this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
14 points (60.9% liked)

politics

18852 readers
4489 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Dresden was literally part of a British terror bombing campaign designed to kill civilians. American forces accompanied and intensified the destruction because Dresden was also a target in the American strategic bombing campaign in Europe (we had a policy of strategic bombing in Europe, but US terror bombing was policy in Japan).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Strategic bombing is terror bombing. Killing civilians and terrorizing the survivors was the stated goal. If Israel needs to learn anything from the Allied experience of strategic bombing, it's probably that it doesn't fucking work.

From Wikipedia:

Area bombardment came to prominence during World War II with the use of large numbers of unguided gravity bombs, often with a high proportion of incendiary devices, to bomb the target region indiscriminately—to kill war workers, destroy materiel, and demoralize the enemy. In high enough concentration, it was capable of producing a firestorm.[35] The high explosives were often delay-action bombs intended to kill or intimidate those fighting the fires caused by incendiaries.[36]: 329 

It's also pretty dishonest to frame the conflict from Oct7 as some isolated event. Like the charge of genocide rests only on the events of the past hundred days. It's not like the Allies had forced Germans into Dresden then walled it off before bombing it.

It should also be stated that Dresden is often used as a whataboutism by Holocaust deniers and Nazi apologists.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Strategic bombing is terror bombing. Killing civilians and terrorizing the survivors was the stated goal.

Of the Brits and of the Americans in Japan? Yes. Of the Americans in Europe? No. We endured high casualties for little gain because US bomber command in Europe recognized that attempting to break the enemy's will to resist by killing civilians was a fool's errand. We targeted strategic targets, such as factories and oil refineries. This is the whole reason for US daytime bombing vs. British night-time bombing. Unless you think the Americans just really liked taking heavy losses under daytime AA fire?

If Israel needs to learn anything from the Allied experience of strategic bombing, it’s probably that it doesn’t fucking work.

Yes, Israel needs to learn from the Allied experience of terror bombing - that terror bombing doesn't work.

Strategic bombing is not much of an option for Israel because Hamas operates very few traditional material-production facilities that could be targeted.

It’s also pretty dishonest to frame the conflict from Oct7 as some isolated event. Like the charge of genocide rests only on the events of the past hundred days.

I don't remember claiming that.

It should also be stated that Dresden is often used as a whataboutism by Holocaust deniers and Nazi apologists.

I'm well aware. That doesn't change that the British policy was explicitly one of terror bombing in retribution for Nazi terror bombing campaigns. Dresden got its reputation because British and American bomber command both agreed Dresden had to go for different reasons, which meant they got it double compared to most other targets.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Of the Americans in Europe? No.

The USAAF didn't do daylight bombing to spare civilians, they did it because of doctrine. They thought it was more effective to target industry. But those daylight bombs fell on cities just like they fell on factories and just like they fell on empty fields. They didn't care about the aircrews, much less the people on the ground. What do you think it means to "demoralize" the population?

My comment about the framing was directed at the author of the article, not you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

The USAAF didn’t do daylight bombing to spare civilians, they did it because of doctrine. They thought it was more effective to target industry.

... okay? So you do admit, contrary to your initial claims, that the target of US bombing campaigns in Europe was NOT to terrorize and kill civilians but to target industry?

But those daylight bombs fell on cities just like they fell on factories and just like they fell on empty fields. They didn’t care about the aircrews, much less the people on the ground.

I'm pretty sure the US cared quite a bit about the loss of manpower and material? Do... do you think the US was operating under the presumption of infinite resources and soldiers?

What do you think it means to “demoralize” the population?

Something very different than what 'targeting industry' means.