Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (338544)	5/24/2007 8:30:47 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576435

"OTOH it was reasonable to be less careful, because the weapons weren't accurate enough" Which was at the heart of it. Even so, we went to great lengths to maximize their effectiveness as much as possible. Which is why we bombed during the day. Until the P-38 Lightning and the Mustang were developed, bomber crews lasted a little over 1 mission on the average. The Brits, who bombed at night, and were much more indiscriminate, got a whole lot more use out of their bomber crews. Now, personally, I don't think the bombing campaign was all that effective. Despite the intensity, German production climbed throughout the period and there is a lot of evidence that the German population got more focussed behind the war effort as a result of it. But to claim that we put our men at a greater risk than necessary for no particular reason, is pretty stupid. Shorty just wants to make the claim based purely on partisan reasons. See, FDR and Truman were Democrats, and thus, were evil and callous. Which demeans the people involved. There were plenty of mistakes made. But the people making the decisions were trying their best to keep their humanity and to win the war. In retrospect, we can argue whether or not certain actions were truly necessary to win the war. But that is a luxury we have and they didn't.