From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Senate Interrogation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:47:34 GMT

John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>As someone whose uncles did not all "make it back", let me say something
>on the deeper matter of whether Bomber Command's pursued an immoral
>policy in the war. Not having been there, I can only repeat what I
>have heard from those who were, and who studied the matter; that by
>the night bombing offensive destroyed German civilian businesses.
>By redirecting labour and resources from "inessential" businesses the
>RAF destroyed, Albert Speer could actually boost armaments production.

Does the alternative hold true for the US?

Was the US war production efforts impaired because nobody was bombing
civilian businesses in LA, Detroit, San Diego, New York?

Ha ha ha ha. I find such a theory laughable.

Returning to Germany's war production: Wasn't it harmed by the bombing
of rail yards, and transportation centres because it took longer to
get raw material to the factories? I think so!

Such bombing also made it a lot harder to move soldiers and war
material where it was needed.

How about the bombing of ports? How many ships were loaded during and
after bombing raids?

Oil production in the Ploesti Oil fields in Rumania? Do you think
bombs dropped there harmed or helped the production or fuel for
ships,planes , tanks, and trucks.

I could go on and on.

Let's remember -- after Dunkirk, until the invasion of Italy, the only
front's in Europe Germany was fighting on was:

1) Russia. Any disruption of war material production and
transportation benefitted the USSR's ability to fight off Germany,
which prevented Germany from turning it's full attention on Britain.

2) The North Atlantic where they were sinking resupply ships in the 
convoys and killing lots of Canadian sailors and merchant marine.
Any disruption of U-boat production and oil production helped.

3) The air war over England. Any disruption of production of bombers,
fighters, V-1's, V-2's was of immediate benefit considering how
quickly those resources were used up.

The bomber campaign against Germany was necessary for two reasons.

1) The disruption of war material production. The bombing campaign
didn't stop it, and production probably went up, but thats not
*because* of the bombing campaign, but in spite of it. US war material
production increased tremendously during WWII and they weren't being
bombed!

2) Morale. Day after day, and night after night, Germany struck at
London and other major cities. News was pouring in of losses in North
Africa. Britain had to fight back. It wasn't strong enough to invade
so the only way to fight back was on the sea and in the air. And if
the enemy is bombing your cities into rubble you can't just defend,
because then you lose. The RAF almost lost in 1940 during the battle
of Britain because defending is almost impossible.

The bombing campaign was necessary. It was *not* a war crime.


-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics