Comments on: A world war in a day http://airminded.org/2006/10/26/a-world-war-in-a-day/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-world-war-in-a-day Airpower and British society, 1908-1941 Wed, 23 May 2012 10:08:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2006/10/26/a-world-war-in-a-day/comment-page-1/#comment-4341 Brett Holman Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:18:13 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/10/26/a-world-war-in-a-day/#comment-4341 Well, firstly, I don't mean to imply that it's <em>only</em> rhetoric. A statement can be both true, or believed to be true, <em>and</em> shaped for maximum effect on the audience. Of course these analogies fairly naturally fall out of the technological progress, that's my point (unstated, I guess because it seems obvious to me, and unoriginal because Harold Macmillan made it in the 1960s) -- that the knock-out blow was the interwar equivalent of the nuclear holocaust. Secondly, it actually wasn't true for the knock-out blow -- at least, it wasn't <em>yet</em> true. Partly because the knock-out blow proponents overestimated the capabilities of the technology, and partly because they misunderstood how it would be used. For example, Groves went on to extrapolate minimum casualties of 37000 from the first night's raid (without the use of gas), by scaling up the WWI casualties on London caused by aeroplane-dropped bombed. Those sorts of numbers weren't achievable on the first night of WWII (much less in 1934), they weren't until after several years of war had taught the necessary experience and forced the development of more powerful (and numerous) aircraft. (For comparison, the Coventry raid was nearly at the level of Groves' initial attack, 500 tons; but caused only 1400 casualties.) Technology is not destiny! And finally, I'm hardly going to disagree with your final statement, since my thesis is all about understanding 'the nature of the beast', in an historical context :) Well, firstly, I don't mean to imply that it's only rhetoric. A statement can be both true, or believed to be true, and shaped for maximum effect on the audience. Of course these analogies fairly naturally fall out of the technological progress, that's my point (unstated, I guess because it seems obvious to me, and unoriginal because Harold Macmillan made it in the 1960s) -- that the knock-out blow was the interwar equivalent of the nuclear holocaust.

Secondly, it actually wasn't true for the knock-out blow -- at least, it wasn't yet true. Partly because the knock-out blow proponents overestimated the capabilities of the technology, and partly because they misunderstood how it would be used. For example, Groves went on to extrapolate minimum casualties of 37000 from the first night's raid (without the use of gas), by scaling up the WWI casualties on London caused by aeroplane-dropped bombed. Those sorts of numbers weren't achievable on the first night of WWII (much less in 1934), they weren't until after several years of war had taught the necessary experience and forced the development of more powerful (and numerous) aircraft. (For comparison, the Coventry raid was nearly at the level of Groves' initial attack, 500 tons; but caused only 1400 casualties.) Technology is not destiny!

And finally, I'm hardly going to disagree with your final statement, since my thesis is all about understanding 'the nature of the beast', in an historical context :)

]]> By: Jonathan Dresner http://airminded.org/2006/10/26/a-world-war-in-a-day/comment-page-1/#comment-4336 Jonathan Dresner Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:13:52 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/10/26/a-world-war-in-a-day/#comment-4336 Sounds to me like a reasonably accurate portrayal of the escalating technology: why highlight it as a rhetorical strategy? The fact that these "knock-out blow" theories keep coming up false (though we never tested the last one) doesn't mean that its unimportant to understand (and mostly we understand by analogy) the nature of the beast. Sounds to me like a reasonably accurate portrayal of the escalating technology: why highlight it as a rhetorical strategy?

The fact that these "knock-out blow" theories keep coming up false (though we never tested the last one) doesn't mean that its unimportant to understand (and mostly we understand by analogy) the nature of the beast.

]]>