tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post8220957369007993504..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: 75 Years After The Longest DayUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-29862419179746095402019-06-16T22:50:04.391-04:002019-06-16T22:50:04.391-04:00"An exception is probably the atomic bombing ..."An exception is probably the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that clearly brought the Japanese surrender in WW II."<br />That is not at all clear - indeed, there is substantial reason to believe that it was the Russian entry into the war with Japan that brought the Japanese surrender, not the use of nuclear weapons. See Ward Wilson's "The winning weapon?"<br />https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/is3104_pp162-179_wilson.pdfBob Michaelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14772891797480339702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-24745369246110190302019-06-09T10:25:11.298-04:002019-06-09T10:25:11.298-04:00Peter T:
Neighbours yes. "Strong trading ...Peter T: <br /><br />Neighbours yes. "Strong trading partners"? I am not so sure. Would be nice to see the data supporting that.Erik Poolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02442592238782846163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-35612341033528985872019-06-09T06:25:17.661-04:002019-06-09T06:25:17.661-04:00Eric Poole
post-war - China-Vietnam, Vietnam-Camb...Eric Poole<br /><br />post-war - China-Vietnam, Vietnam-Cambodia, Iran-Iraq, numerous African wars - all between neighbours. Really only the US and, to a much lesser extent, is able to project power far from its shores. The current China-US rivalry and sabre-rattling is a point - it springs from rather than replaces trade.<br /><br />Calgacus: bombing went through several stages. Up to late 42 it was inaccurate (even if aimed at military targets it mostly hit civilians), then increasingly heavy and progressively more accurate. Raids like the one on Hamburg diminished production significantly, and Tooze shows that mass bombing was having a major impact on the key Ruhr industries until Harris diverted to Berlin (which allowed recovery). Aside from direct impacts there was also the diversion of scarce aircraft, artillery and manpower to air defence, the forced dispersion of factories and so on. Nazi Germany made large investments in basic plant 1935-39, which started to come on stream from 42 on- but bombing limited output far below potential. Same with rationalisation of production - economies of scale (of which there were enormous scope) proved impossible under sustained bombing. So although production numbers reached a peak in '44, it was largely of older weapons systems (eg Bf 109s and Panther IVs) that could not match their allied or Soviet counterparts.Peter Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03066207517894802929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-47785793306584048512019-06-08T15:54:13.765-04:002019-06-08T15:54:13.765-04:00"Which brings us up to Putin not being at Por..."Which brings us up to Putin not being at Portsmouth, much less on Omaha Beach this morning. This is understandable as we did not send anybody to their big memorial of the war, Victory Day, May 9...."<br /><br />Of course Americans and western Europeans should have been in Russia and Russians should have been in western Europe to remember the defeat of fascism. The Russians were critically responsible for the defeat as were Indians and Chinese...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-69223357409664120302019-06-08T15:02:38.025-04:002019-06-08T15:02:38.025-04:00Peter T:
That is not what I see from a quick look ...Peter T:<br />That is not what I see from a quick look at Tooze. He says bombing against military targets was effective, which was my point. That bombing civilian targets was not effective, comparatively, was my point, and I believe that is the consensus from immediately after the war to now.<br /><br />Bombing against civilian targets had such support (imho unwarranted, especially retrospectively) back then that Eisenhower had to struggle mightily to redirect bombing to military & related targets to support D-Day!<br /><br />What Erik said was "deliberately targeting civilians in industrial cities" which I am calling civilian targets; terror bombing of the type which all sides agreed to avoid at the beginning, but ended up doing with enthusiasm. "Civilians making weapons, manning railways or electricity plants" are more in the category of "military and related targets".<br /><br /><i>The conventions that tried to limit civilian casualties are creatures of the brief period 1870-1914</i><br />They were still followed relatively in the First World War, to 1918. It remains the war which had the highest military casualties, even more than WWII - which of course had vastly more civilian casualties. And war (strictly speaking, ignoring consequences) in earlier days was not so lethal and total, due to lack of technology if nothing else. Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-17953674619278317002019-06-08T14:55:19.615-04:002019-06-08T14:55:19.615-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-30094924675221856802019-06-08T10:04:53.273-04:002019-06-08T10:04:53.273-04:00Peter T: Good points.
