect themselves. I think it will only be when humanity is ready to give up war altogether that truly binding legislation on the subject will be possible, although I applaud any efforts in that direction, however limited and stumbling they may be. However long it takes us to get there, we should continue to seek non-destructive means to settle international disputes. War is just too costly.

Michael

True. What really makes Japan case emotional - there were no danger to Allies any more. Just like Dresden. One thing when one has a compelling military necessity and another - when one just does it for revenge. And what would have happened if Japan hadn't surrendered? There were a good chance they'd have continued fighting. Most probably the US would have went on with the civilian mass murders - nukes or fire bombs. Another interesting angle is, if I'm not mistaken, Allies didn't try to go after the Axis leaders but felt OK decimating civilian population.

I believe Iraqi COIN success proves there IS an alternative to decimation of population. More KIAs/WIAs on the attacker side but way fewer overall casualties if you take the case of total annihilation with stand off weapons. And if one is not after "total victory by tomorrow morning" one can keep the attackers casualties at a manageable level. However bad the use of the word in the context of human life.

[Michael Emrys]

Michael, you're absolutely right. Seems like you normally are

Let me say before any of my "friends" jump in to do so, no one has ever been able to discover anything normal about me. Take that as you will...

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

True. What really makes Japan case emotional - there were no danger to Allies any more. Just like Dresden. One thing when one has a compelling military necessity and another - when one just does it for revenge.

I think you consistently fail to consider how things looked at the time. Dresden happened because it was felt—whether correctly or not may be another matter—that there were compelling military reasons to bomb. The Soviets requested the bombing because Dresden was thought to be an important link in the transportation system being used by the German army as it confronted the Soviets.

Another thing is that you aren't considering momentum as a determinant in human affairs. There was still a war on. Germany not only had not surrendered yet, there were rumors, which were taken quite seriously at Allied headquarters, that the Nazis were organizing a terrorist army to carry on guerilla warfare even after a defeat. Germany came back after WW I and started a new, destructive and deadly war that almost took Europe down completely. The Allied powers were determined that no such thing could be allowed to happen again, and yes they were willing to kill every German on the planet if that was the only way to prevent such an end. Fortunately, no such extent of violence was necessary.

Very similar arguments were applied to Japan. In general, it was thought that that fascist militarism in the Axis countries was a weed that had to be utterly obliterated. The Axis had done more damage and had come closer to winning the war than anyone in the victorious powers felt could be tolerated. This was not your usual gentleman's war to adjust borders or trading prerogatives, this had been a war for survival.

Michael