British Night bombing

[Nashwan]

Harris fought tooth and nail against anything that distracted from his strategy to destroy civilians.

Harris fought anything that distracted his campaign to destroy German cities and industry.

He never fought solely for attacks on cities, indeed he was responsible for many attacks on specific industries in occupied Europe, which required accuracy to minimise civilian casualties in allied nations.

What Harris recognised is that carpet bombing districts did more damage than trying to hit an individual factory.

The difference was that the USAAF strategy wasn't to target civilians but industry.

No. The USAAF carried out the same sorts of attacks as the RAF. They were just less honest about it.

Apologies if I've already posted this, but from Richard G Davis, American Bombardment Policy Against Germany:

American bombardment policies:
"‘first destruction of the Luftwaffe,
its factories and planes; second essential German industries, and third, the cities themselves.’"General Anderson, Commander VIIIth BC, October 11th, 1943

"Anderson also introduced another change in
Eighth Air Force policy. It began to take effect at
the same time as the introduction of H2S - a large
increase in use of incendiary bombs. Anderson
had begun to encourage greater use of firebombs,
in July 1943. The September 27 Emden mission
was the first of the Eighth’s mission to load more
than 20% incendiaries, while the October 2 mission
against Emden was the Eighth’s first strike to
deliver more than 100 tons of fire bombs on a single
target. Henceforth, the Eighth would not only
conduct intentional area bombing, it would do so
using area bombing techniques."

"After the Second Battle of Schweinfurt bombing
policy changed. On the next mission, October 18,
the Eighth instructed its bombers to hit as their
primary ‘Duren, Center of City,’ and as their secondary
‘Any German city which may be bombed
using visual methods without disrupting fighter
support."

Further on:

"This memo had a chilling effect on reported area
bombing. Three-quarters of such raids reported
appeared in the Eighth’s records before this memo.
However, an analysis using the profile of known
command city raids; always over 100 aircraft,
almost always carrying over 20% incendiaries, and
bombing by radar over 80% of the time, and
applying it to all Eighth Air Force raids, surfaces
82 more ‘area like’ raids. Seventy, or 85%, of those
raids occurred after Anderson’s memo. In August
the Eighth’s area bombing of Germany dropped to
a mere 401 tons. For the first three weeks in
September American area bombing followed the
same pattern. But by the last week of September
the Germans achieved a stalemate on the Western
Front. The Eighth returned to area attacks with a
total of 4,700 tons on Frankfurt, Cologne,
Magdeburg, and Munster."

the clear intent of the targets are of a military nature.

It says nothing about fire bombing apartment blocks.

But that's what they did. Read it again. Over 20% incendiaries, dropped by radar on targets defined as "center of city". What else do you call it?

The USAAF was carrying out area bombing attacks in Europe from summer 1943 until close to the end of the war, just like the RAF.

Of course the US did not only in Germany but a better comparison to BC would be with 20th AF over Japan. But I wonder why the diversion into US actions? More moral relativism? They did it to so that makes it ok for us?

No, not moral relativism, just pointing out that all sides used similar tactics in their bombing campaigns.

It's you who's been claiming that the RAF were unique in their target choices, that they were the only air force to deliberately target civilians.

I'm just pointing out that's false.

They did it, he did it, she did it, the midget down the street did it so its ok for me...

Even in this thread you point the finger at the US.

Not at all. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone, I don't think there was anything wrong with the bombing campaign in WW2.

It's you who's pointing the finger, trying to claim there's something very wrong with the RAF's bombing campaign, something less wrong with the USAAF's, and the Luftwaffe's was mostly OK.

That's just ridiculous.

I state there was no such policy, any more (or less) than Luftwaffe attacks on British morale (and food supplies) in 1940 were attacks on civilians, or any more (or less) than USAAF attacks on Japanese and German cities were attacks on civilians.



Yes we all see your denial. However, what BC did is documented not only on official paper but is documented by many Historians. The fact that you are in denial is evidence of nothing but your own ability to put your hand in the sand.

I've never seen any reputable historians claiming the RAF was unique in it's aims or methods. A few revisionist historians, who's aim is to minimise Nazi atrocities, yes, but never legitimate ones.

I've never seen a legitimate historian claiming the Luftwaffe did not carry out area bombing over Britain in 1940.

I've never seen a modern legitimate historian who claimed the USAAF didn't carry out area bombing.

Here again you use the justification that they did it to so it must be ok. However the facts are only BC built their main strategy through out the war on the indiscriminate bombing of civilians.

No, the facts are that all air forces with a medium/heavy bomber fleet did it.

It's only by redifining Luftwaffe area attacks on Britain as attacks on military targets, and USAAF area attacks on Germany and Japan as attacks on military targets, can someone make that claim.

I have no problem with someone who says bombing enemy cities is wrong, because it kills civilians.

I think it's silly, because war kills people, and there's no way around that, but I don't have any problem with it as a philosophy.

What I do have a problem with is someone saying the RAF bombing civilians is wrong, and then either denying the Luftwaffe and USAAF bombed civiliains, or saying their bombing was justified.

That's just hipocricy.

The first memo may have undermined the British publics confidence in the 'righteousness' of the British war effort. British propaganda was as vital and as effective as any other.

Well, it was an internal government memo, and therefore not a matter for propaganda. If it had been leaked, the press wouldn't have been allowed to print it, and withdrawing it doesn't stop it being leaked anyway.

The simple truth is Churchill is known for his outrageous comments, which is why you can find so many of them, eg on the use of gas.

The memo was also only written at the end of March 1945, so the propoganda value is of little concern because of the imminent end of the war, anyway.

You are comparing them. You are the only one who brings up up other nations in this discussion about Britain and BC.

No, Wotan. It's you who keeps claiming the RAF was unique in it's methods, that neither the Luftwaffe or the USAAF bombed civilians deliberately.

Quote where I said that:

    quote:There is no comparison whatsoever between attacking your enemy and rounding up and murdering civilians who have already surrendered to you.

You didn't. I didn't put it in quotes and attribute it to you.

What you said, and I responded to, was:

  My point is that comparing immoral acts is in no way a useful tool in making your point.

-----------------------------------------------

I'm not comparing them. There is no comparison whatsoever between attacking your enemy and rounding up and murdering civilians who have already surrendered to you.

You are a liar but that is typical of you where folks don't agree with you. Not only on this forum but others.

Can you point out this lie, please?

   On 24 Aug '40, German planes bombed central London due to a navigational error. This is for the most part is in agreement with a good portion of Historians. During the next 2 nights the Brits launched raids on Berlin.

    From their everything escalated.



What I said is 100% accurate

No, it's not accurate because it assumes London is the only important part of Britain, that the 1,000+ dead elsewhere in Britain don't count.

The Luftwaffe was bombing Britiain quite heavily at night, killing civilians in large numbers. To focus only on London is silly.

and is the prevailing view shared view by many

It's Hollywood history. The good story, that doesn't let facts get in the way.

John Ray, The Night Blitz:

"There is a widely accepted, yet not entirely accurate, view that the attacks started and developed as a kind of retaliatory tennis match between Hitler and Churchill"

He goes on to point out that Kesselring wanted to attack London to draw what he thought was dwindling RAF strength into a final battle, Goering wanted to bomb London because he thought it would obviate need for an invasion, and that bomber losses were so high that a change in strategy was needed. He quotes Werner Junk, commander Luftflotte's IIIs fighters, that he had advocated an early switch to night attacks, which was eventually carried out because of bomber losses. (Luftflotte 3 lost it's fighters and switched to maily night attacks about 20th August, iirc)

Ray also quotes Otto Bechtle, operations officer KG2, to German air staff conference 1944, on switching attacks to London, and attacking by night:

"Incomparably greater success than hirtherto could be expected from this policy", adding that "economic war from the air could be embarked upon with full fury". Futhermore, he claimed, the morale of the civilian population could be "subjected at the same time to heavy strain".

[Nashwan]

Also from Ray, quoting the RAF official history: "the German belief that "the exertion of sufficient pressure on morale, together with sufficient measure of destruction, would demonstrate the futility of further resistance and bring offers of submission"

Ray quoting Jodl, from June:
"In conjunction with propoganda and terror raids from time to time - announced as reprisals - a cumulative destruction of Britain's food stocks will paralyse the will of the people to resist, and then break it altogether, forcing the capitulation of their government".

Ray, quoting Hitler: "if 8 million people go mad, it might very well turn into a catastrophe", adding, after that, he believed "even a small invasion might go a long way".

Richard Overy, the Battle:

"The raids on Berlin might have affected the timing of this descision, but even that is doubtfull. At most they allowed German leaders what Goebbels described as an "alibi": British airmen were presented in German propoganda as military terrorists, while German operations were presented as a legitimate attack on targets broadly defined as essential for war.

Such a distinction is still sometimes drawn sixty years later. It is an entirely false one. The two air forces operated under almost identical instructions to hit military and economic targets whenever conditions allowed. Neither air force was permitted to mount terror attacks for the sake of pure terror. The British War Cabinet issued a directive to Bomber Command early in June 1940 instructing bomber crews over Germany to attack only when a target was clearly identified, and to seek out an altenative target in case the first was obscured. If no contact was made with the target, aircraft were expected to bring their bombs back"

"The claim the attack on London was retaliation for starting an air war against civilians with the raid on Berlin on the night of 25/26th August is equally hollow. The Berlin raid was very small scale, and the amount of damage inflicted on the capital itself negligible."

"The raids on Berlin were in reality retaliation for the persistent bombing of British conurbations and the high level of British civilian casulaties that resulted. In July 258 civilians had been killed, in August 1,075: the figures included 136 children and 392 women. During the last half of August, as German bombers moved progressively further inland, bombs began to fall on the outskirts of London.

On the night of the 18/19 August bombs fell on Croydon, Wimbledon and the Maldens. On the night of 22/23 August the bombs fell on central London in attacks described by observers as "extensive" and for which no warning was given; on the night 24/25 August bombs fell on Slough, Richmond Park and Dulwich. On the night the RAF first raided Berlin, bombs fell on Banstead, Croydon, Lewisham, Uxbridge, Harrow and Hayes. On the night of the next raid on Berlin, on 28/29 August, German aircraft bombed the following London areas: Finchley, St Pancras, Wembley, Wood Green, Southgate, Crayford, Old Kent Road, Mill HIll, Ilford, Hendon, Chigwell. London was under red warning for seven hours and 5 minutes. The bombing of London began almost two weeks beofre Hitler's speech on 4th September, and well before the first raid on Berlin"

Most of the 'extra' weapons the Germans would have produced would have been spent in the east. Those that weren't would have been ground to death in the west by Allied fighter bombers etc..

Certainly I think the Germans would still have lost, at somewhat higher cost to the allies, and with the war ending somewhat later.

As an example the Soviets didn't develop a strategic bomber or strategy. Neither did the Germans. Both were successful by winning the war on the ground.

The point is the British and Americans could not fight a war on the ground against the Germans until 1944, they simply had no way of invading and sustaining the invasion earlier.

And even then the invasion was a gamble. If it had failed, the Germans would have been fre to fight the Russians alone for another year, and the war would have lasted at least another year.

The bomber campaign would have defeated Germany by the summer of 1945 anyway. With a successfull invasion, that wasn't necessary, but if the invasion had failed, it would have been (and it would have been too late to start in 1944 if the invasion had failed)

   They were tasked with making sure Britain gave up the war against Germany. That's victory by anyone's definition (apart from yours, it seems).

--------------------------------------------------

Coming to terms with an enemy doesn't necessarily mean 'giving up'. Whether or not Hitler could have been believed aside he made several offers to the British that were rejected.

He didn't actually make any firm offers, he put out peace feelers. But are you seriously suggesting Hitler would have accepted peace on Britain's terms? Of course not, he wanted Britain to accept peace on his.

That's called victory, it's just not the same as total victory.

If you go to war, invade and occupy several countries, and get your enemy to agree terms and give up fighting, that's called victory.

Unless he could show them that the threat of invasion was real he would never have gotten a deal. He needed to destroy the RAF to help convince them.

Or bomb them in to submission, which is what he tried.

This is silly. What exactly are you suggesting the Luftwaffe was doing over Britain in 1940?