Could you please expand on...Peter T: Good points.<br /><br />Could you please expand on this notion that "most wars occur between neighbours who also have strong trade relationships".<br /><br />I doubt that holds in the post-war (actually post-Atom bomb) era but it could hold prior the WW II. Erik Poolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02442592238782846163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-36280303797932952512019-06-08T10:01:53.639-04:002019-06-08T10:01:53.639-04:00Barkley,
Your sentiment strikes me as rather empt...Barkley,<br /><br />Your sentiment strikes me as rather empty virtue signaling. FYI, the Israelis are currently running a kill ratio in excess of 5:1. <br /><br />The American kill ratio with respect to Arabs and Muslims must be multiples higher as I rough count fewer than 30,000 Americans that have died from this nation building process while clearly hundreds of thousands of Arab and non-Arab Muslims have died.<br /><br />Do secure, well-defined economic property rights apply to all or should we allow the USA to determine key exceptions based on race, ethnicity or some sectarian designation?<br /><br />Moreover, is the 'War on Terror' really a good idea? War on a tactic? When was terrorism absent from war? In that respect, President Trump's willingness to mislead Americans is not an aberration but more of an ugly mirror.<br /><br />It ultimately boils down to willingness to sacrifice lives and economic wealth for specific resource gains.<br /><br />Any how, it is something to think about as we celebrate D-Day. Erik Poolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02442592238782846163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-71619436042201718632019-06-08T05:45:43.647-04:002019-06-08T05:45:43.647-04:00Rather than a "large majority" of histor...Rather than a "large majority" of historians saying was ineffective, the most recent and thorough looks at the bombing picture (by Richard Overy and in Adam Tooze's Wages of Destruction) say that it was indeed effective.<br /><br />Not to endorse the strategy, but civilians making weapons, manning railways or electricity plants etc have always been targets. The conventions that tried to limit civilian casualties are creatures of the brief period 1870-1914, when it was envisaged that wars would be professional, quick and largely independent of the civilian economy.<br /><br />On "trade is an alternative to war" - this sentiment sits oddly with the fact that most wars are between neighbours who also have strong trade relationships.Peter Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03066207517894802929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-86819105511804373792019-06-08T00:10:27.699-04:002019-06-08T00:10:27.699-04:00Erik,
I largely agree with Calgacus. An exceptio...Erik,<br /><br />I largely agree with Calgacus. An exception is probably the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that clearly brought the Japanese surrender in WW II.<br /><br />I am not interested in getting bogged down into an Israeli-Palestinian argument, but I note that the Israelis clearly engaged in outright ethnic cleansing during the first Arab-Israeli war, while the Palestinians have at times engaged in clearly terror bomb attacks against Israeli civilians. On that one, both sides have been at fault.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-36889121023160579892019-06-07T16:41:54.433-04:002019-06-07T16:41:54.433-04:00The US-lead coalition sealed victory in both cases...<i>The US-lead coalition sealed victory in both cases through a strategy of deliberately targeting civilians in industrial cities.</i><br /><br />Not really. A large majority of historians say that it wasn't effective, it wasted effort better spent on military targets and just stiffened opposition. Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-45812873686849950752019-06-07T14:52:59.121-04:002019-06-07T14:52:59.121-04:00All true Barkley Rosser but you are missing an imp...All true Barkley Rosser but you are missing an important aspect of the Allied victory over Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan for that matter.<br /><br />The US-lead coalition sealed victory in both cases through a strategy of deliberately targeting civilians in industrial cities.<br /><br />In other words, allied forces won WW II by using terrorist tactics in the form of fire-bombing industrial cities.<br /><br />Without 'terrorism' the state of Israel would never have come into existence.<br /><br />That is something to think about as wide swathes of North Americans support the 'War on Terror' which, with or without irony, results in the US and Israel killing large numbers of innocent civilians. <br /><br />This will ultimately blow back on American targets. I say that because in my discussions with anti-capitalist, anti-western militants and 'terrorists' over the years, it is the hypocrisy of western imperial powers that provides significant motivation.Erik Poolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02442592238782846163noreply@blogger.com