Why did Spaatz?
The difference 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.
It's quoted in American Bombardment Policy Against Germany, by Richard G Davis, who sums up the policy:
"Almost every city or town in Germany with a population exceeding 50,000, and a few below that figure, met the foregoing criteria. This policy made it open season for bombing Germany’s major cities in any weather."
The USAAF was doing it's share of area bombing cities in Europe in 1944 and 1945, they just didn't like to admit it
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.
Harris pushed to end the war as quickly as possible.
He knew that would be hard on his crews, but he also knew that their losses were light in comparison to normal military losses.
Harris only saw 'enemies' and he never saw an enemy he didn't wish to firebomb.
Harris stuck to his strategy of targeting population centers despite all else. Not only did he put his crews at unnecessary risk he killed thousands of civilians needlessly (ie Dresden).
I'm not making moral comparisons. I see nothing immoral in attacking the enemy, providing the results of such attacks are not disproportionate to the harm the enemy is causing.
Sure you are.
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.
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.
Am I? I don't think so.
I am making a case Britain had no more effective method. And to support that claim I pointed out the British followed the same progression the other major strategic forces did, from precision attacks to area bombing.
There must be some reason why the Luftwaffe, RAF and USAAF all ended up doing the same thing, area bombing (amongst others, of course)
Yes you are.
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.
Be aware that Churchill's memorandum was withdrawn, and Churchill actually complains that Germany would be so damaged the allies wouldn't be able to seize anything worthwhile in reparations.
I am aware. On 1 April Churchill resubmitted a more carefully worded memorandum:
…it seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so-called "area bombing" of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodations for ourselves and our allies: and we shall be unable to get housing materials out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the German’s themselves. We must see to it that attacks do not do more harm to ourselves in the long run then they do to the enemy's war effort. Pray let me have your views.
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. If a memo got out in which the PM implies that the bombing Germany cities was nothing more then terrorism not only will raise questions in Britain but would play right into the propaganda espoused by the Nazi.
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 comparing them. You are the only one who brings up up other nations in this discussion about Britain and BC.
Even in this thread you did.
Quote where I said that:
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.
Not strictly true. On the 24th the Luftwaffe launched extensive bombing raids over Britain, some mistakenly hit London. On the 25th they did the same thing again, as the RAF was bombing select targets in Berlin.
But the entire "escalation" had been underway long before then. The Luftwaffe had killed over a thousand British civilians by the time they "accidentally" dropped their first bombs on London.
Whilst Hitler might have considered only London to be important, I don't think the British viewed those 1,000 dead as any less important because they weren't Londoners.
And the full scale attack on London was simply the German attempt to bomb their way to victory. Planned for weeks by the German staff, something Kesselring had been pinninghis hopes on.
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 and is the prevailing view shared view by many. No amount of wiggling and word games will change that.
So you would want to throw the entire bombing campaign out of the window?
Yes, the fighter bombers had sufficient range to contest air space over France, and destroy the Luftwaffe that way.
But the allies would be facing a Germany armed with far more tanks, far more artillery, far more fuel, far more soldiers.
Because the fighter bombers wouldn't be destroying German oil refineries, factories, cities, transport, and there wouldn't be a third of German artillery production going on AA weapons over Germany, with all the manpower associated with that.
The bombing campaigns main contribution to the war effort was being an anvil to smash the LW fighter corp. However, I think this could have been achieved with the massive build up of fighters and fighter bombers.
I think the resources put into the 4 engine bombers and into the bombing campaign in general were a wasted effort.
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..
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. Ultimately it was the western allies contribution on the ground that had the greater impact on the German collapse.
To land troops in western Europe a large force of fighter bombers and fighters could have paved the way for invasion.
Right. So what happens against Britain? They couldn't use ground troops, because there was a bit of water in the way.
So they switched to bombing.
As I explained above the British, along with the Americans could have opened up a front in the west with fighter bombers.
Battlefield interdiction and close air support were constant 'winning' strategies in all theaters.
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.
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.
The British knew that an invasion was improbable and put up a winning defense in the air.
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'.
The best he could hope for was to destroy the RAF and bomb Britain into submission. That's what he set out to do.
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.
Did you? Do you deny they did it, or do you claim they carried on the bombing for some obscure reason, rather than the obvious one fo trying to defeat Britain?
I said the shift of strategy (night bombing of British cities) was in retaliation for the British targeting of German cities.