I say the Luftwaffe was trying to bomb Britain into submission. What do you say they were doing?

The LW goal during BoB wasn't to bomb population centers until the British morale broke and they gave up. It was to destroy the RAF which would have made the threat of invasion more 'real'.

That was certainly the goal at the start of the BoB. What would you say was the goal as the BoB turned into the Blitz?

That's what I saids all along? Are you playing games? You claimed that the LW was tasked with defeating (victory) Britain by bombing their cities.

Huh?

I'm saying that in summer 1940 Germany was faced with a country they couldn't invade, and used the Luftwaffe to try to bring about victory, by bombing Britain into submission.

They started by trying to beat the RAF, they ended by trying to bypass the RAF (by flying at night) and bombing British cities.

If you've got some other explanation of what the Blitz was, I'd really like to hear it.

I said the shift of strategy (night bombing of British cities) was in retaliation for the British targeting of German cities.

I said rubbish.

Let's get something clear.

The first country to start bombing in WW2 was Germany with attacks on Poland.

You claim these were all legitimate military targets.

The second round of bombing was Britain and Germany bombing each other's warships at sea, that's clearly a military target.

The third round was German bombing of military targets in Scotland, and Britain bombing a seaplane base on a north sea island. Again clearly military bombing.

The fourth round was German bombing in Norway. Spaight certainly says this was terror bombing, I presume you are claiming it was all military targets.

The fifth round was German attacks on French, Dutch and Belgian targets. This was probably military bombing.

The sixth was British bombing of military targets west of the Rhine. This was military bombing.

Seventh German bombing of Rotterdam, again military.

8th British bombing of military targets in Germany.

9th German bombing of military targets in Britain.

It remains that way until the Blitz.

The first British area attack on Germany, ie an attack on a city not on an industrial target within a city, was on 16/17 December 1940, the attack on Mannheim.

To believe the Blitz was retaliation for British bombing, you have to believe that Germany only attacked military targets in Britain prior to December 16/17 1940, and that the 20,000 dead civilians up to that point were all collateral damage.

You have to believe that hundreds of tons of bombs and incendiaries on the cnetre of Coventry were on purely military targets, that the nightly attacks on London, many aimed at the commercial centre of the city, were purely military targets.

And you have to believe that similar British raids after December 1941, aimed at the cetnre of German cities, were not military tartgets.

In short, you have to say when the Luftwaffe bombed a city it was a military target, when the RAF did exactly the same, it wasn't.

John Ray, commenting on German propoganda in late September 1940:

"In reality the RAF at this point was still attempting to strike at specific targets, for example oil depots, rather than follow the Luftwaffe's practice over London of unloading bombs randomly across a wide urban mass. The RAF's first "area" raid of the war, with the centre of the town as it's target, was not unleashed until 16 December 1940. Mannheim was then attacked after Coventry had been devestated a month earlier"

I didn't expect some one to use an example of a "Titoist' court as evidence of something.

Who would?

Not me. I was just correcting the wrong "fact" you introduced, even though it isn't germane to the topic.

I never claimed German bombing was illegal, so what was the point of claiming no Germans had been prosecuted for it?

[Nashwan]

quote]If Britain had been in France's situation and not protected by the channel they would have folded as easily. [/quote]

If Britain had been in Fance's position Britain would be a continental land power with an entirely different history, ethnic makeup and military balance, so any speculation is silly.

Quote my sympathy for the Nazi's?

Again you lie.

I said you had sympathy for Nazi Germany, not Nazis.

You certainly seem prepared to give Germany the benefit of the doubt regards all their bombing being "legitimate", and just as certainly don't extend the same benefit of the doubt to Britain.

You extend that to saying Britain started the war, and yes, I think it's fair to say you are showing sympathy for Nazi Germany.

And that's not the same as saying sympathy for the Nazis, which would imply sympathy for their genocidal policies.

More lies from you.

You brought Rotterdam into this discussion as an example of the LW purposeful targeting of civilians.

No I didn't. Where exactly do I say Rotterdam was an example of targeting civilians (other than in the rhetorical "nonsense" bits)?

I brought Rotterdam in because it's the destruction the Luftwaffe wrought in Rotterdam that persuaded the British the Germans would have no qualms bombing cities as and when it suited them (because Rotterdam, even though it was a valid target, was also a city, and a lot of civilians died)

Regardless, the targets weren't civilians and the raid was not in support of 'paratroopers'.

It was. I believe elements of 7th Fallschirmjager were engaged, the bombing was in support of them. (although they might have been glider troops, rather than paratroops)

They had seized the northern end of a bridge in Rotterdam, they were cut off and would have soon needed to surrender, the bombing was directed close to their position.

   Never said they did (again, exluding my "nonsense" in reply to your "nonsense")



Yes you did:

    quote:Nonsense, the people of Rotterdam, Warsaw, London, Coventry, Leningrad, etc were the targets.

As I said, excluding the "nonsense" one.

My initial post was:

   Rotterdam was bombed because it was a port bringing in supplies to feed Allied troops. The ports were the targets not civilians..



And German cities were bombed because they were producing the supplies for the German armies. The cties were the targets, not the civilians.

Note I was not claiming Rotterdam was bombed to kill the civilians. You said Rotterdam was bombed to destroy the port, I pointed out German cities were bombed to destroy the industries.

You responded with:

Nonsense the civilians (laborers of the war machine) were the targets.

I responded with:

Nonsense, the people of Rotterdam, Warsaw, London, Coventry, Leningrad, etc were the targets.

What I am trying to point ou is your double standard.

When the Luftwaffe bomb a city, it's to destroy the port (or whatever). When the RAF bomb a city, it's to kill the civilians.

I don't like double standards, which is why I emphasised yours.

I haven't seriously claimed Rotterdam was a deliberate attack on civilians.

Why lie?

I'm not, Wotan. I'm not the one who's making up quotes to suit himself.

Warsaw was a valid military target. T

Of course it was. Everything the Germans bombed was a valid military target. Everything the RAF bombed was designed purely to kill civilians.

You are approaching this with the preconceived idea that Bomber Command set out to kill civilians, and the Luftwaffe didn't.

