One tactic used by the Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Force in the second World War was firestorms. This was achieved by dropping incendiary bombs, filled with chemicals such as magnesium, phosphorus or petroleum jelly (napalm), in clusters over a target.
After the area caught fire, the air above the bombed area, become extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air then rushed in at ground level from the outside and people were sucked into the fire.
In 1945, British Air Marshall Arthur Harris decided to firestorm the medieval city of Dresden. It had not been attacked during the war and was virtually undefended by anti-aircraft guns.
On the 13th February 1945, 773 Lancasters bombed Dresden. Then the Americans sent over 527 heavy bombers to follow up the RAF attack. Its thought that 35,000 were killed but some German sources say it was over 100,000.
In Hamburg, two years before Dresden, at least 40,000 died, other cities laid waste in such a fashion and though it cannot be excused Britain was fighting for its very existence and had suffered its own blitz's at the hands of the Germans.
Winston Churchill later re-thought the whole carpet bombing strategy and had decided it wasn't worth the destruction as resources were short and how can they rebuild Britain when Germany has nothing to give to them?
People are disgusted that so many civilians were targeted as they are with the bombings of Japan. The Blitz of towns and cities in the UK between 7th September 1940 and 16th May 1941 killed 43,000 if you don't stop yer enemy it would be more and civilians do help with the war effort.
Kill the man who makes the bullets so the soldiers have nothing to fire, so-called innocents get in the way and that is one of the many unfortunate things about war.
If we had pounded the fuck out of the Germans in the first World War instead of just letting the troops go home with their rifles there might not have been a second world war, not the Germans piss themselves if you even say the word 'Nazi'. Would the war in Iraq be unwinnable now if the allies had pressed on and removed Saddam during the Gulf war? pulling out half-way through and leaving potential allies to be slaughtered is one way to fuck up a war 12 years later.
Here is the problem, not wanting to hurt the feelings of the bad guys. The Germans shouldn't have tried to invade the world and the Japs shouldn't have helped them. The Palestinians and the Lebanese shouldn't support terrorists, just because it paid off for Sinn Fein doesn't mean a thing they are white and semi educated and civilised nations abhor killing white people with access to a legal team.
You know in films when the good guy only wounds the baddie then the baddie comes back half-way through and really fucks things up? well that's what life is like, you kill yer enemy twice if possible, leaving wounded is for the weak.
When political correctness infects people common sense gets thrown out the window and rapists are put into open prisons where they can play the lotto and win 7 million pounds. Good things happen to good people because not enough enemies of society are put to death, instead they are let out because someone double booked the jail cell or had a Good Friday agreement .
Well done Air Marshall Arthur 'Bomber' Harris you are a true national hero.
3 comments:
That's quite good OK, I'll be voting for you if and when you decide to run for office.
The true warrior hero wins a war before it starts, because when it starts there are no winners only victors, and that very victory will be their eventual defete for him or those after him.
Whatever happened then I would question not only the real motives for war, the moral validity, but international legality.
Sadam was the west's Golden boy ("Meteor rise from obscurity
All it took was a killing spree
And the whole world was lying at his feet)
Then he threathened their Arab BANKERs that keeps American banks pumping the credit to appease the (give us Barrabas crowd) masses with spending (that credit) indefinitely, at the cost of developement for their own - Arab -people and country- and we wonder at how fundamentally uncouth they are and behave.
--------
A general should follow the path of least resistance.
The aim of war is not victory in war, but peace and prosperity for the state.
Once war is unavoidable, it is then the general's duty to find the most efficient course of action resulting in the least possible friction.
Excellence in the art of war consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
Dai Its not nice but necessary and they shouldn't start shit up.
sean A general's duty is to protect his country and follow orders by any means and not care about hurting or offending the enemy. Diplomacy is what politicians do not Generals, I'll sent you over to the middle east to reason with the suicide bombers.
A true warrior is the one that slaughters the most and sometimes has to do nasty things cos thats the nature of war and has the most people left standing at the end.
Post a Comment