this post was submitted on 27 May 2024
864 points (94.5% liked)

Political Memes

5488 readers
2494 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Less people fighting is less people killing and dieing.

It's really not, though. Especially not in context of a war like WW2. Less Brits fighting simply would have meant more freedom for Nazi bombers to crater London.

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But in the hypothetical where both the axis powers and the allies have less personnel there wouldn't be as many pilots navigators etc for those bombers.

Actually in your example the defending forces come out on top, even if the level of conscientious objection wasn't symmetrical. A ww2 era bomber required several crew members (pilot, co pilot, radio operator, navigator) whereas fighters just needed one person.

So in the hypothetical we have both sides far less capable of doing things like dropping so many bombs on Desden that it caused one of the only firestorms created without the use of Nukes.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

But in the hypothetical where both the axis powers and the allies have less personnel there wouldn’t be as many pilots navigators etc for those bombers.

Actually in your example the defending forces come out on top, even if the level of conscientious objection wasn’t symmetrical. A ww2 era bomber required several crew members (pilot, co pilot, radio operator, navigator) whereas fighters just needed one person.

In this hypothetical, the effects are not symmetrical even if the reduction in military manpower is symmetrical. Britain lacked trained personnel more than materiel; more civilians would have exacerbated that problem. Germany, on the other hand, lacked both in the real world - in a situation where fewer civilians agreed to military service, their materiel disadvantage would have been lessened, while their personnel disadvantage would have remained proportionally steady to Britain's. Britain, primarily on the defensive in the air during those early days, also would have fewer troops to man air defences across the points where German air attacks were most likely to target or cross; and Germany, on the offensive, would suffer from fewer disadvantages as concentration of force in an offensive, especially in air campaigns, is most often bottlenecked by logistical concerns, rather than manpower concerns. As an additional consideration, manpower constraints would have favored highly destructive air campaigns which generally kill more civilians than soldiers, over ground campaigns which generally kill more soldiers than civilians.