That preconception is leading you to the conclusion that when the Luftwaffe bombed a city, they did so to destroy some physical thing in that city (docks etc), when the RAF bombed a city they did so to kill the inhabitants.

You haven't provided any evidence for that preconception, other than your made up quote.

That doesn't represent a fixed un-yielding strategy to de-house all of Poland's population centers in the same fashion as BC planned to do with Germany. The Nazi's didn't need the LW for that.

That's the point. The Germans developed the army as their primary force, the Luftwaffe to support it, and the navy hardly at all, because they were a continental land power.

When faced with a situation where the power of their army was no use (against Britain in 1940) they switched to a tactic of area bombing cities, in exactly the same way Britain later did. The reasons were just the same, for the Germans because they had a strong army but weak navy, and couldn't invade Britain, for the British because although they had a strong navy, they had a weak army, and couldn't invade Germany.

Here once again you bring in some other causation or at the very least some other excuse that does nothing to disprove my point or to prove your own.

What is your point exactly?

I'll state mine quite simply. All sides area bombed cities, starting with Germany, the Britain, then the US.

There is nothing particularly wrong with area bombing by the standards of the day.

Area bombing was a good strategy for the time, that's why everyone adopted it.

Now, your point?

There were several offers not just one. Hitler offered to to extend League of Nations protection to the Danzig Corridor much like Danzig itself.

You are surely not suggesting Hitler only wanted Danzig, are you?

Nashwan would have you believe that the above doesn't really mean the civil population or the workers themselves but just 'the city where they live'.

No, no, no.

I'm open to argument that BC targeted workers, that's ust a matter of interpretation. It's not the interpretation I put on it, but I can see why somebody would take that view.

What I object to is the claim that bomber command unloading hundreds of tons of bombs over a city is targeting civilians, the Luftwaffe or USAAF unloading hundreds of tons of bombs over a city is not.

[Wotan]

I only have time for a quick reply  but will try to get back later this evening. It maybe tomorrow before I can reply to all your points.

Anyway:

So it's actually your interpretation of BC strategy, which you try to legitimise by putting quotes around it, and claiming it's from an Air Ministry directive?

From Directive # 22:

It has been decided that the primary objective of your operations should be focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular the industrial workers.

This doesn't mean buildings or the abstract 'city'. The targets are the civil population and in particular the industrial workers.

I suppose it is clear that the Aiming Points are to be the built up areas and not the dockyards or aircraft factories.

The built up areas are the targets why? Because that's where the people live and sleep.

Add that to Churchill's own words:

Churchill’s letter to Lord Beaverbrook, on 5th July 1940.

"Nothing else will get the Germans to their minds, and on their knees, than an absolutely devastating extermination campaign against their homeland with heavy bombers."

See: John Colville : Fringes of Power. Downing Street Diaries 1939-1955. London 1985, pg. 186.

And their intent is clear, to target civilians.

No, it was also brought on by the bombing campaign. From the USSBS:

Nonsense. Even the quote from the USSBS doesn't show that:

The German experience suggests that even a first class military power -- rugged and resilient as Germany was -- cannot live long under full-scale and free exploitation of air weapons over the heart of its territory. By the beginning of 1945, before the invasion of the homeland itself, Germany was reaching a state of helplessness. Her armament production was falling irretrievably, orderliness in effort was disappearing, and total disruption and disintegration were well along. Her armies were still in the field. But with the impending collapse of the supporting economy, the indications are convincing that they would have had to cease fighting -- any effective fighting -- within a few months. Germany was mortally wounded.

Germany's industrial centers weren't limited to the borders of Germany Proper. The overrunning of the eastern territories by the Soviets and the failure of the transportation system (mostly brought on roving fighters and fighter bombers) are what lead to collapse. By '45 even BC admits they were running out of targets.

By '45 the losses on the battlefield were far beyond replacement even if German industry were running at 100%.

Even the quote you posted doesn't refer specifically to 'bombers' but uses the general term 'full-scale and free exploitation of air weapons'.

From the USSBS:

The city attacks of the RAF prior to the autumn of 1944, did not substantially affect the course of German war production. German war production as a whole continued to increase. This in itself is not conclusive, but the Survey has made detailed analysis of the course of production and trade in 10 German cities that were attacked during this period and has made more general analyses in others. These show that while production received a moderate setback after a raid, it recovered substantially within a relatively few weeks. As a rule the industrial plants were located around the perimeter of German cities and characteristically these were relatively undamaged.

In the next paragraph:

Commencing in the autumn of 1944, the tonnage dropped on city areas, plus spill-overs from attacks on transportation and other specific targets, mounted greatly. In the course of these raids, Germany's steel industry was knocked out, its electric power industry was substantially impaired and industry generally in the areas attacked was disorganized. There were so many forces making for the collapse of production during this period, however, that it is not possible separately to assess the effect of these later area raids on war production. There is no doubt, however, that they were significant.

In late '44 and '45 the war was all but over. The German railway system had collapsed (or damn near collapsed). Added to the loss of raw materials such as ores, chemicals and oil due to the situation on the ground and the German economy broke down.

The report goes into the the attacks on the German transportation system (which wasn't the sole domain of BC or the bombers in general):

The attack on transportation was the decisive blow that completely disorganized the German economy. It reduced war production in all categories and made it difficult to move what was produced to the front. The attack also limited the tactical mobility of the German army.

Attack aircraft of all sorts contributed substantially to the collapse of German transportation.

The attack on German transportation was intimately woven with the development of ground operations. In support of the invasion a major assignment of the air forces had been the disruption of rail traffic between Germany and the French coast through bombing of marshalling yards in northern France. At the time of the invasion itself a systematic and large-scale attempt was made to interdict all traffic to the Normandy beachhead. These latter operations were notably successful; as the front moved to the German border the attack was extended to the railroads of the Reich proper. Heavy and medium bombers and fighters all participated.

It should be noted that Harris was against diverting BC resources to attack transportation leading up to invasion.

For those interested it what were are talking about here is a link:

THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY

 Summary Report
(European War)
September 30, 1945

What's true is that victory in spring 1945 came from both the ground and the air. It's speculation that without the air forces the ground forces would still have achieved victory at the same time. (and there's little to support it)

I never said anything about not having an 'air force'. What I said was that victory still would have came without BC targeting civilians.

