Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't even like Vonnegut.

(aside to everyone else: there is no reason for you to understand this exchange)

Kilgore would have gotten it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
it's ok to make fun of stereotypes if they aren't stereotypes of oppressed minorities. Which I sorta agree with. However, his comment seems kinda misogynistic to me, rather than being merely anti-Italian.

Oh good, tell me what nationality your mom is, so i can spread the joy.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh good, tell me what nationality your mom is, so i can spread the joy.

You know her name?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This is from that book review by Freeman Dyson in the NYRB that I was discussing yesterday. Dyson worked in the RAF's Bomber Command HQ during the war.

• There is overwhelming evidence that the bombing of cities strengthened rather than weakened the determination of the Germans to fight the war to the bitter end. The notion that bombing would cause a breakdown of civilian morale turned out to be a fantasy. After a devastating attack on a factory, the Germans were able to repair the machinery and resume full production in an average time of six weeks. We could not hope to attack the important factories frequently enough to keep them out of action. We learned after the war that, in spite of the bombing, German weapons production increased steadily up to September 1944. In the last few months of the war, bombing of oil refineries [and the Russian advance into Rumania? -- t.s.] caused the German armies to run out of oil, but they never ran out of weapons. Putting together what I saw at Bomber Command with the testimony of Hastings's witnesses, I conclude that the contribution of the bombing of cities to military victory was too small to provide any moral justification for the bombing.
  
  Unfortunately, the offical statements of the British government always claimed that bombing was militarily effective and therefore morally justified. As a result of their ideological commitment to bombing as a war-winning strategy, the leaders of the government were deluding themselves and also deluding the British public. Hastings says that in the last phase of the war "the moral cost of killing German civilians in unprecedented numbers outweighed any possible strategic advantage." I would make a stronger statement. I would say that quite apart from moral considerations, the military cost of killing German civilians outweighed any possible strategic advantage.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Kilgore would have gotten it.

Only if he read my blog, and Hank's comments thereto.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Only if he read my blog, and Hank's comments thereto.

Okay, so I whiffed. How is this day any different?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is from that book review by Freeman Dyson in the NYRB that I was discussing yesterday. Dyson worked in the RAF's Bomber Command HQ during the war.

• There is overwhelming evidence that the bombing of cities strengthened rather than weakened the determination of the Germans to fight the war to the bitter end. The notion that bombing would cause a breakdown of civilian morale turned out to be a fantasy. After a devastating attack on a factory, the Germans were able to repair the machinery and resume full production in an average time of six weeks. We could not hope to attack the important factories frequently enough to keep them out of action. We learned after the war that, in spite of the bombing, German weapons production increased steadily up to September 1944. In the last few months of the war, bombing of oil refineries [and the Russian advance into Rumania? -- t.s.] caused the German armies to run out of oil, but they never ran out of weapons. Putting together what I saw at Bomber Command with the testimony of Hastings's witnesses, I conclude that the contribution of the bombing of cities to military victory was too small to provide any moral justification for the bombing.
  
  Unfortunately, the offical statements of the British government always claimed that bombing was militarily effective and therefore morally justified. As a result of their ideological commitment to bombing as a war-winning strategy, the leaders of the government were deluding themselves and also deluding the British public. Hastings says that in the last phase of the war "the moral cost of killing German civilians in unprecedented numbers outweighed any possible strategic advantage." I would make a stronger statement. I would say that quite apart from moral considerations, the military cost of killing German civilians outweighed any possible strategic advantage.

Factories being down for 6 weeks provided no value? And the Germans were bombing cities- they came up with the theory. Do you think the British would have stopped bombing factories because they might be near cities given the Blitz? What world do you live in?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Factories being down for 6 weeks provided no value? And the Germans were bombing cities- they came up with the theory. Do you think the British would have stopped bombing factories because they might be near cities given the Blitz? What world do you live in?

Like a good conservative, you have done a fine job of ignoring the costs of waging war. I helped you along by declining to type the paragraph before the two above. It explains:

• At Bomber Command headquarters, I was responsible for collecting and analyzing information about bomber losses. Our losses were tremendous, more than 40,000 highly trained airmen killed. Until the last few months of the war, a crewman had only one chance in four of surviving to the end of his tour of thirty operations. Many of the survivors signed on for a second tour, in which their chances of survival were not much better. The total economic cost of Bomber Command, including the production of airplanes and fuel and bombs, the training of crews, and the conduct of operations, was about one quarter of the entire British war effort. It was my judgment at the time, and remains so today, that the cost of Bomber Command in men and resources was far greater than its military effectiveness. From a military standpoint, we were hurting ourselves more than we were hurting the Germans. It cost us far more to attack German cities than it cost the Germans to defend them. The German night-fighter force, which was the most effective part of the defense and caused most of our losses, was miniscule compared with Bomber Command.

