The Bombing War

[David Morris]

A war is won when surrender is achieved. It's not a video game with points
for goals reached.

On Thursday, October 17, 2013, Fiona Shnapple wrote:

> Who can ever win a war. Period. The air power of the us should not be
> underestimated, either. The goal, it can be argued, is not to win a war,
> but to instill terror. The us does that better than anyone still. And the
> objective of bombing is not to effectively defeat an enemy, but to gain
> advantage, often by keeping everyone guessing.
>
> On Thursday, October 17, 2013, rich wrote:
>
>> bombings, drones, what have you is one of the few bullets left for the US
>> and other powers in this day of insurgencies and proxy, guerrilla wars.
>> avoiding ground troops,  but as you say the efficacy of such operations is
>> highly dubious. who can ever win a war solely with airpower?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Tom Beshear <tbeshear at att.net> wrote:
>>
>> **
>> Our military STILL has too high an opinion of bombing to force
>> compliance, demoralise an opponent, etc.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Monte Davis
>> *To:* 'rich' ; pynchon-l at waste.org
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:28 AM
>> *Subject:* RE: The Bombing War
>>
>>  The Overy book is the best wrap-up to date of what has gradually become
>> accepted among historians since we (and the UK) got over our Twelve
>> O'Clock High <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041996/>: that “strategic”
>> bombing of Germany simply didn’t make much difference to the war, and was
>> pursued mostly because (1) interwar doctrine had grotesquely exaggerated
>> how accurate and effective it would be, (2) the UK and US had already
>> invested in large heavy-bomber forces, and (3) there was no other way of
>> striking directly at Germany from the summer of 1940 to the winter of 1945,
>> and it was thought psychologically/politically necessary to be doing *
>> something*.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The same factors were at work in Germany’s use of the  V1 and V2, once
>> its armies were in retreat and its remaining aircraft were defending them
>> or the  homeland. And of course, once you accept that Allied bombing of
>> Germany was as much “terror bombing” as Guernica or Rotterdam or the Blitz
>> or Stalingrad had been (simply because none of them were accurate enough to
>> be anything else), the V-weapons of 1944-45 are still new and scary – but
>> basically more of the same, at least until their technological descendants
>> get nuclear warheads..****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The reviewer notes the roots in British colonial campaigns. Given more
>> recent events, it’s good snarky fun to recall Secretary for War Churchill
>> championing bombing of Iraqi rebels in 1920 (and recommending poison gas).
>> In  fact, though, the experience of the static, bloody Western Front in WWI
>> – and the desire not to repeat it -- was much more important. The Germans
>> emphasized fast-moving armor and tactical air to win before trench lines
>> could solidify, while the UK (and to some extent the US) hoped to “leap
>> over” battlefronts and knock out the factories and transport that supplied
>> the armies.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *rich
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 17, 2013 9:49 AM
>> *To:* “pynchon-l at waste.org“
>> *Sub*
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20131017/9741072c/attachment.html>