I agree that 'air forces' can be decisive in battle. I pointed out that imho cas and interdiction are capable of 'war winning'. I don't believe and it has not been shown to me that 'strategic bombing'  (absent nukes) could be a decisive factor in winning a war.

I gotta run but like I said I will try to get back later...

[Angus]

Ok, get the short story:

1. First airforce to devastate whole towns and subdue nations with heavy bombings, - LW. Mission successful
2. London was bombed indiscriminately before Berlin, and as the ladder went higher, the LW tried bombing the British civilians into a surrender. So, Gerry is not a gentleman.
3. For years, the BC was both ineffectively trying to bomb strategic targets (well, sometimes they were lucky), and sometimes striking more populated areas. Gerry was itching a bit, but not so scratched.
4. One fine day, it was clear that BC was basically the only weapon to hurt Gerries homeland.
5. BC then moved on to tougher strategy, their ability to deliver their payload growing steadily. Gerry easily compensated for homeless or dead workers by applying millions of slaves.
6. All the time, the high command is aware of the growing wickedness of their enemy. (Ultra + Enigma). Bear in mind that more Polish people for instance are killed AFTER their country surrendered, than Germans in air raids. OOOps, I included the Jews. So, add some bombs.
6b. Like Tony said, Stalin wants some more support. Ok, bomb and bomb.
7. At one point, you have total war. Stopping only at WMD, which Gerry was as well as everybody else, trying to develop. And everybody could have delivered gas in some quantity.
8. No mercy for Gerry. Bomb the fatherland to pieces and get it over ASAP. This is a costly war. Gerry sucks!
9. Oooops. Gerry has rockets and cruise missiles. He is now bombing back. So, bomb the bugger more!
10 Gerry has been bombed and bombed, but still does not surrender. What a clot! Eventually, Gerry's capital gets shelled. One SS officer joked with this with Hitler. He said: It's getting so short between the Western and the Eastern front, that we can soon take the streetcar between them. Well, eventually it was over.

Since Gerry lost, at least we have the open sources to create a hindsight

[Squire]

"This is a costly war. Gerry sucks!"

You would not have made it as a speech writer for Churchill Angus, but maybe that would have been a catchy phrase for a war bond drive?

[Angus]

I'd have to spend more than 5 secs to pick up a Churchill-quality line

[Tony Williams]

A few additional comments:

First, it makes no difference in practical terms whether you say you're bombing a military target, but incidentally flatten thousands of nearby houses, or whether you say you're flattening a part of a city, and incidentally knock out a military target. The residents wouldn't be able to tell the difference and would get killed just the same either way.

Second, if a factory producing war goods is a legitimate target, then so are the workers in that factory as they are a part of the system producing the goods. De-housing, scaring them off or killing them is therefore a legitimate tactic in the kind of total warfare which constituted WW2.

Third, whether a particular action is regarded as legitimate or criminal depends on the context. Let me give you a simple analogy. A maniac walks into a public place, pulls out a gun and starts shooting. He hits and kills a man – an innocent passerby. A policeman sees what is happening, draws his gun and shoots the maniac dead. From a particular, very narrow, perspective, it is possible to argue that the actions of the maniac and the policeman were equivalent: they both deliberately shot and killed someone. However, when the actions are considered in context it is obvious that there is no moral equivalence at all. Put simply, the policeman’s action was morally justified, the maniac’s was not.

The same logic can be applied to the bombing by the Luftwaffe and RAF in WW2. From a particular, very narrow, perspective, it is possible to argue that the actions of the Luftwaffe and the RAF were equivalent. However, when the actions are seen in context, it is obvious that there was no moral equivalence at all. The Luftwaffe’s bombing was in furtherance of an aggressive war of conquest started by Hitler. After dismantling Czechoslovakia, he invaded Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, the USSR and – oh yes –  Yugoslavia, Greece and a few other places. The RAF’s bombing was in furtherance of a battle to stop Hitler’s aggression, to free the countries he had invaded and to end his evil regime. Put simply, the RAF’s action was morally justified, the Luftwaffe’s was not.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Wotan]

I provided the most telling quotes from Middlebrook:

If anything, the bombing was often counter-productive in terms of morale. The news of what had happened in Hamburg, taken back to their units by thousands of servicemen who were allowed special leave, certainly increased the will to fight on to the end by the German forces. In Hamburg itself, though its people may have been sick at heart at the destruction of homes and the loss of life, they pulled together as they had never done before.

You go on to cite:

Middlebrooks says that atendance at Blohm und Voss shipyards (the main U boat manufacturer) was down heavily. Out of the ormal workforce of 9,400, 300 reported for work on the morning following the heaviest raid. By 1st August, 1,500 were back at work. By 1st September, more than a month after the raids, half were back at work, half still absent.

By 1st November, 3 months after the raids, 20% of the workforce was still not back at work.

Approximately 45,000 people died. It is probable that 40,000 of those deaths occurred in the firestorm which took place during the second RAF raid. By contrast, less than one percent of the deaths were caused by the two American raids.

40000 (+ 5000 others; Middlebrooks numbers) of the citizens of Hamburg were burnt to death. Don't you think this would have some effect on the labor force? Not to mention the injured.

So much for 'civilians weren't the target'...

No. The USAAF carried out the same sorts of attacks as the RAF. They were just less honest about it.

Did I say they didn't?

Here's what I said:

Of course the US did not only in Germany but a better comparison to BC would be with 20th AF over Japan. But I wonder why the diversion into US actions? More moral relativism? They did it to so that makes it ok for us?

This thread is about British night bombing.

My reply:

The difference [in reference to what you wrote] was that the USAAF strategy wasn't to target civilians but industry. Even though the bombing campaign in general never lived up to what was expected in terms of destroying a nations war economy the clear intent of the targets are of a military nature.