If you ever find yourself in an argument with Freeman Dyson, I suggest that you don't assume he's stupid. If you're not understanding what he's saying, it probably reflects poorly on you, not him.

My point, previously, was not that strategic bombing had no effect, but that it was ineffective relative to the claims made by its proponents.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Factories being down for 6 weeks provided no value? And the Germans were bombing cities- they came up with the theory. Do you think the British would have stopped bombing factories because they might be near cities given the Blitz? What world do you live in?

Keep in mind that "determination" is not the same as "industrial capability". That's why the new paradigm - accurate bombing of strategic assets while minimizing civilian loss - works so much better. All those hours sitting in subways listening to buzz bombs was worth quite a few "let's take it to 'em" votes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Like a good conservative, you have done a fine job of ignoring the costs of waging war. I helped you along by declining to type the paragraph before the two above. It explains:

• At Bomber Command headquarters, I was responsible for collecting and analyzing information about bomber losses. Our losses were tremendous, more than 40,000 highly trained airmen killed. Until the last few months of the war, a crewman had only one chance in four of surviving to the end of his tour of thirty operations. Many of the survivors signed on for a second tour, in which their chances of survival were not much better. The total economic cost of Bomber Command, including the production of airplanes and fuel and bombs, the training of crews, and the conduct of operations, was about one quarter of the entire British war effort. It was my judgment at the time, and remains so today, that the cost of Bomber Command in men and resources was far greater than its military effectiveness. From a military standpoint, we were hurting ourselves more than we were hurting the Germans. It cost us far more to attack German cities than it cost the Germans to defend them. The German night-fighter force, which was the most effective part of the defense and caused most of our losses, was miniscule compared with Bomber Command.

If you ever find yourself in an argument with Freeman Dyson, I suggest that you don't assume he's stupid. If you're not understanding what he's saying, it probably reflects poorly on you, not him.

My point, previously, was not that strategic bombing had no effect, but that it was ineffective relative to the claims made by its proponents.

Was there a morale value to the british population from our beginning to bomb Germany?

If I ever find myself in a room with your bloggers I'm heading for the bar- I wouldn't argue with them

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh good, tell me what nationality your mom is, so i can spread the joy.

If you read my posts, you'd know that Irish is the answer. To make your job easier, here's a picture of mom and dad:



And here's Grandad and the bishop:

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/.../cartoon-2.jpg

chnaged to a link because the image screwed up the margins. Sorry, kids.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Keep in mind that "determination" is not the same as "industrial capability". That's why the new paradigm - accurate bombing of strategic assets while minimizing civilian loss - works so much better. All those hours sitting in subways listening to buzz bombs was worth quite a few "let's take it to 'em" votes.

This is hardly the first time that proponents have said: technological advances mean that this time, bombing really works! Similar claims were made during WWII. Bombing was going to close the Ho Chi Minh Trail. This time around, we have impressive video of a few precision weapons zooming down bunker air shafts, but the Pentagon and FOX were showing us the weapons that missed. I believe that the studies since the war have shown us that precision bombing wasn't. Shock and awe, anyone?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is hardly the first time that proponents have said: technological advances mean that this time, bombing really works! Similar claims were made during WWII. Bombing was going to close the Ho Chi Minh Trail. This time around, we have impressive video of a few precision weapons zooming down bunker air shafts, but the Pentagon and FOX were showing us the weapons that missed. I believe that the studies since the war have shown us that precision bombing wasn't. Shock and awe, anyone?

2. And remember, Bill Clinton's entire anti-terrorism push was to try and kill Osama with a few missiles. That didn't work either.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
how come people can insult the Italians ad nasueum, but if I simply note that certain peoples where cloth head coverings I'm labeled a pariah?

Because everybody knows we Americans really love the Italians. Really, some of my best friends are dagos. We even have a couple at the club and you can hardly tell them apart from the real Americans.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I believe that the studies since the war have shown us that precision bombing wasn't. Shock and awe, anyone?

So, when will our Iraq invasion quagmire end?