Comments on: The Beauty of Utilitarianism in Wartime http://whippersnapper.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/the-beauty-of-utilitarianism-in-wartime/ Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:11:39 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: David Margolies http://whippersnapper.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/the-beauty-of-utilitarianism-in-wartime/#comment-6647 David Margolies Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:14:18 +0000 http://whippersnapper.wordpress.com/?p=1146#comment-6647 Why do you say with such confidence (and no actual argument beyond the fact that bombing did not destroy morale or make the German's dislike their government or seriously impede production) that the bombing was ineffective? A massive amount of German military resources (20%?) went into air defense. Those resources used for that purpose were not available to be used on the Eastern front. There was no other way, given that we felt we could not have an invasion before 1944, that we could divert resources away from the east in 1943 and the first half of 1944. To that extent, the bombing was effective. It was also effective (a corollary to the argument just made) in holding the alliance together. Stalin repeatedly asked what the US and Britain were doing in the war, and we had little to show him (North Africa was totally a sideshow). The bombing campaign at least was a military effort. It is too bad that many German citizens died for that realpolitick reason, but (quoting the Englishman Lord Shawcross) people who start aggressive wars must take seriously the possibility that they will lose and the consequences of losing will be very bad. Why do you say with such confidence (and no actual argument beyond the fact that bombing did not destroy morale or make the German’s dislike their government or seriously impede production) that the bombing was ineffective? A massive amount of German military resources (20%?) went into air defense. Those resources used for that purpose were not available to be used on the Eastern front. There was no other way, given that we felt we could not have an invasion before 1944, that we could divert resources away from the east in 1943 and the first half of 1944.

To that extent, the bombing was effective.

It was also effective (a corollary to the argument just made) in holding the alliance together. Stalin repeatedly asked what the US and Britain were doing in the war, and we had little to show him (North Africa was totally a sideshow). The bombing campaign at least was a military effort. It is too bad that many German citizens died for that realpolitick reason, but (quoting the Englishman Lord Shawcross) people who start aggressive wars must take seriously the possibility that they will lose and the consequences of losing will be very bad.

]]>