It says nothing about fire bombing apartment blocks.

should be read in context to what it is you cited as evidence:

You wrote:

No towns or cities in Germany will be attacked as secondary or last resort targets, targets of opportunity, or otherwise, unless such towns contain
or have immediately adjacent to them, one (1) or more military objectives. Military objectives include railway lines; junctions; marshalling yards; railway or road bridges, or other communications networks; any industrial plant; and such obvious military objectives as oil storage tanks, military camps and barracks, troop concentrations, motor transport or AFV parks, ordnance or supply depots, ammunition depots; airfields; etc."

"It has been determined that towns and cities large enough to produce an identifiable return on the H2X scope generally contain a large proportion of the military objectives listed above. These centers, therefore, may be attacked as secondary or last resort targets through the overcast bombing technique

What you typed doesn't establish that the US bombing strategy was built around bombing civilians. Even in the second paragraph where it says:

These centers, therefore, may be attacked as secondary or last resort targets through the overcast bombing technique

There is a qualifier before it:

It has been determined that towns and cities large enough to produce an identifiable return on the H2X scope generally contain a large proportion of the military objectives listed above.

What you wrote refers to 'military targets'.

It's you who's been claiming that the RAF were unique in their target choices, that they were the only air force to deliberately target civilians.

I'm just pointing out that's false.

What's false is you re-wording my points to suit your argument. What I specifically contend is:

All other nations in war inevitably hit targets in cities and / or embedded with in the civilian population. The only bomber force in WW2 that practically built their entire strategy on the indiscriminate bombing of civilians was BC whether it be to de-moralize, de-house' or to outright kill civilians.

I also said in another reply that:

This [thread] has nothing to do with unintended collateral civilian casualties that are the inevitable result of war and in particular of level bombing...

Not at all. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone, I don't think there was anything wrong with the bombing campaign in WW2.

It's you who's pointing the finger, trying to claim there's something very wrong with the RAF's bombing campaign, something less wrong with the USAAF's, and the Luftwaffe's was mostly OK.

That's just ridiculous.

It is you that keep bringing up other nations in this discussion about British night bombing.

It you that keeps saying 'they did it to...'

Quote where I said the USAAF was 'less wrong'.

Quote where I said the Luftwaffe was 'mostly OK'.

I haven't said either.

I have replied to the specific examples that you cite in this thread.

In reference to the LW you brought up cities like Rotterdam, Warsaw, Belgrade and now Guernica. You compared some of these raids to BC as an example that at least some of these raids were specifically targeted against civilians.

What I did was reply to your claims in order to show, that in reference to the specific cities you mentioned, the LW wasn't specifically targeting civilians in those examples.

I never said the LW didn't area bomb, they did. I never said the LW never targeted civilians. They did, so did the US.

It's only by redifining Luftwaffe area attacks on Britain as attacks on military targets, and USAAF area attacks on Germany and Japan as attacks on military targets, can someone make that claim.

I never said all LW raids on Britain were against military targets. What I said was the shift to area bombing by the LW was precipitated by the RAF night attacks on Berlin.

What I do have a problem with is someone saying the RAF bombing civilians is wrong, and then either denying the Luftwaffe and USAAF bombed civiliains, or saying their bombing was justified.

I haven't denied that the LW or the USAAF never bombed civilians nor have I justified' anything.

As I said above I replied to the examples you cite in this thread. What I have said is that the specific targeting of civilians by BC was wrong. I cited several reasons why. These reasons are independent of anything the US, DE, SU, JP etc... did during the war.

Can you point out this lie, please?

I already did:

There is no comparison whatsoever between attacking your enemy and rounding up and murdering civilians who have already surrendered to you.

No where did I say or imply that. As I pointed out to Tony (and confirmed by many of your wrong implications of my points through out) it would appear you are trying to build up some strawman fallacy.

Rather then stick to my specific points you seem to be attempting to re-define them so that instead of dealing with the specific issue of 'British night bombing' you create the illusion that I am defending or have sympathies with 'Nazi Germany'.

It's a tactic I have seen you use before.

I have to run and apologize that it is taking so long to finish my reply{ies} but I am just off vacation and have to catch up on some work. I will try to finish my replies tonight.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Tony Williams
However, once he realised that the UK was not going to give him the kind of settlement he wanted  -  i.e., to hold onto his Polish conquests and leave him master of France - the gloves soon came off, and military targets often had very little to do with it.

[/B]

Tony, the gloves came off after Winston Churchill ordered the indiscriminate terror bombing of Berlin. Hitler explicitely prohibited the bombing of London before that - it`s a historical fact. The RAF was bombing major German cities before the Battle of France even ended.

British air attacks on major German cities, via Jane`s. Note the date of first attacks - the RAF was not hitting back, it started, and effectively the only long-term deployer of terror bombing tactics during WW2.

Remember the Baedecker raids? The ones in 1942 in which the Luftwaffe launched bombing attacks on historic British cities of no military significance, just to try to terrorise and demoralise the population into surrender?

Tony, as you probably know, the Baedecker raids which you desrcibed were in response to the RAF-BC`s raids on Rostock. Rostock was an old medieval city with no military importance, and was selected by the RAF as target because it had a great many of wooden housing from the old times which would burn easily. The city, with much of it`s cultural heritage was devasted by the Bomber commands firebombings.

The Baeder raids were an answer to that, just like the V1 and V2 were to the hundreds of thousends of innoncent dead the British were responsible for in Germany.

You came up with Coventry, but even British authors like Peter Hinchliff who wrote an excellent book on RAF night bomber and LW night fighter operations do not deny that in Coventry the aircraft industry was targeted, and was hit hard, not the civillian population.

I am sorry, but appearantly you took an easy position of blaming it all on the 'evil nazis who started all', and repeat the old wartime propaganda about LW bombings which are long dismissed even by British historians. I am curious, even in modern UK, why is it so hard for the population to face the countries historical past, that they waged 5 years of a terror campaign from the air killing and burning ca. 500 000 civilians?

It appears that modern Germany was capable of facing it`s old crimes, despite proportioanlly greater as the whole, why Britain could still not take a step ahead from an entrechned position of denial and relativization.

[Kurfürst]

Besides Tony, it`s a rather odd thing to argue about Britian was fighting for liberty and democracy and such values - it would be odd for a country which run the biggest colonial empire at that time, forcing hundreds of millions of indians, africans, boers etc. against their will, who had no right at all to influence their own nations political decision or were allowed to run a country of their own.

Basically, you are arguing a Slaver has moral superiority over a 'Thug' as you describe it, and thus all of it`s actions are justified.

By your logic, if India would choose to turn the UK into a nuclear wasteland, it would be justfied because the UK 'committed agression' in Iraq. Silly, isn`t it?

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Of course it was. Everything the Germans bombed was a valid military target. Everything the RAF bombed was designed purely to kill civilians.

You are approaching this with the preconceived idea that Bomber Command set out to kill civilians, and the Luftwaffe didn't.

That preconception is leading you to the conclusion that when the Luftwaffe bombed a city, they did so to destroy some physical thing in that city (docks etc), when the RAF bombed a city they did so to kill the inhabitants.

You haven't provided any evidence for that preconception, other than your made up quote.

[/B]

I don`t see preconception with Wotan. He did not say the LW only bombing miliary targets.

As for the RAF setting out with the task to kill civillians, why not ask the CinC of Bomber Command :

To qoute Arthur Harris, calculating that using mix of incendinaries and HE is more effective for mass murder  :

"I do not agree with this policy. The moral effect of HE is vast. People can escape from fires, and the casualties on a solely fire raising raid would be as nothing. What we want to do in addition to the horrors of fire is to bring the masonry crashing down on top of the Boche, to kill Boche and to terrify Boche."

He does not need much of an interpretation, does he?




That's the point. The Germans developed the army as their primary force, the Luftwaffe to support it, and the navy hardly at all, because they were a continental land power.

When faced with a situation where the power of their army was no use (against Britain in 1940) they switched to a tactic of area bombing cities, in exactly the same way Britain later did. The reasons were just the same, for the Germans because they had a strong army but weak navy, and couldn't invade Britain, for the British because although they had a strong navy, they had a weak army, and couldn't invade Germany.



What is your point exactly?

I'll state mine quite simply. All sides area bombed cities, starting with Germany, the Britain, then the US.

But only Britian bombed cities in Europe through the whole war with the single goal of maximizing civillian casulties in cities.

Being less p.c., they went butchering civillians from the air, while others didn`t, though they did on a few occasion.

Area bombing was a good strategy for the time, that's why everyone adopted it.

You didn`t provide any evidence up to now that everyone would adopt area bombing at the time.

It`s just an attempt of moral relativization.
It`s how you usually deny to BC`s crimes.
First, you deny outright they would target cities. I read you say :

'They only bombed crossroads/RR stations. Unfurtunately, every German city had crossroads.'

When there are so many facts around that you can no longer deny what the BC did 60 years ago, you swicht to moral relativization and claim that 'everyone else was doing it'.

[Angus]

Kuffy, you saw my my piece of how and when indiscriminate or civilian bombings started in WW2 (Poland) and how they started off properly between the LW and RAF.
Please ponder on that a bit

[Nashwan]

   It has been decided that the primary objective of your operations should be focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular the industrial workers.



This doesn't mean buildings or the abstract 'city'. The targets are the civil population and in particular the industrial workers.

No, the target is their morale, just as it was for the Luftwaffe in 1940:

 "economic war from the air could be embarked upon with full fury". Futhermore, he claimed, the morale of the civilian population could be "subjected at the same time to heavy strain"."
Otto Bechtle, operations officer KG2

"In conjunction with propoganda and terror raids from time to time - announced as reprisals - a cumulative destruction of Britain's food stocks will paralyse the will of the people to resist, and then break it altogether, forcing the capitulation of their government".
Jodl

"if 8 million people go mad, it might very well turn into a catastrophe", adding, after that, he believed "even a small invasion might go a long way".
Hitler

"The city is one single ruin... and so it must go on, until England is on her knees, begging for peace"
Goering

And read again the Herschel Johnson letter, which makes it clear that damage to the city, it's housing and infrastructure are what damaged morale, not a mention of civilian casualties.

From Lord Cherwell, Churchill's scientific adviser:

"Careful analysis of the effects of raids on Birmingham, Hull and elsewhere have shown that, on the average, I ton of bombs dropped on a built-up area demolishes 20-40 dwellings and turns 100-200 people out of house and home."

"Investigation seems to show that having one's house demolished is most damaging to morale. People seem to mind it more than having their friends or even relatives killed."

That's the thinking behind bomber command, when they speak of morale. Not to kill the civilians, but to destroy the city.

Look at those figures. 100-200 homeless from one ton of bombs, 0.5 killed per ton of bombs (or 0.8, if using the figures the Germans achieved over Britain)

It's quite clear, the British thought dehousing was most damaging to morale, and far, far more were dehoused than killed.

The built up areas are the targets why? Because that's where the people live and sleep.

The built up areas are not just residential, they are also commercial, and contain the densest infrastructure.

The German railway system had collapsed (or damn near collapsed).

Due to bombing.

Attack aircraft of all sorts contributed substantially to the collapse of German transportation.

Mainly bombers.

It should be noted that Harris was against diverting BC resources to attack transportation leading up to invasion.

It should be noted that Harris used his bombers to attack transport targets leading up to the invasion to the maximum extent, even if he had argued against it.

I pointed out that imho cas and interdiction are capable of 'war winning'.

Of course they are. The allies could have limited themselves to this, limited their attack on Germany. Why should they, though? Why, in a total war, limit yourself, especially when the enemy isn't?

40000 (+ 5000 others; Middlebrooks numbers) of the citizens of Hamburg were burnt to death. Don't you think this would have some effect on the labor force? Not to mention the injured.

So much for 'civilians weren't the target'...

No, I don't.

Hamburg had a population of about 1,500,000. 40,000 is less than 3%.

3% dead does not equate well with 50% absenteeism.

However, something over 50% of the population was made homeless, and that equates very well with the 50% absenteeism.

What you wrote refers to 'military targets'.

Military targets as in "any town of 50,000 people or more, or which contains a bridge, or a railway, or a factory, is a military target.

What the USAAF did was redifine cities as military targets, just as the RAF did.

I don't know of any town deliberately bombed by the RAF that would not fit that definition of a "military target".

Quote where I said the USAAF was 'less wrong'.

Quote where I said the Luftwaffe was 'mostly OK'.

I haven't said either.

You have said that the RAF was the only air force to target civilians.

As evidence, you have provided one made up quote that says that, several quotes that describe targetting morale and built up areas, and claimed the US didn't "firebomb apartment blocks".

Well, the USAAF did firebomb apartment blocks, the Luftwaffe did target morale and built up areas.

In reference to the LW you brought up cities like Rotterdam, Warsaw, Belgrade and now Guernica.

I brought up Guernica in your refernce to Iraq, Belgrade when you claimed no Germans were tried for bombing (wy, I don't know, as I never claimed they were), Rotterdam as the turning point that allowed Bomber Command to target military targets in Germany.

I have repeatedly brought up London and Coventry as examples of the Luftwaffe using area bombing.

You compared some of these raids to BC as an example that at least some of these raids were specifically targeted against civilians.

No, only Warsaw.

I never said the LW never targeted civilians. They did, so did the US.

Sorry, I thought you were saying the opposite when you said:

"The only bomber force in WW2 that practically built their entire strategy on the indiscriminate bombing of civilians was BC whether it be to de-moralize, de-house' or to outright kill civilians. "

"The difference was that the USAAF strategy wasn't to target civilians but industry."

" However the facts are only BC built their main strategy through out the war on the indiscriminate bombing of civilians."

If you are now saying what you mean is the RAF did a bit more killing of civilians than the USAAF or Luftwaffe, perhaps.

But I'd just like to point out that the Luftwaffe spent almost their entire war against Britain trying, as you define it, "to kill civilians".

They began in late summer 1940, and continued right to the end of the war, by air launching V-1s at British cities.

In light of you saying you don't think BC was the only one to target civilians, just devoted more of their effort to it, another of your comments:

At least you admit that much. BC led the way in fire bombing civilians.

No, the Luftwaffe led the way in firebombing civilians, in London, Coventry and other British cities in the summer and autumn of 1940, before the British began to respond in kind in December 1940.

As I said above I replied to the examples you cite in this thread. What I have said is that the specific targeting of civilians by BC was wrong. I cited several reasons why. These reasons are independent of anything the US, DE, SU, JP etc... did during the war.

OK, you believe all bombing was wrong. Why then do you seem to want to focus only on BC? If you have a complaint with bombing in general, why not air it, rather than focus on the actions of only one of the strategic bombing forces?

I never said all LW raids on Britain were against military targets. What I said was the shift to area bombing by the LW was precipitated by the RAF night attacks on Berlin.

Let's make this clear. You are saying the Luftwaffe shift to area attacks was promted by the RAF's attacks on military targets?

Because that's what the RAF, and the Luftwaffe, had been trying to do until the Luftwaffe switched to area bombing. They had been trying to attack single military targets. Frequently without success, of course, sometimes even bombing the wrong country. The Luftwaffe bombed Freiburg by mistake on 10th May, and used it as propoganda against the British throughout the war. They also bombed Ireland a few times. The RAF likewise bombed countries around Germany by mistake on occasion.

Prior to the first Luftwaffe area attacks on Britain, Britain and Germany had been bombing each other, and each other's allies, with small numbers of bombers trying to hit pinpoint targets (and usually failing).

It was the Luftwaffe who made the switch to area attacks, just as it was the Luftwaffe who made the switch to attacking targets on land, and the Luftwaffe who made the switch to attacking targets in cities that would inevitably result in an increase in collateral damage.

I already did:

    quote: There is no comparison whatsoever between attacking your enemy and rounding up and murdering civilians who have already surrendered to you.



No where did I say or imply that.

Say or imply what? Why are the last two words in bold? What do you think I was saying?

To clarify what I meant: you posted:

My point is that comparing immoral acts is in no way a useful tool in making your point.

From this I thought you meant comparing Nazi atrocities (genocide etc) to BC, thereby "justifying" BC, was not usefull.

My reply was:

"There is no comparison whatsoever between attacking your enemy and rounding up and murdering civilians who have already surrendered to you."

In other words, I was denying I was using Nazi atrocities to "justify" BC.

How is this a "lie"?

Rather then stick to my specific points you seem to be attempting to re-define them so that instead of dealing with the specific issue of 'British night bombing' you create the illusion that I am defending or have sympathies with 'Nazi Germany'.

Why is British night bombing a "specific issue"? Why is it distinct from Luftwaffe and USAAF bombing?

Why do you want to focus only on what you seem to believe was wrongdoing by Britain, and ignore German and American activities in the same field?

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Kurfürst

I am sorry, but appearantly you took an easy position of blaming it all on the 'evil nazis who started all', and repeat the old wartime propaganda about LW bombings which are long dismissed even by British historians. I am curious, even in modern UK, why is it so hard for the population to face the countries historical past, that they waged 5 years of a terror campaign from the air killing and burning ca. 500 000 civilians?

It appears that modern Germany was capable of facing it`s old crimes, despite proportioanlly greater as the whole, why Britain could still not take a step ahead from an entrechned position of denial and relativization. [/B]

You have to be kidding. Even before the end of WW2, BC's policy of area bombing was being hotly debated in the UK, and the debate has continued ever since - it remains the most controversial aspect of Britain's conduct of WW2. There's no denial involved, no-one is trying to pretend that it didn't happen. The only argument has been over the extent to which it was justified. The popular opinion in the UK these days is probably mostly against, mainly because people retrospectively apply today's peacetime standards to the very different environment of WW2.

If you have read my previous posts, you will see that I personally believe that it was justified (as do many British historians who have studied the period), for several reasons. To repeat:

1. For political/strategic reasons, to support the USSR in the only way possible before a physical invasion of Germany.

2. For practical reasons, as not until late in the war was it possible to hit precise targets - and even then the weather did not usually permit precise bombing; it was area bombing or nothing.

3. For moral reasons: however much you may squirm about 'relativism', it is a simple fact that the war was started and waged by Hitler (including the bombing of civilian areas) for aggressive reasons of conquest, and that desperate measures were justified in stopping him. And if you don't believe the Nazis were evil, I suggest you account for the concentration camps and the systematic genocide of entire population groups for racist reasons.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum