Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Karnak on August 07, 2000, 11:52:00 AM
-
I would like to ask you fellows, being generally conservative, what you think of Gore's VP choice, Senator Joseph Lieberman.
I don't want a flame war here, what I'm curious about is whether we agree with the pudits that his religion, Orthadox Jewish, is going to be an negative to voters. Will he be rejected because he is a Jew?
I personally have more faith in the American people than that. I think that if he is rejected, he'll be rejected on issues not his religion. Those that wouldn't vote for Gore because of his VPs religion would not vote for Gore anyway, I think. (They'd probably vote for Buchanan (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
Thanks, and please, no Left vs. Right flames.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
I think its a tactic to distant himself(Gore) from Clinton since Lieberman was the first democrat to stand up and say that Clinton should be impeached.
-
This decision will cost Gore the election.
How many "ethnic" presidents or vice-presidents have held office?
…still thinking? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
If Gore had an unbeatable lead in the polls he could probably take the hit but in this case it's not gonna happen.
He should have picked someone like Kerry who not only looks presidential but actually has some brains as well.
Also, he's from Massachusetts! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
Lieberman is ok in my book.
I have no use for Al Gore in any event.
Yeager
-
Here's my take, stick with it it takes a min to tell...
Last thursday I did some checking of domain names. I tried www.gorelieberman.com (http://www.gorelieberman.com) and nothing showed up. I then tried www.goreedwards.com (http://www.goreedwards.com) and sure enough the domain was there, but there wasn't a web page yet.
Here's what I think happened. Edwards was Gore's original pick, until one of Gore's campain idiots says It won't be Lieberman because he's Jewish. Well at that point Gore has no choice but to change his mind, after all he doesn't want anybody thinking he hates Jews. If you ask me though, Edwards is a closer match to Gore, he's a trail lawyer.
This may sound synical, but I realy think this is what happened. Side note, there still is no www.gorelieberman.com (http://www.gorelieberman.com) domain, but the www.goreedwards.com (http://www.goreedwards.com) domain is still up but with no web page.
Also there's the added benifit for gore of being able to label the whole Republican party as anti-symite. Other than that I don't think his being and orthodox Jew matters. At least it shouldn't...
Udie
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
I think its a tactic to distant himself(Gore) from Clinton since Lieberman was the first democrat to stand up and say that Clinton should be impeached.
Yes but how did he vote in the Senate trial? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Udie
-
His being Jewish won't be an issue. If he was selected because he was Jewish will be.
AKDejaVu
-
I think it has horrific prospects for any hope of Mid-East Peace accord. This will make the palestinians believe that no matter what the U.S. will support and be in favor of Isreal. The Pallistinians won't ever think they can get a fair deal and won't accept any peace terms.
War will continue in the Mid East.
We can be assured that no Neo-Nazis will assisnate Gore.
I really don't care that Gore picks a Jewish VP but it will certainly cause ripples internationally at a delicate time.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
I hate him already.
Almost as much as I despise Gore, or loathe Bush and his other extremist cronie.
Duma for president! Free Loose Rivets to the people! Bread and entertainment!
Bush: "StSanta, do you know why there are Christians?"
StSanta: "Even lions get hungry"
<tadaboom>
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Hmmmm... Duma?
I think we'd have to radically change our constitution for that to take place. Besides.. there is only so much dry British humor I can stand (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) I think hearing it from the President would downright push me over the edge!
AKDejaVu
-
I think Clinton's choise for Veep for Gore is excellent to gain the few percentage points needed by a carpetbagger!!!
-
Quote:
"or loathe Bush and his other extremist cronie."
Cheney an "extremist"?? LOL!!! What's "extremist" is your statement.
Actually, either of the VP Nominees would make a better President than Bush or Gore. The fact that Lieberman(The Weathervane) is an Orthodox Jew should be a non-issue. But you can bet the farm that the race-baiting Liberal Media will try to make a big deal out of it. Funny how the Media, which doesn't give a flip about Religion except for an occasional Pope story, will turn Lieberman's faith into a "controversy".
As for the Palestinian issue, F'em. In America, we don't care what your Religion is(even loopy Liberals who worship crystals, pop stars, etc.)and if that fact pisses off the Palestinians, too bad.
Cabby
[This message has been edited by cabby (edited 08-08-2000).]
-
Lol,
what has your religion to do with that? Do you wanna show us USA is an anti semitic country?
So much for your big words about the "only" free society.
Maybe we should start a discussion how much anti semitism is a global problem and not a national.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Macchi
(http://www.lemsko.de/3d/macchi.gif)
[This message has been edited by Macchi (edited 08-08-2000).]
-
I am not an Anti-Semite, I just believe that the Palastinians will look at a Jewish VP and say. NO PEACE, the U.S. Will support Isreal and we can't get justice.
Lieberman may be an honest decent hardworking person with no hidden agendas.
Recently CLinton's bid for a Nobel Peace Prize fell through. I think that headway was gained. I believe with a Jewish VP will be extremely difficult to build on any momentum what ever in this area. (Not that there is much, or any even.)
I really don't care what religion he is, I was thinking internationally. I believe that he would have gotten better international coverage from a Black VP. A Jewish one when the Isreali/Palastinian/Mid-East Peace is so fragile is just poor timing.
Not that I think Gore will win.
How about Cheney/Greenspan?
or James Baker/Dick Cheney?
Or James Baker/Collin Powell?
Or Collin Powell/Alan Greenspan?
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
Originally posted by Udie:
Yes but how did he vote in the Senate trial? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Udie
Ya, just caught that on the news last night, I guess he's a turncoat, constantly changing his mind. He supposedly Pro-gun....
-
Originally posted by cabby:
Quote:
Cheney an "extremist"?? LOL!!! What's "extremist" is your statement.
Actually, either of the VP Nominees would make a better President than Bush or Gore. The fact that Lieberman(The Weathervane) is an Orthodox Jew should be a non-issue. But you can bet the farm that the race-baiting Liberal Media will try to make a big deal out of it. Funny how the Media, which doesn't give a flip about Religion except for an occasional Pope story, will turn Lieberman's faith into a "controversy".
As for the Palestinian issue, F'em. In America, we don't care what your Religion is(even loopy Liberals who worship crystals, pop stars, etc.)and if that fact pisses off the Palestinians, too bad.
Cabby
[This message has been edited by cabby (edited 08-08-2000).]
Cabby, ignore StSanta, he's our local Euro that likes to antagonize us with his lack of knowledge within the US political system...and he's proud of being a flaming "Euro-liberal"...but I like Santa (Known as Satan to us) just the same, good guy!
-
For what its worth, Leiberman never wanted to impeach Clinton, he rebuked him. He, like me, thought that this was a political witch hunt that failed to meet the criteria of impeachment.
There is a difference between condemning someone's behavior and voting for the impeachment. He never went back on his word.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
For what its worth, Leiberman never wanted to impeach Clinton, he rebuked him. He, like me, thought that this was a political witch hunt that failed to meet the criteria of impeachment.
There is a difference between condemning someone's behavior and voting for the impeachment. He never went back on his word.
Sisu
-Karnak
I don't understand why someone thinks its a political witch hunt when the man did indeed lie under oath, an impeachable offense! Nixon lied too, but was caught and stepped down, don't you think that was a witch hunt too?
-
Not to mention Clinton's behavior would have gotten his sorry-ass canned from an executive position from just about any major US corporation. And the "feminists" silence on Clinton spoke volumes about Liberal hypocrisy.
Face it. Lieberman "rolled-over" for Clinton and the Democratic Party bosses. Integrity my ass. Clinton dishonored his Office and his Country. And not just over Lewinsky either. And of course, Clinton would have dishonored Hillary. If she had any honor that is.
Many Democrats castigated Clinton, but not ONE had the fortitude to do what the Republicans did in 1974: Join with the opposition and force a sitting President to resign. Nixon was a piker compared to the piece of trash sitting in the White House now.
Cabby
-
The requirements for the President of the United States to be impeached far exceed that President simply breaking a law. That President must have commited Treason. We have had TWO political witch hunts against sitting Presidents, lead by the Republican party, that resulted in impeachments which died in the senate. Nixon was going to be impeach because what he was guilty of was Treason, not just lying.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
And where was the liberal anti-tobacco outrage when President Clinton encouraged that young woman to use a tobacco product?
(... sorry, I can never resist an opportunity to say that)
Senator Lieberman is about as conservative a democrat as you can be, and still be called a democrat.
Just as Dick Cheney is meant to shore up Governor Bush's weak areas, ie, foreign policy and "gravitas",
Joe Lieberman is meant to shore up Al Gore's weak area: INTEGRITY.
Bad idea. Somebody should be fired over that one.
The effect of choosing a Jew will not amount to much... Gore will get some Jews, he will lose some anti-semites, so that will be pretty much a wash.
But Gore will alienate the more liberal democrats by his choice of a running mate. And as has been pointed out, there are cracks in Senator Lieberman's INTEGRITY.
Bottom line: Gore hasn't raised himself by choosing Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman has soiled himself.
-
Cabby, ignore StSanta, he's our local Euro that likes to antagonize us with his lack of knowledge within the US political system...and he's proud of being a flaming "Euro-liberal"...but I like Santa (Known as Satan to us) just the same, good guy!
LOL (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Ignore me, and I will probably go away, Marvin the manic depressed robot in Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
A few points to clarify things; I am not ignorant about US politics. I pretty much dominate the scene in terms of precise, accurate and devastating knowledge there. In short, I rule.
Flaming Euro-liberal? Aye indeed; liberal in the European sense is pretty much for a very limited government, limited taxation, free trade open borders and overall maximizing freedom for the individual. So, that would probably make me right wing in the US; however, the US right wing scare me. The middle wing (wouldn't call the Democrats leftish, not having experienced Danish and Swedish Social Democrats) is about equally bad, but seems a little less extreme in its views. Might just be me.
cabby wrote:
Cheney an "extremist"?? LOL!!! What's "extremist" is your statement.
Not really. His voting record speaks for itself. Any more conservative and I'd have to call him Pope Cheney.
FWIW, it seems to me the Republicans have made much more an issue out of religion than has the Democrats, not counting this vice president candidates of the Democrats. Republicans traditionally have had strong ties to Christianity, and I lost count on the number of times I heard the word "God" during the Republican convention.
What I'd like to see in the White House:
A female, black (or is the PC term African American? Forgot what is current) disabled woman who is a non theist and a lesbian and is not affiliated with any of the two major parties.
That would yank a few chains.
Pat Buchanan as President would also be funny. For foreigners, til some nukes are dumped on "places of indecency; repugnant nests of sins working to thwart the advance of real Christianity".
Whoever is elected, I will be the first to offer my condolensces (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Wow, this is fun.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Thanks for the condolences StSanta.
We can all pray that neither is faced with a great challenge, and neither mucks up too much while in office.
Perhaps the American Public will wake up and demand something of our elected officials.
This could be a good thing (I hope, I hope, I hope!)
And maybe they are sleeper candidates who will just wow us when they get in often.
It isn't over until the fat lady sings (perhaps we need a better singer?)
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
I dunno if it will be an issue. It would be interesting to see if the Gore ticket wins the election if a Jewish VP would affect foreign affairs, say in future peace talks in Israel? Of course to my knowledge the U.S. has had only one president that wasn't a W.A.S.P. (White, Anglo Saxon, Protestant) dunno about the VP's though. Someone told me that when JFK was elected there was a bit of controversy over whether he would start taking orders or be influenced by The Pope. People seem to get a little skidish when something different comes along. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
(http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kalger/sig.gif)
"Smoke me a kipper boys, I'll be back for breakfast"
[This message has been edited by Soulyss (edited 08-08-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Soulyss (edited 08-14-2000).]
-
Quote:
" Nixon was going to be impeach because what he was guilty of was Treason, not just lying."
That's utter and complete Bulls***. You want Treason??? See Clinton/Gore about Communist Chinese campaign contributions and Clinton protesting the Viet Nam War in Moscow.
Cabby
-
Protesting against a war isn't treason in my book. Selling top secret information without the consent of the state would be, though.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Those who want to find out what Joe Lieberman believes in can get Michael Hoffman's book "Judaism's Strange Gods" from http://www.hoffman-info.com (http://www.hoffman-info.com)
A Talmudist("Orthodox Jew") one that decrees that women are "sacks of excrement" and "Jesus is boiling in hot excrement in hell."
Al Gore, whose own political mentor and sugar-daddy was Lenin's banker, the Jewish-Communist financier, Armand Hammer, the son of the founder of the American Communist party, the abortion-doctor and bagman for early Red terrorists, Julius Hammer (cf. "Revisionist History" newsletter no. 5, "Hammered" also from http://www.hoffman-info.com (http://www.hoffman-info.com)
Teachings of the Talmud include the sanction for the rape of baby girls and sodomizing of jew boys by their rabbis in synagogues. In the Bavli Talmud Tractate Kiddushin we read, "Jews are not to be suspected of mishkav zachur.² (³Mishkav zachur² is homosexual intercourse) This is but one factor contributing to the homosexual molestation and predation that occurs among some of even the most pious adherents of the religion of Judaism.
Jew VP might affect the mid east peace process?? HAHA Is anyone aware that Madlaid Albright is a jewess? Who here knows that American taxpayer gives $3 Billion every year to Israel? Do you ever wonder why arabs burn American flags? Well I suppose that they are dirty dogs and have nothing better to do, just a bunch of terrorists who in their spare time between blowing up things burn US flags.
Oh no, it has nothing to do with having their homes bulldozed, being kicked off their property, where jew 'settlements' are built for the US dollar where their homes once stood, thrown into concentration camps where they hope do die of starvation before they will be tortured to death or having witnessed their kids in schools being shelled by artillery with toxic gas. Of course the media doesn't mention this, that's because the media is not liberal, it's Jewish from your network to cable TV to Hollywood movie studios. Why should they report the truth, it's better to tell the dumb American stories of poor victimized jewish darlings, not focus too much on what's really going on. Arabs, suffering? Nah, Arabs are just filthy dogs that should be cleansed out of jewish society as one rabbi said of them.
Want to find out who's who in the jew media? http://natall.com/who-rules-america (http://natall.com/who-rules-america) is your source of all the names.
The jew mask fell a little further in Palestine last weekend when, in the course of his Saturday sermon (broadcast on satellite), the head of the Israeli Shas Party, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, labeled ALL Palestinians, as "snakes" and "cursed evil doers."
If a prominent Baptist preacher had said something similar about all Jews, from his Sunday pulpit broadcast on satellite, Morris Dees and Janet Reno and ADL and JDL and the rest of jew propaganda machine would be huffing and puffing about "blood libel" and "racist hate speech" throughout the media. But Yosef's bigoted and anti-semitic remarks against Palestinians (Palestinians are semites), took a distant second to "the real horror," the fact that Yosef had said that Ashkenazi Jews got what they deserved during WW2. (Rabbi Yosef represents Sephardic mamzerut, most of whom were not in Europe in the 40s).
If you are tired of jew propaganda learning the truth might do a nice change for your life and if you're white and have some balls to do something about jew lies consider joining National Alliance at www.natall.com (http://www.natall.com)
[This message has been edited by kai (edited 08-11-2000).]
-
LOL.. it was bound ta happen. A Road Kill Connoisseur... how could it miss a chance at stickin an oar in.
If I had a gun I'd... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
As for the upcomming tweeldledum and tweedledummer election... buck up, my fellow Americans. Fer crissakes; the fargin sky ain't falling.
There's been an unbelivable uninteruppted unmitigated string of amazinhunks in the highest offices fer the last 50 years.
Vote. The system works, and at the least, (or at the worst... ) it's entertaining.
Hang
-
Heh, I've read this about Lieberman
"He is a man of impeccable integrity".
Which, to me, could be translated to "he is a pprudent man who will lambast and judge people with different moral standings on issues especially relating to sexual acts and family values. He is one prudent SOB"
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Yep, vote for someone, Ralph Nader, Joe Walsh (Eagles Guitarist,) That idiot actor from SHampoo; married Annette Benning, Charleton Heston, Your Doctor, your Dentist, Monika Lewinsky (She would be great in international affairs!)
If 90% of the vote went to someone other to the dempublicans or the Repocrats then perhaps they will notice that it's not apathy but disgust.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
Kai, you and the NATALL embarass me as a white man.
Please don't reply, I don't want to hear it (or see it) just please go away.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
Well I'm not a fan of Israel, and I think the creation of that state was a huge mistake. I don't think my country (USA) should support them in any way. But AFAIK Lieberman is not an Israeli, he's an American. And his faith or ancestry is not going to affect my vote.
-
Geez,
Well, if i'm an Israeli, or just plain Jewish, i keep my nuke-tipped missles and battle-tanks in tip-top shape and do everything to keep the "Peace-At-Any-Price" Liberal-Wimp's out of power in government.
Note to Liberal-Wimps/Pacifists/Peaceniks:
It's a Dangerous World out there. No s***.
Cabby
[This message has been edited by cabby (edited 08-12-2000).]
-
To me personally, his being Jewish has nothing to do with my not voting for him. My not voting for him has everything to do with my not liking Al Gore.
-math
------------------
"Any American fighter near Orote Penninsula. I have forty Jap planes surrounded and need a little help."
-Ens. W.B. "Spider" Webb during the Marians Turkey Shoot
-
Downtown you are a guilty white trash who's affraid of the truth, which is what I and Natall stands for, and saw too many white guilt movies from jew Hollywood to think straight. The only thing you can do now is beg for forgiveness and think how the white race has done wrong to all the rest of the world.
You don't need me to feel embarassed of being white, jew mass media does a far better job doing that to millions of weak white trash like you.
-
Hey HTC, ban this guy please.
Cabby
-
Kai,
From what I understand there is a deep seated reason why you are a racist.
It stems from an inferioity complex, deeply rooted in homosexuality.
Basically since racist feel ashamed to admit their homosexuality, they lash out violently at what they covet most.
I think you should accept your homosexuality, times have changed, except for the rare others like yourself who beat that guy to death in Arizona or Texas, or wherever, most people are willing to leave homosexuals alone.
Another reason I have heard that people are racist is because it is really easier to blame someone else for their problems than to accept responsibility for them themselves.
This has to do with laziness. It is easier to say "I can't succeed because of the Jews, or the Black, (Or insert your predjudice here)are keeping me down" and to admit that your just to lazy to go beyond the mailbox to collect your welfare check.
Being gainfully employed, with a house, car, two televisons, etc.. I have never been called white trash before. I also get up most mornings (I don't work every weekend) and go to work. I suppose I could choose to sit on the couch and watch Springer and blame other people for my woes, but I don't secretly covet to have sex with other men, or I just can't sit on the couch and whine about the "Jewish Conspiracy."
Kai, go to your local gay bar and embrace your homosexuality. You will be a much better person.
Call me white trash again, I have to get used to it.
(It also gave me a pretty good laugh)
I love it when people insult me on the internet. It shows how brave and smart they really are.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
[This message has been edited by Downtown (edited 08-14-2000).]
-
Quote Kai:
--------------------------------------------
The only thing you can do now is beg for forgiveness and think how the white race has done wrong to all the rest of the world.
-----------------------------------------------------
????????????
I don't think whites need to beg for forgiveness? I can only guess that your own feelings of guilt lead to this statement. I have no understanding of any reason that the white race needs to beg forgiveness for anything.
Please advise me of things I need to feel guilt about as a white man.
Also, please call me white trash again.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
I remember as a kid how they made a big deal out of John Kennedy being Roman Catholic. How as a Catholic he would serve the Vatican and not his country etc etc etc.
Lieberman is a Jew? BF deal. Man this is America, not Europe. This is where we have religious freedom. I don't care if he is Muslim, Jane, Hindi, Born again Christian. Can he do the job of President if Gore (heaven forbit) becomes President (God help us) and then were to die (hopefully non violently and hopefully quickly). Hell I think Lieberman would be a better President than Gore. Not that it takes much to be better than Al Gore.
A Jew for Vice-President in the U.S. should be a non-issue for Americans. How you treat Jews in Europe? Hell, we treat seal pups better over here.
Oh yeh, and my ethnicity is mostly German(we all have crosses to bear) and a little Irish. My family came here from Prussia in the 1840s. In spite of my ethnicity, I hate Nazis.
[This message has been edited by AKFokerFoder+ (edited 08-14-2000).]
-
Lieberman is a Jew? BF deal. Man this is America, not Europe.
Europa is a very diverse place. Sweeping statements such as this is why the Ugly American views were formed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
How do we treat Jews here? As other humans. Who cares about religious beliefs, as long as they aren't forced down the throats of others?
Do dare to accuse me of the mistakes of others, or the history of others. That one would be very easy to counter.
But don't misrepresent the way countries you have little knowledge of how functions treats people.
For good or better; there is a lot of knowledge about the US abroad. It's quite natural, since it's a powerful country which dominates many industries and have had soldiers spread out over most of the world to deter the communists.
If you're suggesting that Jews are treated poorly in say Denmark or Sweden (two countries I've lived in for many years and feel qualified to talk about in social, cultural and historical regards), then you probably should come visit.
--
StSanta
JG54 Grünherz
Decidedly religiously free.
[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 08-14-2000).]
-
Doesn't really matter to me one bit what the race, religion, whatnot, whatever he is. If he's the best man for teh job then he'll get my vote. I just think it will be interesting to see if it becomes an issue on the campaign trail because some people find some of these issues much more important in a canidate that I do. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
. Sweeping statements such as this is why the Ugly American views were formed .
Yep in World War 1 we lost 150,OOO ugly Americans, World War 2 cost us 400,000, (but that includes the Pacific Theatre). A lot of ugly Americans buried under pretty white crosses.
Hmmm... seems to me that while American boys were being slaughtered on the beachs of Normandy, and Jews we being roasted in Auschwitz, the Danes and Swedes were sitting in thier parlors drinking tea and cookies. I wonder, did the cookies came from your German friends?
You may be right, maybe Europe isn't a monolith.
-
Someone please lock this thread before I say that kai is an stunninghunk.
Oh now, see there you go. Too late
Sour
------------------
Sour
JG-2 Richthofen (http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/JG2inquirer.html)
"Hey - someone has to be the target...."
(http://saintaw.tripod.com/sour.jpg)
[This message has been edited by sourkraut (edited 08-14-2000).]
-
AKFokerFoder+,
The Danes did a superb job protecting Jewish Danes from the Nazis despite being under Nazi occupation. They managed to hide them or evacuate them to Sweden right out of under the Nazi's noses. Perhaps you've heard of the King of Denmark having a yellow star of David sewn onto his clothes when the Nazis tried to deport Danish Jews?
Nothing bad can be said about Danish behavior in WWII. You should make sure you know what you're talking about before you rant. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Sisu
-Karnak
[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 08-14-2000).]
-
Downtown, that was quite an interesting reading, very amusing. I found out much about your obsession with homosexuality. Besides your deep rooted problems you reveal the tired old song taught to you by the jew mass media which is that people like me sit in their trailers and blame others for their problems "I can't succeed because of the Jews, or the Black, (Or insert your (it's prejudice not predjudice) here)are keeping me down" hehe, very original, you can do better, there are other jew labels for the likes of me who reveal the truth and counter jew lies.
Now I just looked at my first post. It shows information about the Talmud and what jews believe in, what they read in their synagogues on friday nights, then I write about jew communist connection that supports American political process, then the bit about Arabs is all true but you don't find this out from your network news channels and in the end I wrote about a rabbi who labeled Palestinians as snakes and compared that to what would happen if something like that was said of jews.
All of these statements are true, you can check em out by yourself if you only stopped thinking about your next encounter with your boyfriend as you keep a pretense of leading a regular marriage. Yet some how you responded to these facts by feeling embarrassed to be white. Ok
You strike me as a type who went to these candle light vigils when Matthew Shepard, the homosexual who went into a bar in Laramie, Wyoming, last year and tried to get a date? Two of the men in the bar gave him a good beating and then left him tied to a fence, where he died of exposure. This crime has been all over the world on news programs, news paper head lines and so on. And everyone said the same old song, how evil white hatred is and how intolerant such acts of white hate are. All the anchor people on your Dateline, 20/20 etc. all condemning this act of white hate, all hand in hand talking about how ashamed and guilty they felt for the white haters.
How bout this hate crime involving some homosexuals, have you heard about it?
Two adult homosexuals in the town of Rogers, Arkansas, grabbed a 13-year-old white boy- Jessie Dirkhising- off the street, took him to their apartment, drugged him, and tied him up and gagged him so that no one could hear his screams, and then they raped him to death. His body was found in a pool of blood on the apartment floor.
Here- I'll treat you to some details, I know you'll get off on those: One of the homosexuals, Davis Don Carpenter, a 38-year-old hairstylist who brags that he has lived in 26 states and has boy friends in all 50 states, showed his homosexual partner, 22-year-old Joshua Macave Brown, the proper way to tie up and position a child for raping, even providing diagrams showing the proper procedure and naming the best drug to use for sedating the child during the rape. When they noticed that the boy had stopped breathing and was turning blue they called 911. Police were met by a stark naked Joshua Brown in the hallway, who explained that they -- quote -- "were just playing a game" with the dead child.
How is it that with so many TV stations, news channels, nobody heard about these crimes while case about a kafir dragged in Texas was blown all over the world (I have dozens of dragging hate crime details where white victims were dragged to their deaths by their black attackers) just as homo tied to a fence, all in tune, every channel saying the same thing? How could that be, unless all jew media bosses work hand in hand? Feeding these horrible stories to white public all over the world, white guilt all the way: see how awful intolerance is, what acts are being committed by white supremacists, how evil the white man is?
Covering crimes that don't fit and blowing those that do has been a standard practice of jew media bosses. It helps them bring white mass to their goal of being embarrassed and ashamed of being white. Works very well as you can see from your reaction. Do you think it's just an accidents that Dan Rather didn't say anything about this crime? When that huge candle light vigil was happening in D.C. after Matthew died, that blonde hag of an actress from 3rd Rock From The Sun said "I am white, protestant and I am so ashamed of my people" where was she when young Jessie had been fu**ed to death by 2 homos? What, no gay and lesbian alliance member said they were ashamed of their people?
Of course not. One; nobody heard about that hate crime, "oh, there was no story there, jew media just probably missed that one" two; teaching white mass to be ashamed of their people serves a purpose, it makes millions of white people guilty and more apologetic and it works, everyone can see it in you Downtown, guilty white trash- there you wanted it, spoon fed by constant flow of propaganda, believing into the tolerance, sensitivity, diversity and white wickedness because you heard it over and over and it sunk in your simple minded brain.
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
Nothing bad can be said about Danish behavior in WWII.
Well, there is this... <from: http://www.milhist.dk/start/inwwii.html> (http://www.milhist.dk/start/inwwii.html>)
"The term "Freikorps Danmark" is actually a hybrid of the German [Freikorps/Free Corps], and the Danish national name - Danmark. The Danes themselves called it "Frikorps Danmark"...
a) It was officially sanctioned by the Danish Government, and volunteers from the standing Danish armed forces were officially allowed to complete their military service in this unit. Career soldiers were promised an equivalent rank....
The "Freikorps Danmark" was announced on June 28, 1941, and was open to men between the ages of 17 and 35. The initial draft of some 480 men, most still in Danish Army uniform, left for Hamburg on July 19, where they formed the 1st Battalion of the new Freikorps, and were fitted with new Waffen-SS uniforms and gear....
In May 1942, the Freikorps was sent to Heeresgruppe NORD and attached to the 3.SS-Totenkopf Division...
The combat hardened Danes who had survived the "Freikorps", were for the most part unceremoniously merged into the ranks of the Nordland regiment to form SS-Pz.Gren. Regt. 24 "Danmark" (danisches Nr.1)...
It is estimated that 3900 Danes gave their lives in German Service. Most of the surviving soldiers were sentenced to long prison terms when they returned home after the war."
Sources:
FOREIGN LEGIONS OF THE THIRD REICH (vol.1) by David Littlejohn
Uniforms, Org. and History of the Waffen-SS (vol.3) by R.J.Bender
Interesting site, lots to read.
This is there too...
Duration of the Occupation:
9th of April 1940 - 5th of May 1945
Danish losses during the war:
1281 sailors killed
797 killed in various actions
515 died in concentration camps
183 killed in the bombing of Gestapo
headquarters (Aarhus, Odense and Copenhagen)
102 executed by the Germans
102 killed during the large strikes
88 killed by bombardments
33 killed when a German freighter exploded in the harbour of Aarhus
26 soldiers killed during the fighting when the Germans took over control on the 29th of August 1943
13 soldiers, airmen and frontier guards killed during the invasion on the 9th of April 1940
11 killed by the bombardment of the shipyard Burmeister and Wain on the 27th of January 1943
10 civilians killed when the Russians bombarded Bornholm
11 murdered in the Gestapo headquarters in Copenhagen (the Shell House)
Total: 3172
About 8000 Danes volunteered to fight for the Germans on the Eastern front. About 3900 lost their lives.
Just a little history.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 08-16-2000).]
-
My my my!
Perhaps the cookies did come from their German friends! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
About 4000 Danes died for Hitler. And about 10,000 Ugly Americans fell on the beaches of Normandy alone. Ugly Americans, under pretty white crosses, all to clean up Europes mess.
And now there are elected Nazis in Austria (THAT scares the kee rap outta me), I wonder if the Europeans are protesting, or buying cookies?
My bet is they are buying cookies, and spitting on American graves.
Get your sons and daughters ready to go back over, and fill more graves. Some in Bosnia, some in Kosovo, who knows? maybe this time some in Denmark...
More Ugly Americans under more white crosses... yep, ya gotta love the way the Europeans know how to run things.
Hell, maybe we should do that in America, ya know???, register our guns, vote in some Nazis, burn some books, then burn some Jews... and become sophisticated like our European friends
-
Kai, you didn't call me white trash, I am dissapointed. Really.
I wonder how a person who claims to be so well educated can be so stupid. WOuld you like me to list things in the bible for which most people should be blinded? I hope you don't eat pork or work on the Sabath yourself.
Perhaps your not religious, I am not.
I don't know how you got so much hate in you Kai. And as for the Media I don't get much of it myself I am a little busy.
But for the Logical argument about why most people become racist here is it.
YOu hate someone.
Hate is a pretty baic emotion, it is based on taking offense at something. Or animosity based on jelousy. I.E. The person hates something because they want it themselves. Also you have to make a decesion to be offended. So Kai, you either want something the Jews have, or you made a decision to not like them. That is your choice. From my personal experience most of your deep seated racists feel that the thing they hate is superior to them and they are jelous and envious. This means that the deeper emotion is coveting something. Ergo you want something but can't have it. Kai, I don't know what the Jews have that you want.
You still failed to explain what I have to be embarrased about also?
So you choose your arguments and toss them out, people can make counter arguments all day. It won't change the fact that you are in a minority of people who choose hate. I choose not to hate. I choose not to be influenced by your silly weak arguments. YOu call me weak white trash.
No matter what you post here, in your combative and insulting tone, you won't change my perception of you as an ignnorant racist. Your hurting your cause by being insulting and offensive. Belive me I have read things in the bible, that are along the lines of what is in the Torah, Koran, or Talmud. For what things people should be branded, burned, or stoned.
I choose not to follow any religion because since religions inception it is the number 1 reason for people to kill other people. I am hoping we can find ways to not kill other people especially for their religious beliefs. So your statements that we should hate people for their religous beliefs are against my beliefs.
I admit I was tossing out about you being gay because I know that is the thing that upsets racist the most. They totally hate when people insinuate that they are gay. They protest loudly about not being gay, and then the "I think you protest too much argument" really sets em off.
You turn around and throw the insuation back at me, and then say I am not being original.
Hmmmm... who isn't being original?
Kafir?? I guess that makes you a South African?
Kai, I can't say anything that will make you stop hating, I wish I could. To me race, religion, creed, whatever has nothing to do with it. What embarrases me is that you demonstrate stupidity with your hate. I think to hate something as much as you hate is a demonstration of stupidity and ignorance. I am embarrased by all the White Supremacist groups who stand out and preach hate. I am embarrased by people like you who take facts and information and twist the facts an information to suit their purposes. To stir up more hate and more violence. Kai, I just came to this game because I am interested in the history of WWII Aircraft. Someone asked what we thought of Al Gore picking a Jewish person for a running mate. I said that I thought it would hurt the Mideast Peace Process and you came here, and started spouting your hate mongering views. It is the hate mongering that bothers me. It is groups of white men standing around and preaching hate that embarrasses me.
Why don't you start preaching that people should learn things for themselves. That people should look at arguments from both sides and think for themselves. You should preach that people should learn and make decisions. Why don't you change your website so that it says nice things about Hebrews.
Most of all why don't you take your hate filled views elsewhere.
For your info Kai, I was in the military and spent two years in Germany. While I was there in my quest for information about WWII History I went to Trablinka. While I was there I met a Nun. In 1944 she was a blonde haired blue eyed young German girl and was seeing an officer at the camp. She showed me pictures of herself when she was younger, pictures of her boyfriend. She told me about the gold rings, and ivory and pearls and diamonds and rubies, and gems that he brought her. She was very happy. And then the Allies got into Germany and they came to Trablinka. They found the camps and they made all the people in the town go through the camp. She was sickened by what she had seen. She took off all her jewlery and went to a convent and became a Nun. I talked to this woman, she had seen the camps, she wasn't Jewish. She was German from a wealthy family. I talked to this woman myself.
So Kai, you can't change what I know, you can't change my perceptions, you can't make me hate. I simply refuse to hate.
I feel sorry for the little boy who was raped and murdered. I knew a little white boy who was raped and murdered by a bunch of drunken red necks too Kai. Are you going to tell me no white man ever raped a child? Are you going to tell me no white man ever murdered a child?
Nope, you are just gonna take a sad story, where a poor child was murdered, and try and make me hate people because of it? You are gonna take this heartbreaking story and try and generate more hate. I bet if there was a lot less hate, there would be a lot more children alive.
Well, I am rambling, I will stop, I am tired and I have to go to work in the morning.
Kai, I hope you can get over your hate.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
Foker
I gotta admit, some of what you posted is almost amusing
About 4000 Danes died for Hitler. And about 10,000 Ugly Americans fell on the beaches of Normandy alone. Ugly Americans, under pretty white crosses, all to clean up Europes mess.
If I recall correctly there were also a few british and canadian guys there right?
And now there are elected Nazis in Austria (THAT scares the kee rap outta me), I wonder if the Europeans are protesting, or buying cookies?
Actually its a conservative party (like the republicans), nevertheless it DOES scare me as well. And yes of course, the europeans are just buying cookies again, waiting for AT LEAST 1042173897621 americans this time... Man, watch the news, the european union (do you know what that is anyway?!?) sanctioned austria a LOT and totally isolated it, the italian secretary of state officially said that no right wing conservatives are welcome in italy... Just a few examples of europeans buying cookies
Get your sons and daughters ready to go back over, and fill more graves. Some in Bosnia, some in Kosovo, who knows? maybe this time some in Denmark...
Again, it wasn't only americans who fought in bosnia and kosovo...
More Ugly Americans under more white crosses... yep, ya gotta love the way the Europeans know how to run things.
ROFLOL no commment
Hell, maybe we should do that in America, ya know???, register our guns, vote in some Nazis, burn some books, then burn some Jews... and become sophisticated like our European friends
LOL yeah preach on!
Most ppl accuse Santa of trying to "antagonize us [americans] with his lack of knowledge within the US political system"... ok might be true, but then I would like to ask YOU to stop posting utter BS like your above post, it clearly shows that you don't know ANYTHING about life and politics in europe so if Santa's posts make you upset please understand that your posts upset ME.
And please don't take this personally... I just couldn't ignore your post
Salute!
------------------
Redwing
Commanding Officer
Red Dragons Aces High Division
www.reddragons.de (http://www.reddragons.de/aceshigh)
(http://www.reddragons.de/aceshigh/stuff/sig.gif)
[This message has been edited by RDRedwing (edited 08-19-2000).]
-
Right on, more talk about me hating and being an evil, evil person.
Actually I've learned hate, you know what I did? I just read what your jewish darlings said, their rabbis and the rest of em. You know, worshipping Goldstein who murdered 30 palestinians praying at the Mosque and teaching of Eli Wiesel.
Dear sweetheart Eli said "Every jew must have hatred of Germans in his heart"
Now I just substituted two words and that's it. And I carefully followed what happened after Baruch Goldstein, a jew from Brooklyn New York went to Israel where he slaughtered innocent people at their house of worship.
But I know you are lost, unable to understand because for years you were taught the same thing about goodness of your god chosen people and their victim status, and how persecuted they are and so on. Here, read this and before you start rambling about 'goodness' and 'tolerance' and 'sensitivity' at least check what I posted is true, go to any major library and find some info about it. Or you can read the whole article at http://www.natall.com (http://www.natall.com) (it's in the radio broadcast section) which talks in length about such 'sensitivity' and 'tolerance' and 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism' of your loved jewish violin playing, favored by god darlings.
"Immediately after the massacre one very prominent Orthodox leader, Rabbi Moshe Levinger, told a writer for Israel's largest newspaper, Yediot Ahronot, that he was sorry for the 29 Palestinians murdered by Goldstein in the same way that he would be sorry for the killing of 29 flies. Another prominent Israeli religious leader, Rabbi Dov Lior, announced, and I quote: "Since Goldstein did what he did in God's own name, he is to be regarded as a righteous man." There was a huge funeral procession for Goldstein, and the Israeli army provided a guard of honor at his grave. Jewish children wore buttons with the slogan "Dr. Goldstein cured Israel's ills."
On the day of Goldstein's funeral, one of the eulogists, Rabbi Israel Ariel said, and I quote: "The holy martyr, Baruch Goldstein, is from now on our intercessor in heaven. Goldstein did not act as an individual; he heard the cry of the land of Israel, which is being stolen from us day after day by the Muslims. He acted to relieve that cry of the land."
Do you suppose there will be no 'diversity' for jewish children, does multiculturalism no enrich their jewish society? Shouldn't they be happy to live with another race of people in their homeland? Why do they worship a murderer who killed the members of 'minority' in their land? Should I worship Ben Smith, or those 3 guys who dragged a kafir in texas? Oh no, that would be intolerant, hateful and insensitive would it?
-
Lieberman is too far right for the left. His stand on censorship alone will earn him the ire of liberals. He may be a good man, but the left will have to have amnesia to go for it.
-
Wow, a post about Denmark and I almost missed it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
Yes, there was Frikorps Danmark, and there were some Danes who fought for the Nazi's. There were more than a few collaborators, and the government became largely a puppet one. All were dealt with rather harshly after the war; for a time we had the death penalty.
But on the other side, there were the resistance. Contrary to popular American belief, the Germans weren't directly welcome in Denmark. More than a few Danes disappeared under odd circumstances. But, it doesn't really matter. Denmark had no chance and elected (arguably wrongly) not to wage a war which would have devastated the Danish society in all ways possible. The Germans were quite simply too strong.
The Germans had a great number of nationalities serving under them, including Britons, Canadians and a few Americans. In the US, some people supported Hitler and his regime. We're all different, that's about all there is to it. A few of us will go into a fanatical frenzy and support idiotic abusive ideologies. You have your fair share of it in the US, and we have a few in Denmark.
I wasn't in the resistance, and I wasn't fighting for the Germans. And I will not take credit or blame for the doings or other men who lived and died before me.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Kai,
your are talking about the hate and violence of the jews fanatics, it's true, there are fantics in the jews, pretty similar to the nazi in many issues, i have to say nazi themselves.
But,
the thinks you say are quite similar the think they say, the only difference between you and them is you are WASP (probably) and they are jews.
For me both of you are the same scum of humankind, if we want consider you and your similar (Wasp or jews or whatever), having part of umanity.
When some stupid child like you raise up wiht the mouth full of such roadkill, showing complete ignorance and no use of the precious sponge inside your head, i have to fight hard with my decision to never solve contrast with violence, and to defend the other's right to have different ideas.
You little stupid ignorant dont have any idea where this roadkill can bring a society, even with the examples of the actual foulish genocides ongoing in this crazy world under your own eyes.
The reason of your hate is more simple than Downtown stated:
You hate jews because someone told you to do it, little sheep.
It's easy to not think and let others do it for you.
That's all i want to spend with you.
BTW,
I apologize all of you in this community (except kai) for my hard words, i try always to be educated, and this post is out of my line, but i see the evil rising again in the world, people like kai is becoming more and more, thanks to the ingorance and the lost of values, and this piss me off.
Sorry (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
well said Naso
-
and Kai:
I think Downtown got it right, there's no way we can stop you hating jews. There's no way to discuss with you because you counter ALL arguments with another thesis without proving ANYTHING
e.g. you said that "(...)thrown into concentration camps where they hope do die of starvation before they will be tortured to death or having witnessed their kids in schools being shelled by artillery with toxic gas(...)"
so that's your thesis. Now comes the "proof"...
"Of course the media doesn't mention this, that's because the media is not liberal, it's Jewish from your network to cable TV to Hollywood movie studios. Why should they report the truth, it's better to tell the dumb American stories of poor victimized jewish darlings, not focus too much on what's really going on."
hmm, interesting. Makes me wonder... here in germany they don't show this stuff on TV either, so german TV must be jewish too. I also didn't see those things on TV while I was in england, france and italy (its a hot topic here in europe). So obviously there must be jews controlling ALL media in a LOT of different countries. Must be a big jewish conspiracy...
...don't you notice that this is just plain BS? Its easy to say "TV doesn't mention it since TV is jewish too", but unfortunately that is not a proof, its just ANOTHER thesis. So much for the basic rules of conversation.
I know, my post won't change your attitude at all, but I think its better to say something useless than saying nothing at all, because THIS is what my ancestors did 60 years ago, and we all know the result. Its up to everyone of us to make sure that something like this NEVER EVER happens again, in NO country of the world.
Redwing
[This message has been edited by RDRedwing (edited 08-23-2000).]
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Wow, a post about Denmark and I almost missed it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
Yes, there was Frikorps Danmark, and there were some Danes who fought for the Nazi's. There were more than a few collaborators, and the government became largely a puppet one. All were dealt with rather harshly after the war; for a time we had the death penalty.
But on the other side, there were the resistance. Contrary to popular American belief, the Germans weren't directly welcome in Denmark. More than a few Danes disappeared under odd circumstances. But, it doesn't really matter. Denmark had no chance and elected (arguably wrongly) not to wage a war which would have devastated the Danish society in all ways possible. The Germans were quite simply too strong.
The Germans had a great number of nationalities serving under them, including Britons, Canadians and a few Americans. In the US, some people supported Hitler and his regime. We're all different, that's about all there is to it. A few of us will go into a fanatical frenzy and support idiotic abusive ideologies. You have your fair share of it in the US, and we have a few in Denmark.
I wasn't in the resistance, and I wasn't fighting for the Germans. And I will not take credit or blame for the doings or other men who lived and died before me.
Denmark asked England in late 1930's to make a secret pact in wich if Germany invaded them, England would send a expeditionary force to assist the danes in defending their country. I was told this by a danish, I dont know further details about it, but that asking existed.
England refused, they said that it wont be feasible such support (and then they tried to invade norway at the same time than germany...ahem...wasnt feasible or wasnt it WANTED?). So in 1940 Denmark had to face the odds of an impossible resistance or a more or less peaceful invasion. They elected the wise thing, a fight would only have had delayed the mainland's invasion for less than some days and the islands in some months...Still,germany wanted Denmark for its airfields (to support the landings on norway). And that would've been done in only some hours of difference anyway, but for sure was done with less suffering.
In Belgium, a country assisted by Allied forces, a country with a noticeable army and big importance in the western front, King Leopold III signed a separate peace,giving up the fight.The immediate consecuences were the impossibility of further support to netherlands, and putting in a serious compromise the allied force implicated in the defence of the territory of the very same country that had just refused to fight more.
I wont dig into Leopold III' decision. I am sure it was a serious compromise and that he didnt like to give up the fight. The fact is that doing it,sealed the fate of the armies that were into his country's land
Interesting how Denmark had will to fight but was denied the support to do it, and how Belgium had all the support desirable,still sued for peace when she still was not beaten.
About the danish "freikorps", there was a similar thing in Spain called the "blue division". THey were volunteers who fought on the Leningrad front, and were much appreciated as soldiers by the germans. THey fought until very late 1943 there, then returned to spain.
At the very same time, thousands of ex-Republican soldiers were fighting on the allied side, and hundreds of republican people who had exiled in 1939 were captured in france and sent to concentration camps. Auschwitz and Matthausen saw these people suffering and dying.
I am sure there was Danish people too in the concentration camps.
To judge a country as profascist because there were volunteers who considered that was fair to fight agains the communism is so STUPID that I'll tell you that then USA is a profascist country, because did just the same in 1950.
It is a stupid argument from any view. There are (and were) nazis everywhere. In Denmark too, in Spain too, in USA too. There were communists too, and these payed a high price (yes, toad, in USA too).
Morale: Toad, please,dig a bit before making that kind of critics to a country you dont know. Lack of knoledge is the only thing you demonstrate here. You wished to hurt StSanta's pride (or at least to put the ball on his side) and you only managed to appear as an ignorant.
Sorry the rant, there are many "pseudodoctors" here in WWII history when they know nothing.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 08-23-2000).]
-
It amazes me to think that we call ourselves civilized. As was pointed out, Hatred knows no racial or ethnic boundary.
We have white rascists, black rascists, and yellow rascists. Maybe even some creamy coloured rascists. Its so easy for some like Kai to overlook their own failings and point at others instead.
Lets not try to fix our own problems, lets instead forment some hate and murderous ideas and really cloud the issue.
Kai, time to look in your own backyard. Why dont you clean up your house before you tackle the injustices of the world. And that doesnt mean ethnic cleansing.
Ping
-
Since we're talking numbers, here's an interesting tidbit of information:
Who of the allieds made the greatest sacrifice (i.e who should we be most thankful to?)?
The US:
Men in war: 16,112,566
Battle death: 291,557
Wounded: 670,846
The Soviet Union:
Men in war: unknown
Battle death: 6,112,566
Wounded: 14,012,000
The UK:
Men in war: 5,896,000
Battle death: 357,1164
Wounded: 369,267
Poland lost 664,000. Of the adversaries, German lost about 3.2 million.
So, the numbers seem to indicate that the US came out of WWII realtively easy compared to its allieds; less casualties despite several times the numbers.
I should toast to the Britons and Soviets before the Americans, if I am to go by these numbers.
Horrible thing, statistics.
Numbers are estimates and might be wrong. I've gotten them from
http://militaryhistory.about.com/homework/militaryhistory/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html (http://militaryhistory.about.com/homework/militaryhistory/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html)
It has a nice index for general WWII info, found at http://militaryhistory.about.com/homework/militaryhistory/msubwwiihistory.htm (http://militaryhistory.about.com/homework/militaryhistory/msubwwiihistory.htm)
I'm sure some of you nutters know of this site already.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Originally posted by RAM:
Morale: Toad, please,dig a bit before making that kind of critics to a country you dont know. Lack of knoledge is the only thing you demonstrate here. You wished to hurt StSanta's pride (or at least to put the ball on his side) and you only managed to appear as an ignorant.
This message has been edited by RAM (edited 08-23-2000).]
Ram, react all you like, cast aspersions as you will.
My post is just a simple statement of historic fact. That's all it is.
More Danes died fighting for the Germans than died fighting against them. The information I quoted comes from a DANISH site on military history.
If you can't handle fact, perhaps you are one of the "pseudodoctors here in WWII history".
So in 1940 Denmark had to face the odds of an impossible resistance or a more or less peaceful invasion.
Sort of the same situation the Finns found themselves in when the Russians attacked? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
...and Santa And I will not take credit or blame for the doings or other men who lived and died before me.
Nor will I take credit or blame. "Pride in" may be another matter, however! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
So, the numbers seem to indicate that the US came out of WWII realtively easy compared to its allieds; less casualties despite several times the numbers.
Yeah, we never have been fond of sending men to their slaughter in "human wave" attacks. We've pretty much always favored using firepower instead of human blood to achieve an objective.
So, even had we known you were going to hand out awards later, we'd probably still have done it in a way that conserved the lives of our sons to the maximum extent possible. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Toad, read "Citizen Soldier" by Stephen Ambrose. I believe the U.S. could have taken considerably fewer casualties than we took. Especially in the European and North African Theaters.
The U.S. had what they called the Repple Depple (Replacement Depot) where soldiers who had completed basic training were sent. From there combat units that had been bled down could draw individual troops. So instead of going into combat with people they had trained with they were fed piecemeal into veteran units. The rate of survival of the folks from the repple depple was not good. There were soldiers who could have passed on many vital lessons to the Repple Depple troops and saved many lives but that policy wasn't institued until very late in the war. Also the vetrans didn't like having the replacement troops put into line with them because they drew fire.
Isenhower also kept many units in line for extended periods causing quite a bit of combat fatigue, another telling problem on the front.
In interviews with German Soldiers they said that the U.S. Relied on Artillery too much. When the Germans came up against troops they had to fight it out. When the U.S. came upon so much as a Hitler Youth with a pocket knife they called in Artillery on him.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Sort of the same situation the Finns found themselves in when the Russians attacked? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
not near. Finns had the terrain on their side, they defended a more or less narrow land zone, with fortifications (outdated, but fortifications, nonetheless), in winter with freezing temperatures of -40ºC.
Denmark is a flat country with no natural defenses nor defensive lines,and they were attacked on spring. To say that both situatios are comparable would make a Militar high commander die laughing.
Ram, react all you like, cast aspersions as you will.
My post is just a simple statement of historic fact. That's all it is.
More Danes died fighting for the Germans than died fighting against them. The information I quoted comes from a DANISH site on military history.
and Danes saved countless jew people's lifes hiding them in their houses knowing that if they ever were caught it woud have meant immediate death, so engrossing your "list of died for nazism or against it".
And about how do I take your statements, it is clear. I said it before, no need to repeat it.
-
Hey Toad (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
The "war" with Germany was so short and futile than fortunately not many Danish lives where lost. As RAM has pointed out, Denmark has no natural barriers whatsoever; apart from a little misnamed fjord right where I live (have to cross it every day).
If you take a car, you can drive from one end to the other in say four or five hours. It'll take a little longer in a pnz (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Where Denmark excelled was in smuggling humans to Sweden.
I wonder; how can you take pride in what someone else did? Do you take pride in the firebombings of Dresden as well? Or the Holocaust? The only real difference between you and a German born at that time would be age and culture. Meaning you might as well take credit or blame for what they did. I don't think geographical borders is a good way to artificially boost oneself, but your mileage may vary.
Yeah, we never have been fond of sending men to their slaughter in "human wave" attacks. We've pretty much always favored using firepower instead of human blood to achieve an objective.
Or seen from another point of view, you let the Polacks, the Britons, the Soviets do all the hard work and dying. Apart from the Soviets, I dare say that the British and Polacks didn't want to see their soldiers die needlessly. American casulaties during WWII were, in fact, relatively light, yet we Europeans hear to no end what an enormous sacrifice the US did. In terms of manpower and war effort, aye. In terms of casualties; not true to the same extent. In terms of civilian casualties, it's laughable.
Another few interesting numbers about allied bombers; on a good day, they could kill more defenseless civilians than they lost aircrews during the whole war. Such numbers serve as an awakening call.
Or, to put it in your words, the Americans didn't want to send wave after wave in to get killed, but were content on using high altitude bombers to kill civilians, according to a plan that had been tried before and didn't work.
Those silent casualties of war have few to speak for them - it is sort of agreed that since they were enemy population, the killing of them was sort of half intentional, half unintentional and they deserved it anyhow.
Whoever came up with the idea of resorting to the methods of an Austrian madmen and firebomb civilians ought to be found, dug up from his grave and shot.
I realize that most Americans have no idea what the whole bombing of cities was like. The British do, to a somewhat lesser extent than the Germans. I have however German relatives and I've been relayed stories by either people alive at the time or stories told by parents to their kids about it. And there ain't a diddlying decent thing about it - nothing.
Toad, don't you WONDER about why the hell all those airmen died? Died slaughtering CIVILIANS? For what cause? For what reason?
The only way to glorify it is by saying "we targeted military targets and some collateral damage was inevitable". Unfortunately, this isn't true. As the war progressed, and due to the wildly inaccuracy of high level carpet bombing, whole cities were targeted for destruction.
But mention this to Americans, and they're likely to yell "hell we saved your bellybutton back then". Sure, you did. But don't forget what you also did. Also, take a look at who started the whole mess; either a madman from Austria (and that means France, Britain, Poland, Holla,d Denmark etc is excluded) or the allieds by making the Versailles peace treaty the way it was.
Efforts to prevent WWII *were* made, most noticeably by Chamberlain, who later was lambasted for it.
So, even had we known you were going to hand out awards later, we'd probably still have done it in a way that conserved the lives of
our sons to the maximum extent possible.
Translation: so, even if the Britons, the Polacks and French were in deep doo doo, we would let them die and take the casualties before we rolled in and mopped up whatever was left (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
My statement is about as sweeping and exact as yours, and as offensive.
Don't get me wrong; I appreciate the efforts and sacrifices made by the Americans, and when they joined the war the tide turned. But in terms of human casualties and suffering, they had a f00k'n easy ride compared to other allieds. And they and the Brits were wrong in the decision to systematically kill civilians, and this should be accepted and recognized to *the same extent* as the glorious victories and sacrifices.
<waits by the water>
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
StSanta,
The one thing I say about terror bombing of Civilians, is that the U.S. Was not the first country to use that tactic. And the countries that the U.S. used that tactic against did it for as long as the U.S. employed that strategy.
I know what you will say about Germany. Yep their scope of Terror Bombing was less than the U.S.
The Germans bombed Guernica to the ground in 1935 or 36? The Germans did bomb London, they bombed (I can't remember the name of the city in Holland) to the ground also.
The Germans didn't build many long range multi-engine bombers but had they I am certain that they would have employed them more. Once Hitler had the Buzz bomb and V2 going he didn't need long range bombers.
The Japanese bombed cities in China without even the allusion that they were trying to hit military targets. It was simply to kill civilians.
I don't like the practice of terror bombing, and the studies show that it doesn't work, it just instills resolve in the victim to resist.
If a country uses this tactic, terror bombing, should they not expect a similar response?
When the war started the Germans and the British went out of their way to avoid hitting civilian targets. When that tactic changed to bombing cities, the English got a break. Had the strategy not changed things could have been much different.
So, I agree, the U.S. did a scummy thing and bombed civilians. And the Germans were launching Rockets into London while the Americans were bombing civilians.
Perhaps we can learn this lesson, I hope, and in the next war all parties will avoid using terror bombing. BUT, if one of the participants does engage in this tactic. I won't blame the other side for responding in kind or escalating the bombing either.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
Quote:
"But in terms of human casualties and suffering, they had a f00k'n easy ride compared to other allieds."
And your point??? Who gives a toejam.
I recommend that tinhorn Dictators and other megalomaniac types not attack the US Fleet or any of the USA's Allies. The consequences could be fatal. As in the aggressor nation could become just a burnt-hole in the ground.
You start 'em. We finish 'em.
Cabby
-
Downtown:
Terror bombing is something you expect from Bad Guys, just like rape, murder and torture is. You *cannot* justify it by saying "hey, the bad guys did it, so we can do do it".
No matter how you twist and turn it, you aren't reallly bombing those who ordered V1's/V2's to be launched at London. And it is very hard to conftront that many Americans died in vain killing civilians.
I don't care that the Germans started with terror bombing. They were the bad guys and as such it was expected. But, I would have thought that the good guys would a)have learned about its futility b) have more regard for their own airmen and c) would be morally more upright than the bad guys.
In the case of terror bombings, they weren't any of those three. More like massive revenge taken out on the German people.
Saddam gassed Kurds. Let's gas Iraqi's. Liberia tortures its citizens - let's too!
To me, the *waste* of American airmen and German civilians is pretty much inexcusable.
British and American leaders ought to have known better, did know better, but ignored it.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
StSanta,
Is the community you live in so great?
I guess that my study of history had led me to expect less of our world leaders. I can't explain why the allies "didn't know better," but I stopped expecting better behavior.
I would say that U.S. Military policy in all of the wars (excluding Vietnam) was shaped during the U.S. Civil war, where entire towns and regions were destroyed to keep subsistance from reaching the Confederated.
It is very barbaric, and IMHO when it comes to war it works, destroy your enemy, destroy your enemies ability to make war, destroy your enemies will to make war, make your enemy suffer hardship and privation while enduring to engage your forces. Leaving your opponent any resources, food, clothing, shelter, family back home will enable his ability to resist your forces. Therefore those things need to be removed from the equation in order to achieve victory. Come to win, or don't come at all.
Now, there is discussion, but I am of the opinion that the majority of the U.S. Bombing raids over Germany and Japan served little to no purpose during WWII. The most you can say is that the Allied Bombers helped keep the Luftwaffe over the skies of Germany, which enabled the Allies to have Air Superioity over the Rest of Western and Southern Europe.
Was it right? Well we have had 60 years to reflect on that, nope, it wasn't, IMHO. But, it comes down to opinion and you are entitled to yours, those allied aircrews volunteered for the most part to fly those sorties. They knew the risk, generally knew what they were doing, they were willing to accept the concequences of their actions. I am sure that they were able to rationalize and justify their actions in their own minds. 60 years later I feel I can disagree with those choices, but I don't feel that I have the right to criticise the men and women who made them.
And IMHO, if you start using a tactic, I.E. Terror bombing, you have NO right in expressing constirnation(sp?) against someone who revisits a like or escalated measure of the same action against you.
If you don't want it to happen to you, and you want moral ground to stand on when the dust settles, don't start it.
Your country did suffer, I have read enough about it to know, I have been to Denmark and Holland. My wifes Grandfather, from Holland, spent time in a German labor camp, and walked from the Ruhr valley back to Holland after the war. My father in law was born in Amsterdam, my wife still has cousins that live there. My own Grandfather left Germany shortly after Hitler came to power. My Grandfather changed his last name because he thought that the U.S. would eventually round up German citizens in the U.S. as they did the Niesei and inter them in camps. He spent the war working on the ALCAN Highway between Washington State and Alaska basically hiding from the law.
It wasn't the innocent and romantic time that we would all like to believe it was. It was a time of War. If you talke to Veterans who served in that war they have, in all cases that I have met, a strong belief that what they did was right. There is no shame in that generation and I have great respect for the individuals who served. I don't necessarily agree with everything that they said or did, but I respect them. When I talk to veterans, they are often suprised at the knowledge I posses. I ask them how they felt about the bombing of Berlin and Tokyo or Nagasaki or Hiroshima and they don't express regret. The general sentiment is that "we did what we had to, to win." I think they did more than they had to, I am glad they didn't do less than they had to.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
Downtown:
The place I live is pretty decent, yeh.
It seems you agree with me that the terror bombings were totally wrong and uncalled for, and that they didn't succeed in what they were there for; break the morale of the enemy civilian population.
Of course, the allieds knew that before they started bombing.
Us living in the time we do does not disqualify us from commenting on the past - we condemn the Holocaust, yet weren't around at the time.
I am not critizising the aircrews themselves - they went up against heavily defended cities, had to face death each and every day and made a tremendous sacrifice.
They were, however, betrayed by their political masters. They were forced to fight and die; for what reasons? Blood revenge. They died because their leaders thought that bombing civilians was the right thing to do.
It's misuse of these men's fighting abilities, their trust and their lives.
Just think about it - they forced young men to die bombing civilians.
It's wrong from whatever perspective you look at it. To the civilians but also to the bomber crews.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Downtown,
I think I've read all but one of Ambrose's books. I started long before the movie came out too. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Last trip I read _Soldat_ by Siegfried Knappe. Two 1/2 stars; a staff weenies view of war on the Eastern Front.
I also read _Strong Men Armed The United States Marines vs Japan_ by Robert Leckie. 3 stars; a combat marine's view of all the major USMC Pacific battles.
Sure, it's possible we could have done even better on the casualties. Remember, it was for the most part a non-professional army. They WERE "citizen soldiers"; mistakes were made. That's probably true of every army that ever took the field however.
I think an important factor in the relatively low number of deaths would have to directly attributed to the medical care the troops received. Ambrose points that out pretty well.
Using artillery too much? I'd rather use 50 rounds of inanimate artillery ammo than have even one soldier sliced by a kid with a pocket knife. Unfortunately, that's not always possible.
It wasn't a contest to see who had the best infantry tactics...it was a contest to see who could win the war with the fewest casualties as fast as possible.
I never met a veteran who wanted to be "over there". Everyone I ever talked to wanted to get home as soon as they could.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 08-29-2000).]
-
Ram,
Here's a few more facts (from
"Between the first and the second World War the attitude in Denmark was dominated by the successful Danish neutrality policy in WW1. The Danish government felt confident that a friendly attitude towards Germany would prevent hostilities. As a result the Danish armed forces were reduced to a level where they had no deterrence value and the country could not be defended adequately. When Germany invaded the Army counted 14.500 men. In 1939 some 30.000 more had been mobilised, but these had since been sent home again. In 1940 mobilisation did not occur in order to prevent provoking Germany....
The government was presented with the German ultimatum in the morning of the 9th of April 1940 and protested, but accepted while bombers flew over the city. Due to the earlier neglects no effective opposition was possible and the aim of the government was to reduce the suffering to a minimum. While this attitude did get Denmark through the war with a minimum of casualties it nearly resulted in the exclusion of Denmark from the league of allied nations...
The Danish resistance movement was very limited until the turning points of the war in 1942. From then on it expanded rapidly."
Now contrast this to Finland (from [URL=http://www.uwm.edu/~jpipes/wwar.html)]
When the Winter War began, the soldiers were provided with a belt, a national cocade, and most of the time, an old French rifle. Only the regular army and the Suojeluskunta men had proper equipment.
The defensive plan of the Finnish high command was dated in 1934 and it had as its basic premise the idea of stopping an enemy attack on the Karelian Isthmus at a certain point where natural obstacles like the Vuoksi-river would suppress the enemy forces and prevent their operational possibilities. This line was later christened, by the international press, the Mannerheim-line. It went from east to west on a line Taipale-Suvanto-Vuoksi-Äyräpäänjärvi-Muolaanjärvi-Kipinolan-järvi. It had 67 concrete bunkers mostly in the Summa and Lähde regions. It wasn’t a favored operational plan, and was strongly criticised before the war, and a lack of funding prevented further construction.....
The equipment of the Finnish army was nearly obsolete. Most Finnish equipment was termed "malli Cajander" or Model Cajander, named after the pre-war prime minister who was blamed for cutting back on army funding (mentioned above). During the mobilization it was estimated that the army could provide every man a uniform jacket by January and a overcoat by February...
...and from one other site 9http://cda.mrs.umn.edu/~mattsons/winwar.html)
What has enabled the Finns to keep on fighting is what the Finns would call sisu. Sisu refers to the concept of life that says "I may not win, but I will give my life gladly for what I believe."
So, what I see is one HUGE difference...best summed up by this quote from John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
A person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
That about sums it up for me. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
All I have time for tonite; I look forward to swapping more inflammatory philosophies with you guys in the future! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 08-29-2000).] (http://www.milhist.dk/start/inwwii.html)[/i)
-
Toad:
Let me fill in with some data from that site you conventiently missed.
"While the operations did have an economic impact on Germany it never reached a scale where partisan activities took control of larger areas. The flat and open Danish terrain is not well suited to large-scale partisan operations. However small its actual effect was, the resistance movement showed the world that the Danish population did not wish to be ruled by Germany. This, and probably more important, the 5000 sailors that joined the allied merchant fleets, were the main reasons that Denmark ended the war as an allied country."
and
"Another important contribution to the allied war effort was made by the Danish envoy in Washington. He did not recognise the government in Copenhagen during the war and acting on his own he granted the US basing
rights in the Danish controlled Greenland. This allowed the transfer of short-range aircraft to Britain via Greenland and Iceland."
or:
"The dislike or hatred to the German was
widespread and manifested in different ways.
E.g. by wearing British colours, avoiding
contact with the Germans, Alsang - the
gathering of thousands of people to sing
Danish songs etc."
or how about
"Contrary to other occupied contries, the Danish Nazi parti (DNSAP) never got any political influence. The primary reason for this, was its lack of support in the Danish population. At the parlimentary election in 1939 they got 1,8 % of the votes and 3 seats in the parliamentary. At the election in March 1943 they got 2,1 %"
2100 Danish soldiers joined the allied armed forces. Some 5000 sailor the merchant fleet - of these, 1300 were killed.
and of course tying up some 220 000 men and more than a few aircraft doesn't count (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Now, you're implying that the Danes really didn't mind being occupied by the Germans and didn't fight back. Dude, my great grandfather stored dynamite under my grandmothers bed during the war. Dynamite used to blow things up the Germans were using. The problems early on in the war was lack of weapons and explosive, and organisation. This did get better with drops by the RAF and USAF.
On my way to a gas station nearby, I pass a metalsquare that's been installed in the ground that reads "Here XXXX(cannot recal name) died defending Denmark and freedom, killed by the Germans". You can find such things here and there where I live.
Your rather selective reading shows your hidden agenda. But don't let that stop you.
If I could go back in time, I'd smack down on those bloody politicians for being cowardly puppets That an envoy can just disagree with them and has his will (as in the case of Greenland) sort of shows what it really was.
But, for all the bravado and machoism you seem to admire; there is a time to fight, and there is a time to just survive. The Fins are just too drunk to ever realize this. Just look at Staga (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to salute some Britons, some Polacks and most of all some Russians who did all the dying for us (and most for you).
I'll give the Americans a nod, for bringing smokes.
<grins>
Great fun this :=)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 08-30-2000).]
-
Yes indeed you have to admire them brave and "allied" Dane fighters. They and their counterparts in France who bravely stood up to the German Juggernaut, you know the shopkeeper who sold his second best wine at full rates or the Hooker that willingly spread the clap to decrease some Soldats combat readiness (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Heck StSanta, have a smoke on me
-
liHmph.....
StSanta:
Maybe I'm getting old; I still had some whisky and cognac on my home bar which are from last Christmas (and few litres of Finlandia (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
Guess I had to check if there's a "Best before next Sunday" tag on those (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
edit:
Finns; No Fins.
Agree or I'll send you couple things with fins by 3:rd class post...
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Staga (edited 08-30-2000).]
-
Heh Rooster.
When you know what you're talking about, lemme know.
Until then, my time is better spent drinking wine and spending time with potatos.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Ah, ya miss a few days working and you can never catch up!
Anyway, let's talk about "terror bombing".
The guy that gets the credit for first suggesting it as an "airpower doctrine" was an Italian, General Giulio Douhet. Douhet argued that the heart of an enemy's resistance was its population. I don't want to write a book about it but here's Douhet's theory in brief clips from a few websites. Clipping is faster than rewriting. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
AS USUAL, I'll provide the site...I'm not going to say "I heard it from a friend" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
"Douhet understood that the technological advances in weaponry made during World War I were not fully utilized by Allied commanders. Douhet thus spent the decade after the war constructing a theory that would facilitate the strategic use of what he conceived to be the biggest technological breakthrough of all, the airplane. As such scholars as Raymond Flugel have pointed out, Douhet's theories were crucial at a pivotal pre-World War II Army Air Force institution, the Air Corps Tactical School. Over time, these theories became institutionalized to the point that they were rarely questioned. Their influence was subsequently evident in strategic Air Force operations...
What did Douhet propose to do with this offensive power? Quite clearly, his most pressing goal was twofold. On the one hand, he argued that air power should be directed toward the utter obliteration of the enemy's industrial base. Typically, Douhet minced no words when he argued that a strike force "should always operate in mass" to "crush the material ... resistance of the enemy."9 Second, Douhet was convinced that the effect of this was to, without doubt, demoralize the enemy population. He thus wrote:
In terms of military results, it is much more important to destroy a railroad station, a bakery, a war plant, or to machine-gun a supply column, moving trains, or any other behind-the-lines objective, than to strafe or bomb a trench. The results are immeasurably greater in breaking morale ... in spreading terror and panic..."
FROM: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1986/sep-oct/eula.html (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1986/sep-oct/eula.html)
For a better understanding of the other arguments, check out this site:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/presentation/faber.html (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/presentation/faber.html)
Here's a quick review chart I clipped from there.
Fig. 1 - Representative Targeting Strategies Prior to 1945
Pre-War Theorist(s)/ Target Set(s)
Salvaneschi /Major munitions factories
Slessor/ Troops, supplies, production
Douhet/ Population (cities)
Harris/ Population (cities)
Mitchell / Vital centers
Wilberg, Weber,& the Ger. Gen. Staff/ Enemy field army
Trenchard/(in 1920s) War materiel,transportation,communications
During War Theorist(s)/ Target Set(s)
Committee of Operations Analysts (COA)/ Munitions plants
Air Corps Tactical School/ Key economic
nodes (industrial web)
Economic Objectives Unit (EOU)/ Oil/transportation
You can get more detail by researching these names with a search engine also. However, until you understand that PRIOR TO WW2 airpower had never really been used STRATEGICALLY, you are simply viewing what happened through your own 1990's prejudices.
In other words, no one really KNEW how to use strategic airpower. The equipment had never been available before and everything was simply THEORY. Like noses, there's always plenty of theories. Remember,the Boeing B-17 prototype, perhaps the first "heavy strategic bomber", first flew on July 28, 1935 and was first used in combat by the RAF in 1941. It was untried.
Further, consider the "Geneva Convention" argument. I highly suggest a review of this site before you make statements about the "rights of civilians in WW2".
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria15_3.html#fire (http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria15_3.html#fire)
You'll quickly learn a lot of information on how civilians became targets in WW2 (as well as who started targeting civilians first). Here's just a bit of that info, with emphasis added:
"Civilian Bombing and the Laws of War
Attempts to control warfare from the air occurred as early as 1899. European powers agreed at The Hague (a Dutch city) to prohibit dropping explosives "from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature." The Hague Convention of 1907 went further by banning bombardments "by whatever means" on "undefended" towns.
World War I saw the first civilian casualties from air bombing. In 1915, the first-reported victim was an English child killed by a bomb dropped from a German zeppelin (an airship more rigid and larger than a blimp). Throughout the war, zeppelin and airplane attacks on English and German cities killed almost 2,000 civilians.
After World War I, European and American military strategists debated what would happen if civilians became the main targets of air-bombing attacks. An influential Italian military writer, General Giulio Douhet, actually argued for the sustained bombing of civilians. He predicted that they would become quickly demoralized by such bombing and would force their leaders to surrender.
Despite the theories of Douhet, most at this time felt that bombing civilians was uncivilized and should be prohibited. In 1923, Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and the United States agreed to a set of rules for air warfare. One article prohibited bombing from the air "for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population . . . or of injuring noncombatants. . . ." The participating governments, however, never ratified these rules, so they were not legally binding. At the Geneva Disarmament Conference of 1932, most of the world's powers agreed that air attacks on civilians violated the laws of war. But the conference broke up before approving a final agreement.
In the years leading up to World War II, Japan became the first power to attack civilians from the air. In 1932, Japanese warplanes bombed a worker district in Shanghai, China, an incident that produced worldwide outrage. The outrage did not stop Japan from bombing civilian areas of other Chinese cities."
In short, my friends, there were NO LAWS IN EFFECT to protect civilians from bombing. NONE. It may offend our 1990's morality now, but despite offending the morality of just a few countries prior to WW2 it was not prohibited.
Now, the total lack of legal protection coupled with a totally new weapon of war and an abundance of theories on how to use this weapon resulted in the bombing of civilians.
Was Douhet a monster? No. If you read his work closely, you'll find that he wanted to prevent war or end it quickly without the slaughter that attended the trench warfare of WWI. Like those who said the introduction of the machine gun in WWI had made war too terrible to ever contemplate again, Douhet made a similar case for bombing.
Did all the Air Forces of the world test his theory? Absolutely. Did it work? No, not for any side.
Should they have given up on it sooner? Probably; that would undoubtedly have saved a lot of civilian lives.
Those of you who were actually IN the military in some country know how unlikely an event that would have been.
Once military doctrine is set, as it was in this case BEFORE the war, doctrine is unlikely to change during the conflict. Yes, there's discussion. Those who say "it isn't working" are countered by those who say "we haven't hit them hard enough/long enough...just a little more will do the trick." What usually results is a continuation of the "old" doctrine and an addition of "new" doctrine to try.
Once the war was over, the various bombing surveys pretty much discounted and disproved Douhet's theories.
So civilians were no longer targets, right?
Absolutely wrong! The entire basis of the Cold War standoff was "Mutual Assured Destruction", the "MAD Doctrine". The US assured the Russians that we would totally destroy their country and almost their entire population if they ever launched a nuke at us...and the Russians made the same promise to the US.
CIVILIANS were the targets in the Cold War. When you launch a 50 megaton warhead at New York or Moscow to destroy a "war materials factory" you aren't going after the factory and everyone knows it.
Civilians during the Cold War were going to be held gruesomely and fatally responsible for the actions of their governments.
So, how far have we, the enlightened and caring, progressed from Douhet?
-
BTW, Santa...
I was just starting at the top...we'll get to the more interesting matter in a while.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Toad, I am not arguing legal technicalities with you. Terror bombing is wrong, no matter if it is legal or not.
And, despite my 1990' prejudices, I can *still* say that the allies knew it did not work - the Germand had tried it, and it proved to only strenghten the resistance of the enemy civilian population.
In many cases, the allies didn't even have an excuse such as "there is a marshall yard there, so some collateral damage is inevitable. They went in to kill civilians.
Any nation or set of nations that systematically seek out and destroy civilians act in a morally deficit manner in my book. That means any, including my own. Do it by air, or as in Kosovo by ground, I don't care, neither do the dead, because they can't.
How do you justify terror bombing? I've seen several attempts; "we didn't start it", "they had it coming", "they didn't know better" and now "technically it is legal".
If we cannot agree that the systematical seeking out and destroying of civilians by a government or set of governments using their military forces as a tool is wrong, I don't think we can agree on this discussion. We'd just have to call it "different moral values".
<passes ball to Toad>
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
The success of Allied strategic bombing was to force the Luftwaffe into an aerial war of attrition.
Remember that the Luftwaffe was designed all along as a ground support arm. But the strategic bombing offensive forced them to divert planes, pilots, production, and development to the bomber interception task.
Think of all the planes and pilots that were lost defending against the bombers. If the Luftwaffe had been intact to oppose the Soviets and the Normandy invasion, things could have gotten ugly.
Furthermore, resources diverted to bomber interceptor development and production could have been used to develop and produce advanced attack aircraft.
So not only would they have had more planes and more veteran pilots, they might have had better aircraft to repel the invaders.
-
funked, and that justifies the systematic slaughtering of civilians?
Force them up using other methods, such as bombing their landing fields, their industrial centers. But the strategy of forcing them up by massacring their girlfriends, wives, sisters or grandparents is quite disgusting. It's more than that. It's unbelievable cynical and shows the *worst* in man.
And it was done by the good guys.
funked, you got a point, but I think that in this matter, the end doesn't justify the means.
It's akin to lining up civilians, screaming "ok you resistance men, come out or we'll start shooting your loved ones", and then systematically execute the civilians.
The world today is as ugly as back then. Hutu and Tutsi genocide, for instance. The gassing of Kurds in Iraq. The war against civilians in Kosovo.
I don't accept that as justifiable, and I don't think firebombing civilians *can* be justified.
It can to some extent be understood, and even a bit excused, but justified?
I dunno. I cannot see how that can be done.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
I'm not saying the strategic bombing campaign was justified, I'm just pointing out the one area where it was successful.
The direct disruption of the Germany economy by the bombers was not as great as many people would like to believe.
But the disruption of the Luftwaffe and their production and development was quite significant, and definitely made the war end sooner.
-
funked, and that justifies the systematic slaughtering of civilians?
The systematic slaughtering of civilians. I have to think about that one StSanta. Did you?
I won't argue the slaughtering of civilians... though we can spend hours debating the diference when two countries are at war. The use of the term systematic is inapropriate.
If the policy were simply to kill all of the civilians.. then this would apply. That is why it is so comonly used when describing the holocast.
If ending the war was the main point, then the slaughtering of the civilians was an ends to a means. Does it make it right? No. But what is right about war? At what time does it become ok to kill someone? You seem to have placed your line in a different place than most did during ww2. If you'd been around back then without the benifit of history books describing WW2... you may have believed differently too.
I personally distain the use of civilians as a shield. When I see I feel bad for the people that will die due to an ignorant leader. I feel bad for the pilots that have to carry out the mission knowing that civilians are going to be killed. I feel bad for the generals that have to order it.
If the goal had been "systematic"... we wouldn't have accepted the surrender and would have continued with the slaughtering. Dop... wait... drop... wait... drop... wait. The waiting was for a reason.
My belief is that nobody was particually excited about any of the fire bombings (allied side). Most of the German/Russian mass destruction was a result of Nationalism and econimic strife. All sides claim the other was too brutal and ruthless.
One thing that WW2 did show.. was that it was ineffective. I doubt it will be used again in that capacity... though with nukes it is a moot point. We know it was ineffective because of WW2. Nobody knew prior to then because it had not been done.
AKDejaVu
-
Since this thread is branching out all over, I figured I'd do a bit a "clean-up".
From Santa:
"Your rather selective reading shows your hidden agenda. But don't let that stop you.
Note that I try to always either post a supporting link for my statements or label them as my opinion.
There is no way one can quote multipage documents in a thread like this and expect them to be read. However, for those who are TRULY interested in becoming more informed, the links provide a path.
You followed that link and that's exactly why it was put in. To inform. Had I been trying to "hide" the information you posted, I wouldn't have posted the link, now would I?
The point is that there is almost ALWAYS more to history than simplistic explanations....and that you can't view everything from a 1990's perspective. The World in 1940 was a different place. Responsibility and accountability had a far greater standing than they do now.
As far as "hidden agendas" I would certainly be no more guilty of that than a certain individual that has made a longtime habit out of calling the US forces in WW2 "murderers and rapists" and "terror bombers" without publishing a single supporting link. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Also from Santa:
"How do you justify terror bombing? I've seen several attempts; "we didn't start it", "they had it coming", "they didn't know better" and now "technically it is legal"."
Perhaps I left the wrong impression. Once again, I tried to make sure we all start from the same historically correct place. In another thread on this topic someone posted that "the Geneva Convention prohibited bombing of civilians". That was the Geneva Convention of 1949. What I posted was a correction of that misinformation. Let's all be on the same page.
The same with the Douhet information. You wanted to dig up and shoot the guy that suggested bombing civilians. Well, Douhet the Italian started it all. Once again, however, it's not that simple. Douhet was convinced his ideas would either prevent war or make it very, very brief. He was a WWI vet and had seen the horrors of trench warfare up close. His book is an interesting read, btw.
I find it ironic that his ideas had wide acceptance pre-WW2, attempts at implementation IN WW2 (not to go off on a tangent, but as you can imagine there were/are those who said/say Douhet's theories were never correctly implemented in WW2 <for various reasons, some correctable, some not> and if they had been, they would have worked), generally discredited by the post-WW2 bombing surveys and then generally accepted again with the proclamation of the "MAD Doctrine". It's a funny world.
From Santa: "Dude, my great grandfather stored dynamite under my grandmothers bed during the war.
I salute your great grandfather! You must be proud of him! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Let's see...in my family on my Italian mother's side there were five boys (my uncles):
Joe, the oldest...US Army, stateside, supply.
Bill, the next, US Army, Recon Platoon Seargeant, Battle of the Bulge.
John, US Army, killed at St. Lo, France by a German mortar round.
Robert, SeaBees, Pacific
Fred, US Marines, China
On my Irish father's side there were two men:
My father, B-25 Pilot, New Guinea
Bill, Army Air Corps, Supply, stateside.
My wife's two uncles and father:
Father, 8th AF, 56 missions B-17 tailgunner
Kenneth, US Marines, Guadalcanal and Tarawa
Norval, Draft Deferred, war related industry employment adn due to age.
That was ALL the males between 16 and 50. I salute them too. Our families were simply typical of the involvement of the US population. Nothing special here. Nearly the ENTIRE US population was involved in the war effort.
From Santa: "Or seen from another point of view, you let the Polacks, the Britons, the Soviets do all the hard work and dying."
George Washington, in his "Farewell Address" said:
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
I think he essentially set the tone for US foreign policy until the post WW2 Era. <I still support his intentions (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) >
When the Russians invaded Finland on 30Nov39, the US had no treaties or alliances with Finland that obligated the US in a military way. When the Germans invaded Poland on 1Sep39, the US had no treaties or alliances with Poland that obligated the US in a military way. After 3Sep39, when Britain and France declared war on Germany, the US issued a neutrality statement on 5Sep39; there were no treaties or alliances with Britain and France that obligated the US in a military way. When Russia invaded Poland on 17Sep29 the US still had no treaties or alliances with Poland that obligated the US in a military way.
On December 7, 1941 this all changed. The Imperial Government of Japan declared war on Britain, Canada, Australia and the United States. On 11 December, Germany and Italy declare war on the United States. <Another smart move by Adolph!>
Until this time, the US could not have been involved in the fighting. Our form of government effectively prohibited involvement.
Now, what did we do once we became involved?
We pretty much got our butts kicked around the Pacific from 7Dec41 until 3June42, the Battle of Midway. So, in 7 months a totally unprepared US had started to recover and scored it's first major victory. On 7August42, the US Marines landed on Guadalcanal, beginning the long string of Pacific victories that ended with Japan's unconditional surrender.
It took us 10 months to get on the offensive. I, for one, think that was an impressive feat, given the status of US forces when the war began.
17Aug42 saw the first attack from the 8th AF B-17's, on rail yards at Rouen, France, escort by British Spitfire. In September the first B-24's Liberators arrived. Once again, 10 months after Germany declared war on the US, the US was involved, however small the initial effort was.
Did we want to get involved sooner? Check this from: http://www.thehistorynet.com/WorldWarII/articles/1196_text.htm (http://www.thehistorynet.com/WorldWarII/articles/1196_text.htm)
"The final agreement on the Allies' first combined military action in the European theater did not come about overnight. The self-confident Americans had arrived in England early in 1942, spoiling for the showdown with Hitler. To the horror of their British counterparts, they suggested an immediate cross-Channel attack into France. With patience and persistence, the British explained the practical difficulties of mounting such a huge operation so soon, including the fact that the Allies were losing vast amounts of shipping to German submarines in the Atlantic. Until that problem was licked, they could not build up the materiel needed for an invasion of France. On July 22 the Americans approved Operation Torch, the British alternative to an invasion of Europe."
So, on 8Nov42, American troops landed in North Africa. Call it a year from the declaration of war.
I don't think we dragged our feet getting involved in a two-front war. I think we did rather well to get going and on the offensive on BOTH fronts in less than a year.
What were we doing on the homefront? From: http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/1943.htm#top (http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/1943.htm#top)
America produces in 1942; more then 48.000 planes, 56.000 tanks and the American Army counts more then 7.000.000 men.
Clearly, we were getting involved. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
From Santa: "Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to salute some Britons, some Polacks and most of all some Russians who did all the dying for us (and most for you).
Yeah, let's do some saluting. First of all, for the Brits. There are some folks that know "war is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things." But then John Stuart Mill is a Brit. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) When Poland was invaded, they stuck by their treaty obligations and attempted to do what they could. After losing the "Battle of France", they could have surrendered. By some nation's standards they SHOULD have surrendered. After all, as you say "there is a time to fight, and there is a time to just survive". Instead, they took their licking and prepared to fight on. Then with courage and resolution, helped by the stupidity of Adolph, they won the Battle of Britain. So, indeed, salute them. Of course, they are also the folks that early on gave up on the idea of "precision bombing" and developed a doctrine of nighttime "area bombing" aren't they?
From: http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/1942.htm#top (http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/1942.htm#top)
"In the early years of the war, bombing Germany was the only means of striking directly at the enemy's homeland and war production. Plans for a major bombing offensive, known as the strategic air offensive, were ambitious, but limited by technical difficulties in the early stages. The ineffectiveness of Bomber Command's operations up to the end of 1941 exposed the weaknesses of the RAF. Aircraft, bombs and navigational equipment were inadequate and losses in daylight raids caused Bomber Command to switch to night attacks. As night bombing was very inaccurate, from February 1942 Air Marshal Harris started the area bombing of German cities in an attempt to disrupt industrial production and morale."
Still saluting, Santa? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Well, let us at least salute some Poles then? They fought hard when the Germans invaded on 1Sep39.
From that same "timeline site"...
Relative strength at the German invasion of Poland
Germany/Poland
Inf. div. 46/38
Motor. div. 4¾/11 Cavalry-Brigades
Light div. 4/2 Motorized Brigades
Tank div. 7/45 Battalions Frontier Guards
Tanks 3200/600 ca.
Bombers 1176/146
Fighters 771/315 50% old models
Scouting planes 356/325 50% old models
Other planes 981/56
Battle-ships 2/0
Cruisers 0/0
Destroyers 4/0
Submarine 7/5
Little vessels 8/0
Torpedo-boats 2/0
Boy, from those numbers one would think that the Poles would know "there is a time to fight, and there is a time to just survive".
I guess they could've stacked arms when they saw the huge German forces on their borders. Probably would've saved a lot of Poles. They could still have sung Polish songs, right? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But, they fought anyway. I salute them too...they knew that "war is not the ugliest thing".
And don't forget the Russians! After all, while the Poles were so valiantly fighting for their country, the Russians helped out by INVADING POLAND on 17Sep39! That's worth a salute, eh?
No? Perhaps we can salute the Russians for Katyn Forest then? Katyn Forest is a wooded area near Gneizdovo village, a short distance from Smolensk in Russia where, in 1940 on Stalin's orders, the NKVD shot and buried over 4000 Polish service personnel that had been taken prisoner when the Soviet Union invaded Poland in September 1939. Surely you'll want to salute them for that?
No? Well, do you want to salute them for invading Finland? After all, it had been a while since 27November31, when Finland and Russia signed a "no war of aggression treaty." After all, a busy nation like Russia could easily forget a little piece of paper by 30Nov39, right?
Well, perhaps we should salute them for being a more polite army than those evil US rapists and murderers? After all, the Russians would never have tolerated something like what happened at Nemmersdorf, right?
The town of Nemmersdorf was the first to fall into the hands of the victorious Red Army <it's just inside the east German border with Poland>. Overrun by General Gatlitsky's 11th Guards Army, his soldiers set about raping, looting and killing with such ferocity that eventually discipline had to be restored to force the soldiers back to fighting the war. When the Soviet 4th Army took over the town five days later, hardly a single inhabitant remained alive. Women were found nailed to barn doors after being gang raped, their bodies then used for target practice. Many women, and girls as young as eight years old, were raped so often and brutally that they died from this abuse alone. Children were shot indiscriminately and all those trying to flee were crushed to death under the treads of the tanks. Forty French prisoners-of-war were shot on the spot as spies after welcoming the Red Army as liberators. In other East Prussian villages the same scenes were witnessed, men and boys being castrated and their eyes gouged out before being killed or burned alive.
These are the men you salute so readily then, Santa?
All the US brought was tobacco? I wonder if Soviet divisions had Judge Advocate General groups attached to them that prosecuted their own soldiers for rape and murder? I know the US Divisions had them; we kept them back near the tobacco depots. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
They kept records too. And I don't think you'll find ANYTHING like Nemmersdorf in the records.
Around again to "terror bombing".
First, so I can understand you fully, I'd like to hear your definition of "terror bombing".
Further, you say "Any nation or set of nations that systematically seek out and destroy civilians ..."
Are you saying that the strategic bombing campaign was a dedicated attempt to solely target civilians?
If so, I have a few other questions for you too.
If the US 8th was going after civilians, why did they stick to daylight bombing? The Brits had already shown it was much less costly to bomb at night.
If the US 8th was targeting civilians, why was there ALWAYS pre-strike recce, detailed briefings of the "target" including photo study by the bombardiers, detailed planning including an Initial Point to the target and precise timing <attempted> over the target, post-strike Bomb Damage Assessment recce and "scoring" of each Bomb Group for accuracy of bombs on target? If you were just going after civilians, this would all be pointless, wouldn't it? You would just go out a night and unload over the city, right?
Can you find even one set of mission orders for the 8th that simply said "fly over this town and drop"?
If the 8th was out simply to nail civilians would it ever have been necessary to "go around" and make a second bomb run without dropping on the first run? This happened and it is documented. But if you weren't aiming at a specific target, why would you bother to expose yourself twice?
Dresden is an often used by you as an example of allied "terror bombing". Read this page for a different view.
http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/soi/dresden.htm (http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/soi/dresden.htm)
If you're too lazy to go read the whole thing, here's the conclusion:
"III. CONCLUSION
The foregoing historical analysis establishes the following definitive answers to the recurring questions concerning the February 1945 bombings of Dresden by Allied strategic air forces:
a. Dresden was a legitimate military target.
b. Strategic objectives, of mutual importance to the Allies and the Russians, underlay the bombings of Dresden.
c. The Russians requested that the Dresden area be bombed by Allied air forces. <Still saluting, Santa?>
d. The Supreme Allied Commander, his Deputy Supreme Commander, and the key British and American operational air authorities recommended and ordered the bombing of Dresden.
e. The Russians were officially informed by the Allies concerning the intended date of and the forces to be committed to the bombing of Dresden.
f. The RAF Bomber Command employed 772 heavy bombers, 1477.7 tons of high explosive and 1181.6 tons of incendiary bombs, and American Eighth Air Force employed a total of 527 heavy bombers, 953.3 tons of high explosive and 294.3 tons of incendiary bombs, in the 14-15 February bombings of Dresden.
g. The specific target objectives in the Dresden bombings were, for the RAF Bomber Command, the Dresden city area, including industrial plants, communications, military installations, and for the American Eighth Air Force, the Dresden Marshalling Yards and railway facilities.
h. The immediate and actual consequences of the Dresden bombings were destruction or severe damage to at least 23 per cent of the city’s industrial buildings; severe damage to at least 56 per cent of the city’s non-industrial buildings (exclusive of dwellings); destruction or severe damage to at least 50 percent of the residential units in the city’s non-industrial buildings (exclusive of dwellings); destruction or severe damage to at least 50 percent of the residential units in the city, and at least some damage to 80 per cent of the city’s dwellings; the total disruption of the city as a major communications center, in consequence of destruction and damage inflicted on its railway facilities; and death to probably 25,000 persons and serious injury to probably 30,000 others, virtually all of these casualties being the result of the RAF area raid.
i. The Dresden bombings were in no way a deviation from established bombing policies set forth in official bombing directives.
j. The specific forces and means employed in the Dresden bombings were in keeping with the forces and means employed by the Allies in other aerial attacks on comparable targets in Germany.
k. The Dresden bombings achieved the strategic objectives that underlay the attack and were of mutual importance to the Allies and the Russians."
How about some documentation for your position?
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-04-2000).]
-
<S!> Toad.
This is getting better and better (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I'll try to explain and justify my response to you, as well, as come up with some new ones.
From Santa:
"Your rather selective reading shows your hidden agenda. But don't let that stop you.
Note that I try to always either post a supporting link for my statements or label them as my opinion.
You followed that link and that's exactly why it was put in. To inform. Had I been trying to "hide" the information you posted, I wouldn't have posted the link, now would I?
Mine was a tongue-in-cheek comment based on how you from the same document pasted only selected parts that put Denmark in a bad light (which to some degree it deserves, at least its government). Dinnae mean to come off as insulting or doubting your credibility, sorry (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
But, if you didn't provide me with the link, you wouldn't have provided a reference. So in essence you were forced to, and when I went there to look, I read stuff that was contra-indicative of what you were trying to express, and consequently I didn't find it in your post (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
The point is that there is almost ALWAYS more to history than simplistic explanations....and that you can't view everything from a 1990's perspective. The World in 1940 was a different place. Responsibility and accountability had a far greater standing than they do now.
My history teacher made a point out of this. Still, the moral values of the day were very similar to what we have today in terms of not causing unnecessary suffering. Earlier philosophers (Kant, for instance) had worked on the issue of morality, trying to get a handle of it, and it was pretty wide spread that human life was worth preserving, and that the systematic killing of innocents was a thing bad guys did. Sometimes, they (and we) got/get it wrong, like Kipling and his White Man's Burden - a sincere attempt and view of the duties of the white man to educate and "civilize" less advanced cultures.
But there are numerous writers that eloquently state the value of human life, and discuss to great lenghts the issues of crime and punishment. Then there were other contemporary officers/writers who wrote about the effectiveness of the tactic employed - areial bombardment with the aim of destroying large portions of the civilian population, thus diminishing their wish to continue supporting the war effort. Even these concluded that it probably wasn't a good idea, as it didn't work.
As far as "hidden agendas" I would certainly be no more guilty of that than a certain individual that has made a longtime habit out of calling the US forces in WW2 "murderers and rapists" and "terror bombers" without publishing a single supporting link.
Heh I don't think I've used "rapist" in a serious post; more like to incite some reaction from my American friends for the fun of it. Murderers? I dunno. When you kill civilins for no real purpose, it is borderline to murder to me. When you execute POW's against the Geneva convention, like the Jerries and Commies did, it also smells of murder, at least to me.
<snip>
<follows a reply to how one can justify terror bombing>
Perhaps I left the wrong impression. Once again, I tried to make sure we all start from the same historically correct place.
I appreciate your effort and think you're very correct about this. Where I disagree is that I think that even when we've done so, it is still very hard to justify.
In another thread on this topic someone posted that "the Geneva Convention prohibited bombing of civilians". That was the Geneva Convention of 1949. What I posted was a correction of that misinformation. Let's all be on the same page.
Agreed. Once again, my idea of morality transcends laws. Even so, I think it is worth noticing that only 5 years after the war, it was put into law that terror bombing wasn't very "good".
The same with the Douhet information. You wanted to dig up and shoot the guy that suggested bombing civilians. Well, Douhet the
Italian started it all. Once again, however, it's not that simple. Douhet was convinced his ideas would either prevent war or make it
very, very brief. He was a WWI vet and had seen the horrors of trench warfare up close. His book is an interesting read, btw.
Yeah, I jumped the gun on this one. His situation is very similar to that of Kipling. I should have said that I wanted to dig up and shoot the guy who knowing that it wasn't gonna do what it was supposed to do still went ahead with the go ahead.
I find it ironic that his ideas had wide acceptance pre-WW2, attempts at implementation IN WW2 (not to go off on a tangent, but as you can imagine there were/are those who said/say Douhet's theories were never correctly implemented in WW2 <for various reasons, some correctable, some not> and if they had been, they would have worked), generally discredited by the post-WW2 bombing surveys and then generally accepted again with the proclamation of the "MAD Doctrine". It's a funny world.
Well, the thing is I cannot see how it was supposed to do what it set out do do without some serious modifications. And such modifications weren't really tried out in WWII as far as I know.
Yeh, it is a funny world. Maybe there is a slight difference between terror bombing and Mutually Assured Destruction - the latter works by trying to cause a lack of response with weapons, whereas the former is an active effort that continually kills civilians.
<snippety snip>
Let's see...in my family on my Italian mother's side there were five boys (my uncles):
Joe, the oldest...US Army, stateside, supply.
Bill, the next, US Army, Recon Platoon Seargeant, Battle of the Bulge.
John, US Army, killed at St. Lo, France by a German mortar round.
Robert, SeaBees, Pacific
Fred, US Marines, China
On my Irish father's side there were two men:
My father, B-25 Pilot, New Guinea
Bill, Army Air Corps, Supply, stateside.
My wife's two uncles and father:
Father, 8th AF, 56 missions B-17 tailgunner
Kenneth, US Marines, Guadalcanal and Tarawa
Norval, Draft Deferred, war related industry employment adn due to age.
That was ALL the males between 16 and 50. I salute them too. Our families were simply typical of the involvement of the US population. Nothing special here. Nearly the ENTIRE US population was involved in the war effort.
Ah yes, I didn't mean to discredit their efforts in any way. I slaute them as well, and appreciate their effort.
In your post I got the distinct impression that you felt the Danes did nothing or really overall didn't mind the invasion. My response was meant to illustrate that a lot did, and that some did something about it, despite not being trained in warfare of any kind, and despite prsonal risk (and more importantly for many, risk to family members)
From Santa: "Or seen from another point of view, you let the Polacks, the Britons, the Soviets do all the hard work and dying."
George Washington, in his "Farewell Address" said:
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."[/quote]
A classical example of the isolationist philosophy long practised by the US, and also China. Abandonded for the sake of a war, and then because of the American containment policy that followed WWII, which dictated that Americans would have to cooperate with other states in order to be succesful, and in order to keep a world wide influence, which it still has to this date.
I think he essentially set the tone for US foreign policy until the post WW2 Era. <I still support his intentions >
Aye, I agree. But I'd also like to add that in my mind, stopping a mad man like Hitler would transcend this, if no one else had the capability to do so. Being the Big Kid in the class carries with it freedoms, but also moral obligations. At least if you want to be a Nice Big Kid and not the Schoolyard Bully.
When the Russians invaded Finland on 30Nov39, the US had no treaties or alliances with Finland that obligated the US in a military way. When the Germans invaded Poland on 1Sep39, the US had no treaties or alliances with Poland that obligated the US in a military way. After 3Sep39, when Britain and France declared war on Germany, the US issued a neutrality statement on 5Sep39; there were no treaties or alliances with Britain and France that obligated the US in a military way. When Russia invaded Poland on 17Sep29 the US still had no treaties or alliances with Poland that obligated the US in a military way.
On December 7, 1941 this all changed. The Imperial Government of Japan declared war on Britain, Canada, Australia and the United
States. On 11 December, Germany and Italy declare war on the United States. <Another smart move by Adolph!>
Heh, yeah very smart move. Made the American public switch overnight from a mainly isolationist view to a "let's nail this guys balls to the wall". Once the Americans became involved with their massive capabilities, Hitler was lost.
I do believe Hitler did it out as a face saving gesture - the US has indirectly been involved in the war by supplying the Britons and Russkies with massive amounts of weapons and material. Since the Germans were allied with the Japanese, a Japanese declaration of war with the US practically guaranteed that the US would consider Germany an enemy too, and declare war with them.
It's interesting that Roosevelt did what he could to get the US out of the isolationist state (Roosevelt is one of the greatest US leaders in my mind), and still keep it within the law. In essence, he saw nazism as an evil that had to be fought and that no pieces of papers on a map could hold back the responsibility of doing so. Standing idly by when a man is drowning, saying "ain't my concern or problem" wasn't Roosevelts philosophy, thank Random Fluctuations In Space Time (see how much harder everything is for us non theists? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
Until this time, the US could not have been involved in the fighting. Our form of government effectively prohibited involvement.
That's the way I've understood it as well.
Now, what did we do once we became involved?
We pretty much got our butts kicked around the Pacific from 7Dec41 until 3June42, the Battle of Midway. So, in 7 months a totally
unprepared US had started to recover and scored it's first major victory. On 7August42, the US Marines landed on Guadalcanal, beginning the long string of Pacific victories that ended with Japan's unconditional surrender.
It took us 10 months to get on the offensive. I, for one, think that was an impressive feat, given the status of US forces when the war began.
I think it's more than impressive, considering the initial odds. The Americans did much more with much less than the Japanese and, outnumbered and outgunned, held the Japanese up til the American civvies had the war production up and running at full speed, at which time no nation stood a chance in hell of stopping the US.
17Aug42 saw the first attack from the 8th AF B-17's, on rail yards at Rouen, France, escort by British Spitfire. In September the first B-24's Liberators arrived. Once again, 10 months after Germany declared war on the US, the US was involved, however small the initial effort was.
Yeh. Saw a documentary about the USAAF on Discovery the other day. One German survivor from the bombings said that they were totally morally justifiable, up to 1945. Then the Germans had utterly lost the war, and what happened afterwards wasn't defensible in any way.
I agree with him.
Did we want to get involved sooner? Check this from: http://www.thehistorynet.com/WorldWarII/articles/1196_text.htm (http://www.thehistorynet.com/WorldWarII/articles/1196_text.htm)
"The final agreement on the Allies' first combined military action in the European theater did not come about overnight. The
self-confident Americans had arrived in England early in 1942, spoiling for the showdown with Hitler. To the horror of their British counterparts, they suggested an immediate cross-Channel attack into France. With patience and persistence, the British explained the practical difficulties of mounting such a huge operation so soon, including the fact that the Allies were losing vast amounts of shipping to German submarines in the Atlantic. Until that problem was licked, they could not build up the materiel needed for an invasion of France. On July 22 the Americans approved Operation Torch, the British alternative to an invasion of Europe."So, on 8Nov42, American troops landed in North Africa. Call it a year from the declaration of war.
Heh, the yank generals were eager to kick butt (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif). But their political leader was well aware of the difficulties, and even though he was constantly bugged by Stalin to open a second European front, he opted for Africa were chances of succes where much higher. A real realist, Roosevelt, one I admire.
I don't think we dragged our feet getting involved in a two-front war. I think we did rather well to get going and on the offensive on BOTH fronts in less than a year.
Well, that initial suggestion of a second fron in Europe I feel was more of a yankee overconfidence thing based on emotion rather than numbers, one not shared by people who *had* the numbers. Since the US were at war with Germany, I think it is reasonable to suggest that a front against the Germans in under a year is realistic. Of course, you could have opted to duke it out with the Japanese first. But, with the massive war machine and manpower of the US, it was not like it wasn't doable.
An interesting thing; I've read somewhere (sorry cannot recall where) that in the US, the media focused very much on the Pacific Theatre, whereas in Europe it was the reverse. Plain old sphere of interest in action.
<snip stuff about war production in the US>
Clearly, we were getting involved.
Never said you weren't. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). What I suggested was that the casualty rate per hundred men in combat/duty was very low compared to other allies and enemies.
From Santa: "Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to salute some Britons, some Polacks and most of all some Russians who did all
the dying for us (and most for you).
Yeah, let's do some saluting. First of all, for the Brits. There are some folks that know "war is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of
things." But then John Stuart Mill is a Brit. When Poland was invaded, they stuck by their treaty obligations and attempted to do what they could. After losing the "Battle of France", they could have surrendered. By some nation's standards they SHOULD have surrendered. After all, as you say "there is a time to fight, and there is a time to just survive". Instead, they took their licking and prepared to fight on. Then with courage and resolution, helped by the stupidity of Adolph, they won the Battle of Britain. So, indeed, salute them. Of course, they are also the folks that early on gave up on the idea of "precision bombing" and developed a doctrine of nighttime "area bombing" aren't they?
Heh, this is one thing I like about discussing with you; one starts a venomous remark, and then it just rolls on and gets better by every post (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I still disagree with the British decision to bomb cities. My comment was meant to reflect the overall sacrifices and I think that that was sorta obvious and that you knew it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
But, I feel you're a bit inaccurate when you suggest that the situation was the same for the Danes as for the Britons.
Things suggesting the Britons could defeat a German invasion:
1) History. The British isles have never been fully conquered by anyone. The Romans occupied southern England, the Vikings did a rape and pillage run in northern England, before being integrated into the indigenous population, but no one has ever conquered the British isles in its entirety IIRC. Only relatively small parts of it. Denmark, OTOH has been overrun several times, some of the reasons as to why I shall discuss later.
2) Distance from enemy, and water between enemy. It's a logistical nightmare to launch an attack over water, especially when it is as turbulent and with violent currents as the North Sea. Establishing one necessary parmetre for invasion, air supremacy or at least superiority is difficult when your palnes can only stay for 20 minutes over the target area before rtb. Denmark lies right north of Germany, so logistics isn't a real issue.
3) Geography. Beyond being an island, it's a comparatively large one when compared to Denmark. There also are several natural defense lines. Crossing the UK in a tank won't take 7-8 hours at full speed, but several days. In Denmark, you can drive north to south in about 4 hours in a standard car. It also has very little in terms of natural defenses, being flat and without any major rivers.
4) Size of armed forces and available technology. Denmark had a standing army of an incredible 14 500 men. The RAF numbered more than that. Furthermore, the Danish forces were equipped with obsolete weaponry.
5) Support. Denmark had no allies providing much support. The Britons had the mighty Americans.
Overall, the Britons had a fighting chance, the Danes had a snowballs chance in hell.
Don't think I need a link to support this, except for the numbers, for which i've already posted one.
From: http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/1942.htm#top (http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/1942.htm#top)
"In the early years of the war, bombing Germany was the only means of striking directly at the enemy's homeland and war production. Plans for a major bombing offensive, known as the strategic air offensive, were ambitious, but limited by technical difficulties in the early stages. The ineffectiveness of Bomber Command's operations up to the end of 1941 exposed the weaknesses of the RAF. Aircraft, bombs and navigational equipment were inadequate and losses in daylight raids caused Bomber Command to switch to night
attacks. As night bombing was very inaccurate, from February 1942 Air Marshal Harris started the area bombing of German cities in an attempt to disrupt industrial production and morale."[/quote]
And was hugely ineffective til new technology was developed.
Still saluting, Santa?
Yeh, just as I still salute the overall American war effort.
Well, let us at least salute some Poles then? They fought hard when the Germans invaded on 1Sep39.
Already saluted them (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
From that same "timeline site"...
Relative strength at the German invasion of Poland Germany/Poland
Inf. div. 46/38
Motor. div. 4¾/11 Cavalry-Brigades
Light div. 4/2 Motorized Brigades
Tank div. 7/45 Battalions Frontier Guards
Tanks 3200/600 ca.
Bombers 1176/146
Fighters 771/315 50% old models
Scouting planes 356/325 50% old models
Other planes 981/56
Battle-ships 2/0
Cruisers 0/0
Destroyers 4/0
Submarine 7/5
Little vessels 8/0
Torpedo-boats 2/0
Boy, from those numbers one would think that the Poles would know "there is a time to fight, and there is a time to just survive".
[/quote]
Their odds were much better than the Danes, and they lasted how long? Big country, natural defenses, several times the number of tanks, artillery pieces, aircraft, men, you name it.
Nice try, but take a look at geography and number of avaiable tanks etc and you'll see one HUGE difference between the two nations. Also take a look at strategic alliances.
I guess they could've stacked arms when they saw the huge German forces on their borders. Probably would've saved a lot of Poles. They could still have sung Polish songs, right?
They ended up losing big time: Warzsawa destroyed, armed forces largely destroyed, lots of civilians dead. But, they did kill a lot of Germans. Could the Danish armed forces have done as well? Look at numbers and geography and you'll have your answer.
But, they fought anyway. I salute them too...they knew that "war is not the ugliest thing".
Well, it's a matter of "running to fight another day", not giving up and being assimilated. FWIW, I'm a bit disappointed the Danes didn't put up more of a fight, but Denmark was spared a good deal of destruction, too. And, while the Danish government gave up and kissed ass, its civilians did not. And this is the part you seem to want to miss (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Machoism has its place; intelligent fighting has one above it. Play the odds to your favour, and do *the most damage* you can all while minimizing casualties.
Seriously, if you still think the Danish poulation caved in and accepted German domination...
We have an organisation here that deals with the Danish resistance. I'll make a request for information. My net searching abilities clearly aren't as good as yours, so I'll do it the old fashioned way (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
And don't forget the Russians! After all, while the Poles were so valiantly fighting for their country, the Russians helped out by INVADING POLAND on 17Sep39! That's worth a salute, eh?
They were allies (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif). I think you're attributing too much to my facetious comment (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
<snipping russian info for sake of shortening post>
These are the men you salute so readily then, Santa?
Again, think you're reading too much into a comment that was meant to be facetious. SUch actions were horrible and unjustifiable.
Just as firebombing civilians is.
All the US brought was tobacco? I wonder if Soviet divisions had Judge Advocate General groups attached to them that prosecuted their own soldiers for rape and murder? I know the US Divisions had them; we kept them back near the tobacco depots.
You brought those Juicy chewing gum things too.
They kept records too. And I don't think you'll find ANYTHING like Nemmersdorf in the records.
I'm sure they didn't miss a single episode of misconduct by any member of the US armed forces. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Around again to "terror bombing".
Yes! That's what this is about.
First, so I can understand you fully, I'd like to hear your definition of "terror bombing".
The systematic bombing of a civilian population with the purpose of breaking the morale of the enemy civilians by destruction of habitats and facilities, and killing and maiming of aforementioned civilians. Bombing intended to either kill civilians or make life hopelessly desperate for survivors. Indiscriminate destruction of non military targets. More modern definition: bombing intended to cause only "collateral damage", and where destruction of war production facilities is a secondary benefit.
Or "bombing with the intent of destroying the morale of the enemy civilian population and thereby bringing an end to a war sooner rather than later".
Of course, they knew this didn't work.
Further, you say "Any nation or set of nations that systematically seek out and destroy civilians ..."
Are you saying that the strategic bombing campaign was a dedicated attempt to solely target civilians?
No, not all. But after the end of 1944, when the bombers ran out of targets and started firebombing places like Dresden and Hamburg, I feel it is justified to say that the target was the civilian population and the facilities that helped them in their daily life, i.e houses, shops and so forth. Non military targets.
If so, I have a few other questions for you too.
Cool.
If the US 8th was going after civilians, why did they stick to daylight bombing? The Brits had already shown it was much less costly to bomb at night.
Because the US had *long* been proponents of socalled "precision bombing" - something that would first be a reality almost 50 years later. Still, daylight bombing offered significant benefits in terms of precision.
This philosophy was abandoned, however, in the end of '44. USAAF participation in the strikes over Dresden and Hamburg illustrates this.
If the US 8th was targeting civilians, why was there ALWAYS pre-strike recce, detailed briefings of the "target" including photo study by the bombardiers, detailed planning including an Initial Point to the target and precise timing <attempted> over the target, post-strike Bomb Damage Assessment recce and "scoring" of each Bomb Group for accuracy of bombs on target? If you were just going after civilians, this would all be pointless, wouldn't it? You would just go out a night and unload over the city, right?
Can you find even one set of mission orders for the 8th that simply said "fly over this town and drop"?
I probably cannot find any orders at all here in Denmark, and I am not sure if any are posted on the net.
But, that's not the point. The point is that the USAAf abandonded the precision bombing concept in the latter stages of the war, as several incidents prove. Hamburg for one. Brits went in first, then the yanks added their firebombs.
If the 8th was out simply to nail civilians would it ever have been necessary to "go around" and make a second bomb run without dropping on the first run? This happened and it is documented. But if you weren't aiming at a specific target, why would you bother to expose yourself twice?
Think I've already addressed this.
Dresden is an often used by you as an example of allied "terror bombing". Read this page for a different view.
]http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/soi/dresden.htm[/quote] (http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/soi/dresden.htm[/quote)
Hm, couldn't get to that site, says connection not reached. I'll try later, if that's ok with you?
If you're too lazy to go read the whole thing, here's the conclusion:
"III. CONCLUSION
The foregoing historical analysis establishes the following definitive answers to the recurring questions concerning the February 1945 bombings of Dresden by Allied strategic air forces:
a. Dresden was a legitimate military target.
The *entire* city? Man, I *really* want to read the analysis now.
b. Strategic objectives, of mutual importance to the Allies and the Russians, underlay the bombings of Dresden.
Wonder what they were, will know when site is up.
c. The Russians requested that the Dresden area be bombed by Allied air forces. <Still saluting, Santa?>
Well, if it was a "valid military target", why not? I don't think so.
d. The Supreme Allied Commander, his Deputy Supreme Commander, and the key British and American operational air authorities
recommended and ordered the bombing of Dresden.
The Nazi's recommended and conducted the extermination of Jews. Appeal to authority fallacy.
e. The Russians were officially informed by the Allies concerning the intended date of and the forces to be committed to the bombing of Dresden.
f. The RAF Bomber Command employed 772 heavy bombers, 1477.7 tons of high explosive and 1181.6 tons of incendiary bombs, and American Eighth Air Force employed a total of 527 heavy bombers, 953.3 tons of high explosive and 294.3 tons of incendiary bombs, in the 14-15 February bombings of Dresden.
g. The specific target objectives in the Dresden bombings were, for the RAF Bomber Command, the Dresden city area, including industrial plants, communications, military installations, and for the American Eighth Air Force, the Dresden Marshalling Yards and railway facilities.
h. The immediate and actual consequences of the Dresden bombings were destruction or severe damage to at least 23 per cent of the city’s industrial buildings; severe damage to at least 56 per cent of the city’s non-industrial buildings (exclusive of dwellings); destruction or severe damage to at least 50 percent of the residential units in the city’s non-industrial buildings (exclusive of dwellings); destruction or severe damage to at least 50 percent of the residential units in the city, and at least some damage to 80 per cent of the city’s dwellings; the total disruption of the city as a major communications center, in consequence of destruction and damage inflicted on its railway facilities; and death to probably 25,000 persons and serious injury to probably 30,000 others, virtually all of these casualties being the result of the RAF area raid.
i. The Dresden bombings were in no way a deviation from established bombing policies set forth in official bombing directives.
j. The specific forces and means employed in the Dresden bombings were in keeping with the forces and means employed by the Allies in other aerial attacks on comparable targets in Germany.
k. The Dresden bombings achieved the strategic objectives that underlay the attack and were of mutual importance to the Allies and the Russians."
And you call this justifiable? Calling a city a communication center (which city is NOT?!?) and then killing 25 000 people, destroying the homes and injuring many mores, and this is JUSTIFIABLE?
Attacking marshalling yards is. Attacking civilian population is *not*.
How about some documentation for your position?
Uhm, what position? That firebombing civilians is wrong?
[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 09-04-2000).]
-
Santa,
But, if you didn't provide me with the link, you wouldn't have provided a reference. So in essence you were forced to, and when I went there to look, I read stuff that was contra-indicative of what you were trying to express, and consequently I didn't find it in your post.
No, I wasn't forced to at all. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) I did want to see if you'd go there, though. I read it all. I know there's always more to history than the "simple explanation".
I should have said that I wanted to dig up and shoot the guy who knowing that it wasn't gonna do what it was supposed to do still went ahead with the go ahead.
Well, the thing is I cannot see how it was supposed to do what it set out do do without some serious modifications. And such modifications weren't really tried out in WWII as far as I know.
This is perhaps a fine point on which we differ and I think it comes from our backgrounds.
I think you feel that Douhet was proved inescapably wrong early in the "strategic air campaign". You apparently think this should be obvious to everyone.
I don't think it is that clear-cut when viewed from the position of the strategists and tacticians of THAT time.
Here they have a brand new weapon, the strategic bomber. They have a new doctrine to go with it from Douhet. Douhet's theories were supposedly very "scientific" with formulae for the proper application of force to achieve the desired results.
Unfortunately, real life always intervenes. It was very hard to adhere to those formulae under wartime conditions and given the technology available. Let's just say Douhet was an optimist.
Given this situation, it would always be easy for someone on the staff to "prove" that one more change or one more mission or one more something would make it all work out the way it was supposed to.
Under those circumstances, while I'm SURE there were folks saying "this isn't working", it doesn't suprise me at all that the Brits continued area bombing. Any military organization has a huge amount of built in inertia to overcome when changing doctrine.
It may seem obvious to us but I bet it wasn't in the heat of battle in the '40's.
Further, let me point out that the US did NOT implement Douhet's theories in their strategic planning. They initially went with
Army Air Corps Tactical School doctrine, which was to hit "Key economic
nodes (industrial web)". As the war progressed, Allied planning organizations like the Committee of Operations Analysts (COA) and the Economic Objectives Unit (EOU) modified that. COA designated Munitions plants while EOU favored oil and transportation sites.
I think the post-war bombing survey found the EOU targets the most effective.
Harris and the RAF acted more in accordance with Douhet than any other Air Force.
Mutually Assured Destruction - the latter works by trying to cause a lack of response with weapons, whereas the former is an active effort that continually kills civilians.
That's one way to look at it. Here's another: MAD is Douhet theory carried to its ultimate, logical conclusion. Airpower (nukes) have made war unthinkable. That's what Douhet really was going for in his theory.
In your post I got the distinct impression that you felt the Danes did nothing or really overall didn't mind the invasion.
Here's the cat out of the bag. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I just got a little tired of you making your "tongue in cheek" comments about the US forces and decided to see if you could take it as well as dish it out. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Remember how hard you hit the lure on the first one? That answered that question.
I KNOW history is multi-facted; I've said that all along. It changes depending upon the angle from which you observe it.
But if you're going to "diss" the US troopers, expect to get a little bit back!
A classical example of the isolationist philosophy long practised by the US, and also China. Abandonded for the sake of a war, and then because of the American containment policy that followed WWII, which dictated that Americans would have to cooperate with other states in order to be succesful, and in order to keep a world wide influence, which it still has to this date.
Well, this is more what I meant:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/garrity.htm (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/garrity.htm)
"Washington's perspective on seeking "our interest, guided by our justice" led him to recommend in the Farewell Address that America's orientation toward all nations be one of "peace and harmony." Peace, not war; commerce, not conquest - these were the natural ends of American policy. To be sure, Washington fully understood European realpolitik and the workings of the balance of power...
Nevertheless, the Farewell Address implicitly rejected reliance upon the European balance of power as the essential guarantor of American security. Washington had earlier written to Jefferson: "In whatever manner the Nations of Europe shall endeavor to keep up their prowess in war and their balance of power in peace, it will be our policy to cultivate tranquillity at home and abroad; and extend our agriculture and commerce as far as possible." Of course, Washington was neither a pacifist nor a utopian. In his mind, American policy should aim at strengthening the material and moral forces of union and constitutional government to the point where foreign powers had neither the opportunity nor interest to threaten American security. When this situation of strength had been achieved, America could then strive to meet its greater purpose in the world - for America at its best was not to be purely or narrowly self-interested.
Washington yielded to none of his contemporaries in enthusiasm for the American experiment in self-government, and the promise that this experiment held for the rest of mankind. As he had stated in his First Inaugural Address, "the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican mode of government, are justly considered as deeply, and perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." And in 1793, while the war in Europe raged, Washington wrote: "It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be coextensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn."
Being the Big Kid in the class carries with it freedoms, but also moral obligations.
Therein lies the problem. I do not believe US citizens ever wanted to be "the world's policeman". That is my opinion.
Unfortunately, that is the way things turned out. When the war was over, no other country was in shape to do the job. The job was to make sure "nothing like this ever happens again".
What would have happened if the Yanks had just packed up and gone home right away?
I think that generation felt the job was not finished and that the duty fell to them to see the world through to a "permanent peace".
However, no person or nation is perfect. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We weren't perfect by any means; no nation would have been. Still, the world has reached a somewhat peaceful and prosperous era. I think the US citizens would love to "turn in the badge". We have something over 250,000 of our troops deployed outside the US. Time for them to come home and for the world to find a new cop.
(Roosevelt is one of the greatest US leaders in my mind)
Well, you would get an argument from my Italian immigrant Grandfather, were he still around. I don't know how many times I was told that "Roosevelt promised that my sons would never fight on foreign soil". The death of John essentially caused the death of my Grandmother. My Grandfather, an otherwise staunch Democrat never forgave Roosevelt.
Beyond that, he did start pushing the Government into the private lives of Americans as no other President before or since. Once that camel's nose got under the tent, nothing has been the same and I, for one, am not sure it has been an entirely good thing.
I'm more in line with Thoreau's "that government governs best which governs least".
But he was a masterful politician and a great war leader.
Yeh. Saw a documentary about the USAAF on Discovery the other day. One German survivor from the bombings said that they were totally morally justifiable, up to 1945. Then the Germans had utterly lost the war
They could have ended it any time.
Seriously, this deals directly with the unfortunate situation that the citizens ARE going to be held responsible for the actions of their governments. All citizens, all governments, from time immemorial. It's only a matter of degree of distruction made possible by the weapons of that particular era.
Remember the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage? After Rounds 1 & 2, here's how the Third Punic War ended:
http://www.bartleby.com/86/32.html (http://www.bartleby.com/86/32.html)
"Meanwhile Carthage, subjugated and enfeebled, had been slowly regaining something of her former prosperity. Her recovery revived the hate and suspicion of the Romans. She was attacked upon the most shallow and artificial of quarrels (149 B.C.), she made an obstinate and bitter resistance, stood a long siege and was stormed (146 B.C.). The street fighting, or massacre, lasted six days; it was extraordinarily bloody, and when the citadel capitulated only about fifty thousand of the Carthaginian population remained alive out of a quarter of a million. They were sold into slavery, and the city was burnt and elaborately destroyed. The blackened ruins were ploughed and sown as a sort of ceremonial effacement.
80% of the population slaughtered by the Romans.
Why didn't the Germans and Japanese surrender LONG before they did? It had to have been clear to the leadership that the war was lost, didn't it?
If we knew the answer to that one, we'd really be making progress towards a permanent world peace!
the media focused very much on the Pacific Theatre, whereas in Europe it was the reverse. Plain old sphere of interest in action.
Or maybe most of the early action was in the Pacific? We were engaged in hard infantry action far earlier in the Pacific. You know the media, they go for the action story. Air war is harder to write about. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
What I suggested was that the casualty rate per hundred men in combat/duty was very low compared to other allies and enemies.
Absolutely! The US spent a lot of time, research and money on keeping casualties low. We DID fight in a much different style than the other combatants. <Except maybe Montgomery after D-Day (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)>
Our doctrines were and are much different than those of the Russians or Germans.
Our medical set up was much better as well. So there's lots of reasons our casualty rate was lower.
I don't think anyone will argue much about our combat effectiveness, though.
I still disagree with the British decision to bomb cities. My comment was meant to reflect the overall sacrifices and I think that that was sorta obvious and that you knew it .
I'm just once again pointing out the multi-faceted nature of history. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) "The Brits are my heroes...or are they?"
...the Danes had a snowballs chance in hell.
As I previously mentioned, my #1 goal in thumping on you Danes a bit was to remind you that nobody like their country's reputation abused. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Secondly, it again points out the multi-faceted nature of history. Those who think they have all the answers <pseudo-doctors of history? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)> ....DON'T.
However, you must admit, with the near inevitability of war becoming clear in '39 and '40 the Danes did nothing to prepare. They, even at that early date, had decided to try for neutrality once again. That website shows that as well.
It's always dangerous to "what if" history but "what if" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) the Danes HAD used those 2 or 3 years to fortify their frontier AND mobilize? Most likely you'd have gone the way of Finland,Poland and eventually France. I don't deny that.
You'd be able to say you stood for what was right against tyranny, however. It's all in how you value that. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
And was hugely ineffective til new technology was developed.
Of course, from their point of view, they were using the latest technology that was an absolute quantum leap from WWI capabilities.
It's a bit like how we feel about laser guided bombs dropped from Stealth fighters as compared to B-17's.
I'm sure they found ways to explain their technological failures just as we do today.
Machoism has its place; intelligent fighting has one above it. Play the odds to your favour, and do *the most damage* you can all while minimizing casualties.
Got a nice chuckle out of this. What was your point again about the "the casualty rate per hundred men in combat/duty was very low compared to other allies and enemies"?
I'm sure they didn't miss a single episode of misconduct by any member of the US armed forces. .
I don't know, but I'll bet we watched the closer than the Germans watched the "Freikorps Danmark" when those guys were waltzing through the Eastern Front asking for dates. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) There's that multi-faceted history again!
Yes! That's what this is about.
No, it's about Lieberman, remember? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
No, not all. But after the end of 1944, when the bombers ran out of targets and started firebombing places like Dresden and Hamburg, I feel it is justified to say that the target was the civilian population and the facilities that helped them in their daily life, i.e houses, shops and so forth. Non military targets.
I have been unable to find a single instance where the 8th aircrews received orders like that.
Here's what a mission order looked like:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/ce10-4.htm (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/ce10-4.htm)
HEADQUARTERS
IX BOMBER COMMAND
APO 683, %Postmaster
New York, N.Y.
28 July 1943
FIELD ORDER NO. 58
Maps: Plotting series and topographic charts of entire area -- BENGASI, CORFU, BRACOV, CONSTANTA, ISTANBUL, CYPRUS.
1. a. See Intelligence Annex.
b. Friendly ground situation: no change.
2. The Ninth U.S. Air Force will attack and destroy the 7 principal oil refineries in the PLOESTI area on 1 August 1943 employing 7 target forces in a minimum altitude attack in order to deny the enemy use of the petroleum products processed in that area.
a. ASSEMBLY: On the line Site 7 - DRIANA - TOCRA, leading element to depart TOCRA at 0530 GMT.
b. ROUTE OUT: BENGASI - TOCRA - Northern tip of CORFU - PIROT - 43º50' N 23º43' E - PITESTI - IP - TARGET
ATITUDES: BENGASI to TOCRA to 38º20' N 20º08' E begin climb so as to cross CORFU at 10,000 feet until reaching PIROT. At PIROT begin descent so as to cross DANUBE at 3,000-5,000 feet. Remain at 3,000 to 5,000 feet until reaching PITESTI. From PITESTI to IPs maintain minimum altitude above terrain. From IP to target reduce altitudes to bombing level.
c. AXIS OF ATTACK Target Forces No. 1 to 5 Incl - 127º
Target Force Blue - 132º
Target Force Red - 150º
d. MANUVER AFTER ATTACK: Target forces Nos 1 to 5 Incl continue on attack course 127º for following times after crossing E-W RR along southern border of PLOESTI. Then turn right to a heading of 233º to LAKE BALTA POTELEL approx 120 miles from PLOESTI.
No 1 - 2 min 15 sec
No 2 - 2 min 15 sec
No 3 - 2 min 15 sec
No 4 - 2 min
No 5 - 1 min 45 sec
Target Force Blue turn right as soon as possible to a heading of 233º. Target Force Red turn right as soon as possible to a heading of 220º. All forces remain at minimum altitude until after crossing RIVER DANUBE then climb to 10,000 feet.
e. ROUTE BACK From targets, all forces will proceed to LAKE BALTA POTELEL as directed in withdrawl plan. From there to BARKOVISTA to southern tip of CORFU to TOCRA to bases.
ALTITUDES: From target to LAKE BALTA POTELEL 3,000-5,000 feet. LAKE BALTA POTELEL climb to 10,000 feet holding this altitude until reaching CORFU. From CORFU to base utilize the most economical altitude.
3. a. Target Force No 1, Colonel Compton commanding, and consisting of 24 B-24s from the 376th Bomb Group will lead the formation and attack target No White 1 as indicated on Operations Map. Attack will be made in 4 waves of 6 airplanes each.
b. Target Force No 2, Colonel Baker commanding, and major Brown deputy leader, consisting of 21 B-24s of the 93rd Bomb Group, will fly No. 2 position in the route formation and attack target White No II as indicated on Operations Map employing 3 waves of six airplanes each plus one wave of three airplanes.
c. Target Force No 3, Colonel Baker commanding and Major Potts leading, consisting of 12 B-24s of the 93rd Bomb Group, will fly No 3 position in the formation and attack target White No III as indicated on Operations Map employing 4 waves of 3 airplanes each.
d. Target Force No 4, Colonel Kane commanding, consisting of 40 B-24s of the 98th Bomb Group, will fly No 4 position in the formation and attack target White No IV employing 4 waves of 10 airplanes each.
e. Target Force No 5, Colonel Johnson commanding and Major Brandon leading, consisting of 15 B-24s of the 44th Bomb Group will fly No 5 position in the formation and attack White No V as indicated on the Operations Map, employing 5 waves of 3 airplanes each.
f. Target Force No 6, Lt Colonel Posey commanding, and Captain Diehl leading, consisting of 18 B-24s of the 44th Bomb Group, will fly No 6 position in the formation and attack target Blue I as indicated on the Operations Map, employing 3 waves of 6 airplanes each.
g. Target Force Red, Colonel Woods commanding, and Captain Caldwell leading, consisting of 24 B-24s of the 389th Bomb Group, will fly the last position in the formation and attack target Red I as indicated on the Operations Map, employing 8 waves of 3 airplanes each.
x. See Bomb Loading Annex.
4. See Airdrome Annex.
5. a. COMMUNICATIONS: See Communications Annex.
b. (1) Ground: No Change.
(2) Air: Colonel Compton in lead aircraft. Deputy leader, Colonel Baker, in lead aircraft 2nd target force.
By command of Brigadier General ENT:
JOHN C. KILBORN,
Colonel, AC,
A-3.
As I said, I've never found an 8th op order that targeted civilians. I've talked to a lot of 8th aircrew, too.
This philosophy was abandoned, however, in the end of '44. USAAF participation in the strikes over Dresden and Hamburg illustrates this.
So you are now saying the 8th only "terror bombed" after the end of '44?
But, that's not the point. The point is that the USAAf abandonded the precision bombing concept in the latter stages of the war, as several incidents prove.
I think you need to document that the crews <after late '44> were sent out without a legitimate military target. You have to judge by what their objective was when they took off.
http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/soi/dresden.htm (http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/soi/dresden.htm)
Try again...make sure it doesn't have anything before the HTTP or after the .HTM
There was a little trash hanging on that..I reached it ok just now.
The *entire* city? Man, I *really* want to read the analysis now.
Wonder what they were, will know when site is up.
Well, if it was a "valid military target", why not? I don't think so.
The Nazi's recommended and conducted the extermination of Jews. Appeal to authority fallacy.
And you call this justifiable? Calling a city a communication center (which city is NOT?!?) and then killing 25 000 people, destroying the homes and injuring many mores, and this is JUSTIFIABLE?
This is done in a "staff study" style. It won't be in your typical civilian article style. Go ahead and read it and then make your points.
Attacking marshalling yards is. Attacking civilian population is *not*.
Well, the 8th's target were the rail yards....and this was after the end of '44. It was the Brits that "area bombed". (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Uhm, what position? That firebombing civilians is wrong?
No. For your position that it was NOT a military target, that civilians were the sole deliberate target, and that the crews were given orders to essentially just drop on the civilians and forget about aiming at a specific target.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Just found a photo of my father-in-law on the Web and thought I'd share it.
http://www.303rdbga.com/lc354.html (http://www.303rdbga.com/lc354.html)
He was a volunteer. Had a law degree and passed his bar exam. The Navy offered him a commission and a job on the JAG staff in DC.
He turned them down; didn't want to be an officer and wanted to fly/fight. Enlisted in the USAAF.
An interesting guy.
He's kneeling, second from the left.
-
Toad
There's no wearing you out, I see. Usually, my persistence helps me out in these matters, but not here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
No, I wasn't forced to at all. I did want to see if you'd go there, though. I read it all. I know there's always more to history than the "simple explanation".
Well, if you dinnae provide the link, I *might* just squeak about references. You're a smart person who've done this many times before, and I gather you know *exactly* when to and not to post a link (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). As far as simple explanation, I agree.
<snip>
This is perhaps a fine point on which we differ and I think it comes from our backgrounds.
I think you feel that Douhet was proved inescapably wrong early in the "strategic air campaign". You apparently think this should be obvious to everyone.
I don't think it is that clear-cut when viewed from the position of the strategists and tacticians of THAT time.
Here they have a brand new weapon, the strategic bomber. They have a new doctrine to go with it from Douhet. Douhet's theories
were supposedly very "scientific" with formulae for the proper application of force to achieve the desired results.
Unfortunately, real life always intervenes. It was very hard to adhere to those formulae under wartime conditions and given the technology available. Let's just say Douhet was an optimist.
Hm, I don't doubt Douhet's intention as you've laid them out. However, to use some theory that in practise have proven to be utterly wrong, and knowingly use such a theory, is wrong. For the following reason:
<shameless emotional argument>
(http://www.valourandhorror.com/BC/Image/Burnt_1.JPEG)
Given this situation, it would always be easy for someone on the staff to "prove" that one more change or one more mission or one
more something would make it all work out the way it was supposed to.
Under those circumstances, while I'm SURE there were folks saying "this isn't working", it doesn't suprise me at all that the Brits
continued area bombing. Any military organization has a huge amount of built in inertia to overcome when changing doctrine.
What changes were they? The basic philosophy is to quickly break the civilian morale by massive destruction. Effectiveness improvements? I.e more death in lesser time?
Slow military bureaucracy does not excuse anything seen on that picture, IMHO.
It may seem obvious to us but I bet it wasn't in the heat of battle in the '40's.
Well, they knew how succesful the Germans had been. Hell, the Brits knew exactly how their civilian population had reacted, and still they pushed on.
Further, let me point out that the US did NOT implement Douhet's theories in their strategic planning. They initially went with
Army Air Corps Tactical School doctrine, which was to hit "Key economic nodes (industrial web)". As the war progressed, Allied planning organizations like the Committee of Operations Analysts (COA) and
the Economic Objectives Unit (EOU) modified that. COA designated Munitions plants while EOU favored oil and transportation sites.
I think the post-war bombing survey found the EOU targets the most effective.
Harris and the RAF acted more in accordance with Douhet than any other Air Force.
Hm, yes, here I must make a confession. It was some time ago I read about the firebombing of Dresden, and I saw some pictures attached; long range shots of four engine bombers dropping bombs during the day, over what was quite clearly not marshalling yards or industrial complexes (yeah, I know bombs take time to fall but it was a series of photos.) Couldn't make out the marking on the bomber, so I assumed it was a USAAF one, since they bombed by day and the Brits by night. IIRC, not many combined strikes were conducted?
Also, many of my sources (just general books about WWII) only mention the terror bombings briefly (oh why would that be? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)). A website has a good example:
http://www.valourandhorror.com/BC/Raids/Ham_off.htm (http://www.valourandhorror.com/BC/Raids/Ham_off.htm)
"Hamburg air offensive. Employing WINDOW for the first time, to confuse German
Radar defences, the RAF committed over 3,000 bombers to four Area bombing night raids
(map) on this German port: 24, 27, and 29 July and 2 August 1943. Additional nuisance
raids were mounted and the US Army Air Forces also launched daylight raids on 25 and
26 July."
It doesn't say what kind of attacks the USAAF conducted, but you're suckered into guilt by association here. Mea culpa.
<snip>
That's one way to look at it. Here's another: MAD is Douhet theory carried to its ultimate, logical conclusion. Airpower nukes) have made war unthinkable. That's what Douhet really was going for in his theory.
Mm, on an abstract level I agree, but in practise the WWII bombers dinnae have the effective detterance of the nuke and had to be employed.
Whole new game after the Americans showed what *one* plane with one nuke could do to a city.
"In your post I got the distinct impression that you felt the Danes did nothing or really overall didn't mind the invasion."
Here's the cat out of the bag.
I just got a little tired of you making your "tongue in cheek" comments about the US forces and decided to see if you could take it as well as dish it out.
Remember how hard you hit the lure on the first one? That answered that question.
What was the first one again?
I have no problems criticizing my own country, as I feel patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. I just wanna do it for the right reasons. As I said, yeh the Danish government were semi traitors, betraying their people, but the people at the time really weren't that pleased with having the Jerries around. I mean, this ain't a complicated issue or particularly hard to verify. Sure as hell ain't as complicated as the US gun debate (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
So, dish out all ya can. I *expect* it. How tedious the world would be if people didn't (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
I KNOW history is multi-facted; I've said that all along. It changes depending upon the angle from which you observe it.
But if you're going to "diss" the US troopers, expect to get a little bit back!
Go ahead, punk. Make my day.
<snip for brevity>
Well, this is more what I meant:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/garrity.htm (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/garrity.htm)
"Washington's perspective on seeking "our interest, guided by our justice" led him to recommend in the Farewell Address that
America's orientation toward all nations be one of "peace and harmony." Peace, not war; commerce, not conquest - these were the
natural ends of American policy. To be sure, Washington fully understood European realpolitik and the workings of the balance of power...
Nevertheless, the Farewell Address implicitly rejected reliance upon the European balance of power as the essential guarantor of
American security. Washington had earlier written to Jefferson: "In whatever manner the Nations of Europe shall endeavor to keep up
their prowess in war and their balance of power in peace, it will be our policy to cultivate tranquillity at home and abroad; and extend our agriculture and commerce as far as possible." Of course, Washington was neither a pacifist nor a utopian. In his mind, American policy should aim at strengthening the material and moral forces of union and constitutional government to the point where foreign powers had neither the opportunity nor interest to threaten American security. When this situation of strength had been achieved, America could then strive to meet its greater purpose in the world - for America at its best was not to be purely or narrowly self-interested.
Washington yielded to none of his contemporaries in enthusiasm for the American experiment in self-government, and the promise that this experiment held for the rest of mankind. As he had stated in his First Inaugural Address, "the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican mode of government, are justly considered as deeply, and perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." And in 1793, while the war in Europe raged, Washington wrote: "It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be coextensive with the world, and stamp
political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn."
Hm, I've reread it, and it still sounds like classical isolationist US philosophy. Mind you, I am aware of the differences between the one exercised by the US and the one we've seen in China.
But, if you simplify things a bit, he's basically saying "let them do their thing, and let's not get pulled into whatever mess they create. Instead, let's focus on our own primary needs until we're big enough to call the shots (or bully people (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))".
"Being the Big Kid in the class carries with it freedoms, but also moral obligations. "
Therein lies the problem. I do not believe US citizens ever wanted to be "the world's policeman". That is my opinion.
Hm, well your political masters wanted it, and used the all frightening commies as a scare tactics, I think. Must stop the spread of communism and all that, which means bases all over the world and an alliance with the Europeans, or the commies will run right over them".
After the end of the cold war, the US have been a bit reluctant to give up its influence, although candidate Bush says he wants to drastically decrease foreign intervention (except when profitable, of course (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)). I think you're right, and that your politicians are way outta control and outta touch with the average American. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that.
Unfortunately, that is the way things turned out. When the war was over, no other country was in shape to do the job. The job was to make sure "nothing like this ever happens again".
Could be argued that it's "not my problem". Or that it happened in the first place because of the isolationist philosophy. Or that it is always the duty of the strong to protect the weak. Or a myriad of other arguments justifying other approaches.
What would have happened if the Yanks had just packed up and gone home right away?
We'll never know, but Europe was tired of war, broke and out of shape. Maybe the Soviets would have taken advantage of that, and Churchill had disliked them from the start and probably tried to influence American leaders. He was right.
I think that generation felt the job was not finished and that the duty fell to them to see the world through to a "permanent peace".
However, no person or nation is perfect. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We weren't perfect by any means; no nation
would have been. Still, the world has reached a somewhat peaceful and prosperous era. I think the US citizens would love to "turn in
the badge". We have something over 250,000 of our troops deployed outside the US. Time for them to come home and for the world to find a new cop.
Yep, let the French do it, they wouldn't mind. Or the Brits, they like influence too.
The thing is that influence requires resources and commitment, and at some point in time, the US government has decided that realpolitik ddictated that such influence was rather neat and a nice thing to have, not only or "guardians of peace", but to guide national interests. In other nations. And this is what I think most non Americans find a bit offensive; a nation interfering with the workings of another nation and possibly destroys it to protect its own national interests. Case in point; the mess in Latin America. CIA really screwed that one up.
"(Roosevelt is one of the greatest US leaders in my mind)"
Well, you would get an argument from my Italian immigrant Grandfather, were he still around. I don't know how many times I was
told that "Roosevelt promised that my sons would never fight on foreign soil". The death of John essentially caused the death of my
Grandmother. My Grandfather, an otherwise staunch Democrat never forgave Roosevelt.
Mm, OTOH, he did have the courage and guts to face the nazi scourge. If he hadn't, the US would be doing business with a rather totalitarian Europe, and that's not in US interests. I don't knwow what promises he made during his election campaign or just before the war, but as a wartime leader, he did extremely well. A delicate balancing act between the needs of the allies and the wishes of his opponents in congress.
Beyond that, he did start pushing the Government into the private lives of Americans as no other President before or since. Once that camel's nose got under the tent, nothing has been the same and I, for one, am not sure it has been an entirely good thing.
Or an entirely bad thing. Not that I am arguing for government intervention as you'll see in the thread about post communist Russia (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
I'm more in line with Thoreau's "that government governs best which governs least".
Heh, one of my favourite quotes as well (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
But he was a masterful politician and a great war leader.
Yah, I should have been more clear; this was what I was referring to.I am blissfully unaware about the way he dealt with the daily administrative things.
"Yeh. Saw a documentary about the USAAF on Discovery the other day. One German survivor from the bombings said that they were totally morally justifiable, up to 1945. Then the Germans had utterly lost the war"
They could have ended it any time.
The German population or Hitler? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Seriously, this deals directly with the unfortunate situation that the citizens ARE going to be held responsible for the actions of their governments. All citizens, all governments, from time immemorial. It's only a matter of degree of distruction made possible by the weapons of that particular era.
Mm, but there really wasn't much the opposition could do. There was some resistance pockets inside Germany, but Gestapo were very good at extracting information from people and utterly ruthless in dealing even with just people they suspected of something. I think maybe 95% of the people do *not* possess the courage to act against such odds, be they American or German. Yes, the Americans ousted the British, but that's comparing apples to oranges.
Remember the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage? After Rounds 1 & 2, here's how the Third Punic War ended:
http://www.bartleby.com/86/32.html (http://www.bartleby.com/86/32.html)
"Meanwhile Carthage, subjugated and enfeebled, had been slowly regaining something of her former prosperity. Her recovery revived the hate and suspicion of the Romans. She was attacked upon the most shallow and artificial of quarrels (149 B.C.), she made an obstinate and bitter resistance, stood a long siege and was stormed (146 B.C.). The street fighting, or massacre, lasted six days; it was extraordinarily bloody, and when the citadel capitulated only about fifty thousand of the Carthaginian population remained alive out of a quarter of a million. They were sold into slavery, and the city was burnt and elaborately destroyed. The blackened ruins were ploughed and sown as a sort of ceremonial effacement.
80% of the population slaughtered by the Romans.
Why didn't the Germans and Japanese surrender LONG before they did? It had to have been clear to the leadership that the war was
lost, didn't it?
Even the Carthage civilians were known for their resilience and never-surrender philosophy. I think it was clear to everyone the war was lost. Hitler's own generals did try to kill him after all to end the war earlier, and as a result, lots of them got executed. The terror machine of the nazi's was very effective in plucking out civilians who were intent on doing something about the situation, and they were murdered.
If we knew the answer to that one, we'd really be making progress towards a permanent world peace!
True. Personally, I think war is inevitable. Unless the big bully keeps the lesser people from fighting. Humans form groups, and when spheres of interests between two groups meet, they'll settle it one way or another. Wish it could be done through soccer matches though.
Or maybe most of the early action was in the Pacific? We were engaged in hard infantry action far earlier in the Pacific. You know the media, they go for the action story. Air war is harder to write about.
Well, it was also true after D-day. I mean, I can understand why; the pacific was the Americans reacting to a war brought to them on their own turf, with only Americans engaging the enemy. Americas private war if you will. In Europe, because of the close proximity of the war there, the pacific wasn't so important.
Bit frustrating as it *still* is that way today. History lessons in Swedish public school; great length (comparatively (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)) about
European war, and then "and then the yankees hopped a few islands, dropped two nukes and that was that". Irritating.
"What I suggested was that the casualty rate per hundred men in combat/duty was very low compared to other allies and enemies."
Absolutely! The US spent a lot of time, research and money on keeping casualties low. We DID fight in a much different style than
the other combatants. <Except maybe Montgomery after D-Day >
Well, I find it hard to believe that the Brits didn't do what they could to minimize their losses. The style of fighting probably had much to do with it; most other allies were attacked and couldn't choose the fight.
Our doctrines were and are much different than those of the Russians or Germans.
Yeah, you're allied opportunists. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Our medical set up was much better as well. So there's lots of reasons our casualty rate was lower.
Mm, but casualty rate includes wounded (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
I don't think anyone will argue much about our combat effectiveness, though.
Maybe early in the war, with the reluctance to accept convoy system outside US coastlines (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). But, I agree.
"I still disagree with the British decision to bomb cities. My comment was meant to reflect the overall sacrifices and I think that that was sorta obvious and that you knew it .
I'm just once again pointing out the multi-faceted nature of history. "The Brits are my heroes...or are they?"
I have no such heroes; the world ain't black and white. In fact, that's my main problems with many Americans; they see it as such. "Love it or leave it" is after all an American figure of speech (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
"...the Danes had a snowballs chance in hell."
As I previously mentioned, my #1 goal in thumping on you Danes a bit was to remind you that nobody like their country's reputation
abused.
Abuse it all you want, as long as the arguments aren't TOO easy to rebuke (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). This country has a great many weaknesses and lots of bad stuff in the baggage. If I know about them, I can do something about it. I try not to be offended but there's still a little patriotism left in me, which I am working hard to remove.
I'll defend ideas and people, not borders. Patriotism defends a certain set of ideas within borders and lends itself to biased black and white thinking.
Secondly, it again points out the multi-faceted nature of history. Those who think they have all the answers <pseudo-doctors of history? > ....DON'T.[/n]
Not arguing with this.
However, you must admit, with the near inevitability of war becoming clear in '39 and '40 the Danes did nothing to prepare. They, even at that early date, had decided to try for neutrality once again. That website shows that as well.
Yep. Danish government were gutless and tried to make peace with the Germans, much like Chamberlain. OTOH, the USA was also sort of neutral in the opening stages of the war, even if they lent assistance to the Brits and Russians (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
It's always dangerous to "what if" history but "what if" the Danes HAD used those 2 or 3 years to fortify their frontier AND mobilize? Most likely you'd have gone the way of Finland,Poland and eventually France. I don't deny that.
It'd be like in france, only much faster. German jaegers dropping behind our lines, destroying the defensive lines and then the tanks would roll freely. Most probably. Alongside with it, the Germans would probably have bombed some population centers to break the morale of the civilian population.
It'd buy us a week, maybe two, but Denmark was and is a country of insignificant size and military power.
You'd be able to say you stood for what was right against tyranny, however. It's all in how you value that.
I'd be able to say *"they" did it. I haven't done one such thing in my entire life, unfortunately, even though I could sign up with the army and go on UN peace missions or whatnot. Most Americans haven't either (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
"And was hugely ineffective til new technology was developed."
Of course, from their point of view, they were using the latest technology that was an absolute quantum leap from WWI capabilities.
LOL, excellent point, but comparison with contemporary arms clearly showed that biplanes weren't the way to go, and that 1925 date cannons weren't good panzer plonkers. And the uniforms! Hilarious (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). Actually looked a bit like German WWI's.
It's a bit like how we feel about laser guided bombs dropped from Stealth fighters as compared to B-17's./b]
Yeh except you *know* that there ain't no weapon in the world better at what it is designed for than the F-117. Well, possibly some other American stealth bomber. The Danish government knew that there were better weapons around, but didn't bother to invest money in defense because they were cheap and afraid of the Jerries. Got their priorities all wrong.
I'm sure they found ways to explain their technological failures just as we do today.
Hey, we have F-16's! And leupold tanks! Ok, the tanks are 1970's technology, but the 16's are being upgraded with glass cockpits and stuff.
We r00l. We dominate the skies with our 69 F-16's. Come get us, ugly Americans.
"Machoism has its place; intelligent fighting has one above it. Play the odds to your favour, and do *the most damage* you can
all while minimizing casualties."
Got a nice chuckle out of this. What was your point again about the "the casualty rate per hundred men in combat/duty was very low
compared to other allies and enemies"?
That the other allieds seem to take a lot more pounding, and was fighting similar style wars.
Heh now we are arguing each others points. if you say you agree with this style, then you agree that the Danish decision to capitulate early was a good one. If I agree with it, then I agree the Americans used the numerical superiority and carefully picked their fights and thereby elimited excessive casualties.
Of course, other allieds didn't have this numerical advantage (unless you count the late war RAF) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
"I'm sure they didn't miss a single episode of misconduct by any member of the US armed forces. ."
I don't know, but I'll bet we watched the closer than the Germans watched the "Freikorps Danmark" when those guys were waltzing through the Eastern Front asking for dates. There's that multi-faceted history again!
Yeh, but these dudes were nazi's and therefore the bad guys. Bad things from them is expected (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Yes! That's what this is about.
Agreed. So, so much for the argumet many Americanns have made about all LW pilots being nazi's set out to prolong the war (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
No, it's about Lieberman, remember?
Isn't that the dude with the bad hair cut who wants to cut down on my porn and violent movie watching? Fek him (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
"No, not all. But after the end of 1944, when the bombers ran out of targets and started firebombing places like Dresden and Hamburg, I feel it is justified to say that the target was the civilian population and the factilities that helped them in their daily
life, i.e houses, shops and so forth. Non military targets."
I have been unable to find a single instance where the 8th aircrews received orders like that.
Well, how the orders were formed is one thing, what they are is another.
For instance, hitting a "Marshalling yard" might include (according to Discovery Channel (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif), saw this yesterday I think) hitting the homes of railway workers who lived nearby.
Here's what a mission order looked like:
<snip for brevity>
As I said, I've never found an 8th op order that targeted civilians. I've talked to a lot of 8th aircrew, too.
Discovery Channel (oh, what a credible source!) disagrees.
"This philosophy was abandoned, however, in the end of '44. USAAF participation in the strikes over Dresden and Hamburg illustrates this."
So you are now saying the 8th only "terror bombed" after the end of '44?
I'm saying that precision bombing wasn't so important anymore, with all the destruction from the Brits and the general acceptance that the enemy's morale had to be broken Killing a few thousands extra ain't gonna do much of a difference when the Brits kill 40k a day.
"But, that's not the point. The point is that the USAAf abandonded the precision bombing concept in the latter stages of the
war, as several incidents prove."
I think you need to document that the crews <after late '44> were sent out without a legitimate military target. You have to judge by what their objective was when they took off.
The thing is, the definition of a "legitimate military target" was redefined as the war progressed. First ammonution factories, aircraft factories etc. Then the allies decided that anything related to the war effort, including the homes of railway workers, were legitimate military targets.
http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/soi/dresden.htm
Try again...make sure it doesn't have anything before the HTTP or after the .HTM
Cannot connect (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif). Agh, frustrating. Does it have a mirror site?
<snip> This is done in a "staff study" style. It won't be in your typical civilian article style. Go ahead and read it and then make your points.
I will *when I can* (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
"Attacking marshalling yards is. Attacking civilian population is *not*."
Well, the 8th's target were the rail yards....and this was after the end of '44. It was the Brits that "area bombed".
And maybe also some of the war effort things like home of workers at the railyard? After all, it is railyard facilities. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
"Uhm, what position? That firebombing civilians is wrong?"
No. For your position that it was NOT a military target, that civilians were the sole deliberate target, and that the crews were given orders to essentially just drop on the civilians and forget about aiming at a specific target.
The Brits got orders to kill civilians. Some missions th Americans fly apparently included dropping on homes of workers involved in the war effort.
Heh, this is fun. Am learning here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Sorry for this...but here's the report. I'll try to help the format a bit.
You might try cutting the link off before "soi" and going to the main page and then on to the rest. It's pretty self-explanatory.
I'm a bit short of time but will get back to your reply in a bit. Glad you like the Socratic method!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE 14-15 FEBRUARY 1945
BOMBINGS OF DRESDEN
Prepared by:
USAF Historical Division
Research Studies Institute
Air University
I. INTRODUCTION:
1. The reasons for and the nature and consequences of the bombing of Dresden, Germany, by Allied air forces on 14-15 February 1945 have repeatedly been the subject of official and semi-official inquiries and of rumor and exaggeration by uninformed or inadequately informed persons. Moreover, the Communists have with increasing frequency and by means of distortion and falsification used the February 1945 Allied bombings of Dresden as a basis for disseminating anti-Western and anti-American propaganda. From time to time there appears in letters of inquiry to the United States Air Force evidence that American nationals are themselves being taken in by the Communist propaganda line concerning the February 1945 bombings of Dresden.
2. The purpose of this historical analysis, based in its entirety on existing official documents and on standard reference sources, is to provide a more detailed and definitive account of the reasons for and the nature and consequences of the February 1945 Dresden bombings than has heretofore been available. The narrative portion of this historical analysis sets forth a framework for arriving at definitive answers to such recurring questions concerning the February 1945 bombings of Dresden as the following:
a. Was Dresden a legitimate military target?
b. What strategic objectives, of mutual importance to the Allies and to the Russians, underlay the bombings of Dresden?
c. Did the Russians request that Dresden be bombed by allied air forces?
d. On whose recommendation, whether by an individual or by a committee, and by what authority were Allied air forces ordered to bomb Dresden?
e. Were the Russians officially informed by the Allies concerning the intended date of and the forces to be committed to the bombing of Dresden?
f. With what forces and with what means did the Allied forces bomb Dresden?
g. What were the specific target objectives in th
e Dresden bombings?
h. What were the immediate and actual consequences of the Dresden bombings on the physical structure and the populace of the city?
i. Were the Dresden bombings in any way a deviation from established bombing policies set forth in official bombing directives?
j. Were the specific forces and means employed in the Dresden bombings similar to or different from the forces and means employed by the Allies in other aerial attacks on comparable targets in Germany?
k. In what specific ways and to what degree did the bombings of Dresden achieve or support the strategic objectives that underlay the attack and were of mutual importance to the Allies and the Russians?
3. Each statement of fact in the narrative portion of this analysis is, as indicated in the reference notes, a citation from a standard reference work or is authenticated or amplified in the supporting documents that are attached herewith. These latter comprise an official and definitive case history of the bombings of Dresden.
4. In as much as it is exclusively the 14-15 February 1945 bombings of Dresden that have repeatedly been the subject of inquiry and controversy and the basis of Communist propaganda, the subsequent historical analysis and the attached supporting documents are primarily concerned with and relevant to the February bombings only. Nevertheless, as a matter of record, the following is an authoritative tabulation of all Allied bombings of Dresden: 1
Date
Target Area
Force
Acft
High Explosive bombs on target (tons)
Incediary bombs on target (tons)
Total
7/10/44
Marshalling Yards
8th AF
30
72.5
72.5
16/1/45
Marshalling Yards
8th AF
133
279.8
41.6
321.4
14/2/45
City Area
RAF BC
772
1477.7
1181.6
2659.3
14/2/45
Marshalling Yards
8th AF
316
487.7
294.3
782.0
15/2/45
Marshalling Yards
8th AF
211
465.6
465.6
2/3/45
Marshalling Yards
8th AF
406
940.3
140.5
1080.8
17/4/45
Marshalling Yards
8th AF
572
1526.4
164.5
1690.9
17/4/45
Industrial Area
8th AF
8
28.0
28.0
II. ANALYSIS: Dresden as a Military Target
5. At the outbreak of World War II, Dresden was the seventh largest city in Germany proper.2 With a population of 642,143 in 1939, Dresden was exceeded in size only by Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Leipzig, and Essen, in that order.3 The serial bombardments sustained during World War II by the seven largest cities of Germany are shown in Chart A.
6. Situated 71 miles E.S.E. from Leipzig and 111 miles S. of Berlin, by rail, Dresden was one of the greatest commercial and transportation centers of Germany and the historic capital of the important and populous state of Saxony.4 It was, however, because of its geographical location and topography and as a primary communications center that Dresden assumed major significance as a military target in February 1945, as the Allied ground forces moved eastward and the Russian armies moved westward in the great combined operations designed to entrap and crush the Germans into final defeat.
7. Geographically and topographically, Dresden commanded two great and historic traffic routes of primary military significance: north-south between Germany and Czechoslovakia through the valley and gorge of the Elbe river, and east-west along the foot of the central European uplands.5 The geographical and topographical importance of Dresden as the lower bastion in the vast Allied-Russian war of movement against the Germans in the closing months of the war in Europe.
8. As a primary communications center, Dresden was the junction of three great trunk routes in the German railway system: (1) Berlin-Prague-Vienna, (2) Munich-Breslau, and (3) Hamburg-Leipzig. As a key center in the dense Berlin-Leipzig railway complex, Dresden was connected to both cities by two main lines.6 The density, volume, and importance of the Dresden-Saxony railway system within the German geography and e economy is seen in the facts that in 1939 Saxony was seventh in area among the major German states, ranked seventh in its railway mileage, but ranked third in the total tonnage carried by rail.7
9. In addition to its geographical position and topography and its primary importance as a communications center, Dresden was, in February 1945, known to contain at least 110 factories and industrial enterprises that were legitimate military targets, and were reported to have employed 50,000 workers in arms plants alone.8 Among these were dispersed aircraft components factories; a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabric Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); the great Zeiss Ikon A.G., Germany’s most important optical goods manufactory; and, among others, factories engaged in the production of electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch and Sterzel A.G.), gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke), and electric gauges (Gebruder Bassler).9
10. Specific military installations in Dresden in February 1945 included barracks and hutted camps and at least one munitions storage depot.10
11. Dresden was protected by antiaircraft defenses , antiaircraft guns and searchlights, in anticipation of Allied air raids against the city.11 The Dresden air defenses were under the Combined Dresden (Corps Area IV) and Berlin (Corps Area III) Luftwaffe Administration Commands.12
Strategic Objectives, of Mutual Importance to the Allies and the Russians:
12. As early as 1943, the Allies and Russians had begun high-level consultations for the conduct of the war against Germany; in essence, for combined operations designed to defeat Germany by Allied bombardment from the air, by Allied ground operations against Germany from the west, and by Russian operations against the Germans from the west, and by Russian operations against the Germans from the East. At the Tehran Conference (28 November-11 December 1943) between Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, the grand strategy for these combined operations was outlined and agreed upon by the three powers.13 Details for executing the grand strategy were not considered at the conference, but were to be worked out by the individual forces in keeping with the fortunes and progress of the war.14
13. In the closing months of 1944, Allied land advances in the west and Russian advances from the east, coupled with the ever-growing devastation from aerial attacks by the Allied heavy bomber forces, made it apparent that early in 1945 Germany proper could be invaded from both fronts and that the Allied strategic air forces would be more and more called upon to give direct support to these vast land operations. In September and October 1944 the Allies and the Russians began the exchange of information on their specific plans for operations designed to bring the war to a close in 1945.15 Simultaneously, the Allies and the Russians laid the general groundwork for closer cooperation and assistance in their forthcoming operations.16
14. On 14 December 1944, the American Ambassador to Russia, Mr. Averill Harriman, personally stated to Marshal Stalin that General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander, Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF), “was very anxious to operate in concert with the Russians and to help the Russian armies whenever such support might be needed.”17 Ambassador Harriman specifically discussed with Stalin the use of Allied air forces in the Mediterranean in support of Russian land operations in the Balkans.18 While there was no direct mention, in the 14 December conversations between Stalin and Harriman, of the employment of the massive Allied strategic air forces operating from the west, it was to be assumed that these forces would be used to support Russians operations on the Eastern front.
15. On 23 December 1944, President Roosevelt informed Stalin that--given the Marshal’s permission General Eisenhower would be instructed to send a representative to Moscow to “discuss with you the situation in the west and its relation to the Russian front in order that information essential to our efforts may be available to all of us.”19 On 26 December Stalin stated his acceptance of President Roosevelt’s proposal.20 The officer designated to confer with Stalin was Marshal of the RAF, Sir Arthur Tedder, Deputy Supreme Commander, SHAEF, and immediately responsible to the Supreme Commander for all Allied air operations. Among the topics discussed by Stalin and Tedder at their meeting on 15 January 1945 was the employment of the Allied strategic air forces in the forthcoming combined operations. Tedder outlined to Stalin the “application of the Allied air effort with particular reference to strategic bombing of communications as represented by oil targets, railroads and waterways.”21 There was also specific discussion of the problem that would face the Russians if the Germans attempted to shift forces from the west to the east and of the necessity of preventing this possibility.22
16. Therefore, on 25 January 1945, the Joint Intelligence Sub-Committee of the British War Cabinet, which was responsible for preparing such analyses for the Allied air forces, presented to Marshal Tedder, through appropriate channels, a working paper entitled “Strategic Bombing in Relation to the Present Russian Offensive.23 The findings of this authoritative body were as follows:
The degree of success achieved by the present Russian offensive is likely to have a decisive effect on the length of the war. We consider, therefore, that the assistance which might be given to the Russians during the next few weeks by the British and American strategic bomber forces justifies an urgent review of their employment to this end.24
It is probable that the Germans will be compelled to withdraw forces, particularly panzer divisions, from the Western Front to reinforce the East . . . . To what extent air bombardment can delay the move eastwards of these or other divisions destined for the Eastern Front is . . . an operational matter. It is understood that far-reaching results have already been achieved in the West by disruptive effect of Allied air attacks on marshalling yards and communications generally. These have hitherto been aimed at assistance to the Western Front and should now be considered in relation to delaying the transfer of forces eastwards.25
For the next several days these recommendations were carefully studied and evaluated by the appropriate authorities in the Supreme Commander’s staff, particularly among those immediately responsible to him for planning and authorizing air operations. On 31 January, the decision was made by the Deputy Supreme Commander Tedder and his air staff that the second priority for the Allied strategic air forces should be the “attack of BERLIN, LEIPZIG, DRESDEN and associated cities where heavy attack will . . . hamper movement of reinforcements from other fronts.”26 As of 31 January 1945, the Allied decision to establish Dresden as a second priority target, because it was a primary communications center and in support of the Russian armies, was by no means unilateral. The decision was founded on basic and explicit exchanges of information between the Allies and Russia and was clearly a strategic decision of mutual importance to the Allies and the Russians.27
The Russian Request for Allied Bombing of Communications in the Dresden Area:
17. The Allied-Russian interchanges that had begun in the closing months of 1944 and had become, with the passing of time, more frequent and more specific, culminated in the ARGONAUT Conferences of January-February 1945. On 4 February, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, and Marshal Stalin, together with their foreign secretaries and military advisors, assembled at Yalta to present definitive and specific plans, and requests, for bringing the war against Germany to a victorious conclusion, by the summer of 1945, if possible (Other considerations involved in the ARGONAUT deliberations are not pertinent or relevant here). At this meeting, Marshal Stalin asked Army General Antonov, Deputy Chief of the Russian General Staff, to outline to the Conference the situation existing on the Eastern Front and to describe Russia’s plans for subsequent operations. At the conclusion of his extended presentation, General Antonov made three specific requests for Allied assistance to the Russians: 27
Our wishes are:
a. To speed up the advance of the Allied troops on the Western Front, for which the present situation is very favorable: (1) To defeat the Germans on the Eastern Front. (2) To defeat the German groupings which have advanced into the Ardennes. (3) The weakening of the German forces in the West in connection with the shifting of their reserves to the East (It is desirable to begin the advance during the first half of February).
b. By air action on communications hinder the enemy from carrying out the shifting of his troops to the East from the Western Front, from Norway, and from Italy (In particular, to paralyze the junctions of Berlin and Leipzig).
c. Not permit the enemy to remove his forces from Italy.
18. It was the specific Russian request for bombing communications, coupled with the emphasis on forcing troops to shift from west to east through communications centers, that led to the Allied bombings of Dresden. The structure of the Berlin-Leipzig-Dresden railway complex, as outlined in paragraph 8 above, required that Dresden, as well as Berlin and Leipzig, be bombed. Therefore Allied air authorities concluded that the bombing of Dresden would have to be undertaken (1) in order to implement strategic objectives, of mutual importance to the Allies and the Russians, and now agreed upon at the highest levels of governmental authority, and (2) to respond to the specific Russian request presented to the Allies by General Antonov to “paralyze the junctions of Berlin and Leipzig.”
The Recommendation and Authority for the Allied Air Forces’ Bombing of Dresden:
19. On 8 February 1945 SHAEF (Air) informed the RAF Bomber Command and the United States Strategic Air Forces that Dresden was among a number of targets that had been selected for bombing because of their importance in relation to the movements of military forces to the Eastern Front.28 This action, based upon the authoritative recommendation of the Combined Strategic Targets Committee, SHAEF (Air), and in turn based upon the recommendations of the Joint Intelligence Committee (see paragraph 16 above), was in keeping with the procedural structure and authority set up in SHAEF for the conduct of aerial operations by Allied forces.29
20. Allied aerial operations were ultimately the responsibility of the Supreme Commander, General Eisenhower, though normally he delegated the immediate authority for employment of Allied air forces to his Deputy Supreme Commander, Marshal Tedder. The latter, in turn, relied upon the commanders of the RAF Bomber Command and the United States Strategic Air Forces (General Carl Spaatz, Commanding) for the actual conduct of specific strategic aerial operations. The top commanders of the Allied strategic bomber forces were required to conduct all of their operations within the framework of bombing directives laid down to them by the Combined Chiefs of Staff (the British Chiefs of Staff and the American Joint Chiefs of Staff). In February 1945, when SHAEF (Air) directed the bombing of Dresden in immediate support of the Russians and in keeping with strategic objectives of mutual interest to the Allies and the Russians, the strategic objectives of mutual interest o the Allies and the Russians, the strategic bomber forces were operating under the authority of the Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS) “Directive No. 3 for the Strategic Air Forces in Europe,” dated 12 January 1945.30 The second priority, after bombing of the German petroleum industry for the Allied strategic air forces was, in that directive, listed as the bombing of “German lines of communications.”31 The authority for and the ordering of the bombing of Dresden by Allied strategic air forces and the steps taken to carry out these orders were therefore within the framework of the existing basic CCS Directive No. 3 governing the operations of the Allied strategic air forces in Europe.
Information Officially Given to the Russians by the Allies Concerning the Intended Date of and the Forces to be Committed to the Bombing of Dresden:
21. Although the exact procedures for maintaining day to day liaison between the Russians and the Allies on Allied bombing operations was for a long time the subject of negotiation between the Allies and the Russians, certain procedures for such liaison were nevertheless in effect prior to the Allied bombings of Dresden.32 Therefore, the following actions were taken by Allied authorities to notify the Russians that in accordance with their expressed wishes as to actions and timing, stated at the ARGONAUT Conference on 4 February 1945, Allied strategic air forces would bomb Dresden during the first half of February.33
22. On 7 February 1945, General Spaatz, Commanding General, United States Strategic Air Forces, informed Major General J. R. Deane, Chief of the United States Military Mission, Moscow, that the communications targets for strategic bombing by the Eighth Air Force were, in the order of their priority, Berlin, Leipzig, Dresden, Cheanitz (and others of lesser importance).34 On the same date, General Spaatz also notified General Deane that a 24-hour advance notice of the intention to conduct actual bombing operations against Dresden (and the other targets of mutual concern to the Russians and the Allies) would be forwarded in order that General Deane might so notify the Russians.35 Moscow notified the proper Russian authority that Dresden was among the targets selected for strategic bombing by the American Eighth Air Force.36 On February, General Spaatz informed the United States Military Mission that, weather permitting, the Eighth Air Force intended to attack the Dresden Marshalling Yards with a force of 1200 to 1400 bomber planes on 13 February.37 On 12 February, therefore, the Russians were informed of the Americans’ intention to bomb Dresden.38 Weather conditions did not permit the Eighth Air Force to carry out its attack against Dresden on 13 February.39 Accordingly, on 13 February by similar procedures the Americans informed the Russians, that the Eighth Air Force would attack the Dresden Marshalling Yards on the 14th.40 Subsequently, the Russians were informed by the Americans that Dresden, together with the other high priority communications centers targets, would be subject to attack whenever weather conditions permitted.41
The Forces and Means Employed by the Allies in the Bombing of Dresden:
23. In the Dresden bombing attacks of 14-15 February 1945 the American Eighth Air Force and the RAF Bomber Command together employed a total of 1299 bomber aircraft (527 from the Eighth Air Force, 722 from the RAF Bomber Command) for a total weight, on targets, of 3906.9 tons. Of this tonnage, 1247.6 tons were expanded by the Eighth Air Force, 2659.3 tons by the RAF Bomber Command. The Americans employed 953.3 tons of high explosive bombs and 294.3 tons of incendiary bombs--all aimed at the Dresden Marshalling Yards. The British employed 1477.7 tons of high explosive bombs and 1181.6 tons of incendiary bombs--all aimed against the Dresden city area.42 The American aircraft used H2X (radar) bombing method, with visual assists, and the British used the marker and visual method.43
Specific Target Objectives in the Dresden Area:
24. As related in paragraphs 5-11 above, Dresden became a military target as (1), and of overriding importance, a primary communications center in the Berlin-Leipzig-Dresden railway complex; (2) as an important industrial and manufacturing center directly associated with the production of aircraft components and other military items, including poison gas, anti-aircraft and field guns, and small guns; and (3) as an area containing specific military installations. The night raid by the RAF Bomber Command was intended to devastate the city area itself and thereby choke communications within the city and disrupt the normal civilian life upon which the larger communications activities and the manufacturing enterprises of the city depended. Further, the widespread area raid conducted by the British entailed bombing strikes against the many industrial plants throughout the city which were thus to be construed as specific targets within the larger pattern of the area raid.44 The Eighth Air Force raids, which were by daylight and followed, on the 14th and 15th February, the night raid of the British (13/14 February), were directed against rail activities in the city.45
The Immediate Consequences of the Dresden Bombings on the Physical Structure and Populace of the City:
25. The RAF Bomber Command’s are raid on Dresden, conducted on the night of 13/14 February 1945, resulted in fires that did great damage to the city proper, particularly in the older and more densely built up areas.46 Early official Allied post-strike reports estimated that 85 per cent of the fully built-up city area was destroyed, that the old part of the city, which comprised the greater portion of the built-up areas was largely wiped out, that the majority of buildings in the inner suburbs was gutted, and that in the outer suburbs, few buildings were effected by the area bombing attack. Virtually all major public buildings appeared heavily gutted or severely damaged. Public utilities, and facilities such as slaughter houses, warehouses, and distribution centers, were severely affected.47 A very large number of the city’s industrial facilities were destroyed or severely damaged,48 with perhaps a four-fifth’s reduction in the productive capacity of the arms plants.49 Later British assessments, which were more conservative, concluded that 23 per cent of the city’s industrial buildings were seriously damaged and that 56 per cent of the non-industrial buildings (exclusive of dwellings) had been heavily damaged. Of the total number of dwelling units in the city proper, 78,000 were regarded as demolished, 27,70 temporarily uninhabitable but ultimately repairable, and 64,500 readily repairable from minor damage. This later assessment indicated that 80 per cent of the city’s housing units had undergone some degree of damage and that 50 per cent of the dwellings had been demolished or seriously damaged.50
26. The Eighth Air Force raids against the city’s railway facilities on 14 and 15 February resulted in severe and extensive damage that entirely paralyzed communications. The city’s passenger terminals and major freight stations, warehouses, and storage sheds were, when not totally destroyed, so severely damaged that they were unusable. Roundhouses, railway repair and work shops, coal stations, and other operating facilities, were destroyed, gutted, or severely damaged. The railway bridges over the Elbe river--vital to incoming and outgoing traffic--were rendered unusable and remained closed to traffic for many weeks after the raids.51
27. Casualties among the Dresden populace were inevitably very heavy in consequence of the fires that swept over the city following the RAF area raid on the night of 13/14 February. In addition to its normal population, the city had experienced a heavy influx of refugees from the east and of evacuees from bombings in other areas, particularly from Berlin.52 The exact number of casualties from the Dresden bombings can never be firmly established.53 Contemporary British estimates were that from 8,200 to 16,400 persons were killed and that similar numbers of persons may have been seriously injured.54 Most of the latest German post-war estimates are that about 25,000 persons were killed and about 30,000 were wounded, virtually all of these being casualties from the RAF incendiary attack of 13/14 February.55 Although the latest available post-war accounts play up the “terroristic” aspects of the Dresden bombings, it is significant that they accept much lower casualty figures than those circulated by the Germans immediately after the raids and, from time to time, in the years immediately following the war.56 The most distorted account of the Dresden bombings--one that may have become the basis of Communist propaganda against the Allies, particularly against the Americans, in recent years--was prepared by two former German general officers for the Historical Division, European Command (U.S.A.) in 1948.57 In this account, the number of dead from the Dresden bombings was declared to be 250,000. That this figure may be the probable number of dead, multiplied by ten for the sake of exaggeration, becomes apparent by comparing the weight of the Dresden bombings of 14-15 February 1945 with the total tonnages expanded by the Allies against the six other largest German cities (see Chart A) and by comparing the various estimates of the Dresden casualties with the best estimate of the total casualties suffered by the Germans from all Allied bombings during World War II.
28. Shown in the following chart are the total tonnages of bombs that were expanded by the Allies against the six cities in Germany that were larger in population than Dresden:
City Population in 1939
Total Bomb Tonnages
Berlin
4,339,000
67,607.6
Hamberg
1,129,000
38,687.6
Munich
841,000
27,110.9
Cologne
772,000
44,923.2
Leipzig
707,000
11,616.4
Essen
667,000
37,938.0
Dresden
642,000
7,100.5
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey estimated that 305,000 persons were killed and 780,000 were wounded as the consequence of all Allied bombings against Germany in World War II,58 from a total Allied bomb expenditure of 3,697,473.59 It may therefore be presumed that the estimates of 25,000 dead and 30,000 wounded, as presented in most of the latest available German estimates of the Dresden bombings, are reasonable and acceptable.
29. Despite the lack of accurate statistics on the number of killed and wounded in the Dresden raid, as well as in other Allied bombings of German cities, it would appear from such estimates as are available that the casualties suffered in the Dresden bombings were not disproportionate to those suffered in area attacks on other German cities. The reports of the United States Bombing Survey give specific estimates of the dead for only four of the German cities which were subject to fire raids during area attacks.60 Assuming that there may probably have been about 1,000,000 people in Dresden on the night the 13/14 February RAF attack,61 these are the comparative death rates in Dresden and the four cities for which the United States Strategic Bombing Survey has given estimates of moralities from incendiary area attacks:62
City
Population
Killed
Percentage rate
Darmstadt
109,000
8,100
.075
Kassel
220,000
8,659
.039
Dresden
1,000,000
25,000
.025
Hamberg
1,738,000
41,800
.024
Wuppertal
400,000
5,219
.013
The Dresden Bombings Within the Framework of Established Policies Set Forth in Official Bombing Directives:
30. The original Combined Chiefs of Staff Directive governing employment of the British and American strategic air forces established the authoritative principle that the primary effort of the RAF Bomber Command should be the mass destruction of important German industrial areas and population centers by night area bombing and that the primary effort of the American Eighth Air Force should be daylight precision bombing of key installations within the larger industrial and population centers attacked by the RAF Bomber Command.63 (Area raids are defined and described in Section J, below). This joint and complementary effort of the British and American strategic air forces was authorized by the Combined Chiefs of Staff in order to accomplish “the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened.”64 Approved in principle by the Combined Chiefs of Staff on 21 January 1943,65 and specifically inaugurated on 10 June 1943,66 the combined British and American strategic bomber offensive against Germany continued with ever-mounting power until 16 April 1945, when all strategic/air operations against Germany ceased.67 As the war progressed, there were certain alterations in the operational control of the Allied strategic air forces and in the order of priorities assigned to target systems and objectives. (See paragraphs 19-20 above.) By and large, however, there was no alteration in the fundamental principle that American strategic air forces in Europe would engage only in daylight precision raids against specific installations and that night area raids would be conducted by the British. Aside from technological differences in aircraft and equipment that justified the differences in American and British bombing methods, American authorities were, throughout the war in Europe, opposed to the use of American forces in area or “morals” bombings.68
31. Falling within the established pattern of combined British and American strategic air operations against Germany, the 14-15 February bombings of Dresden , particularly the RAF night area raid, were a shattering and devastating blow to the physical structure, the economy, and the life of the city. The achievement of such a blow was necessarily the purpose of the Allied bombings, in consequence of the fact that Dresden, like other great German cities, was a legitimate military target, and vulnerable to Allied air power. It is, however, understandable that the surviving Dresden populace should have regarded the bombings as even more devastating and death-dealing than they actually were,69 and that the bombings were seized upon by the German authorities as a means of conducting psychological warfare against the Allies in the closing months of the war. The distorted and highly exaggerated accounts of the admittedly grim casualties suffered in Dresden issued by German propaganda agencies immediately following the bombings,70 coupled with an inadvertent and misinformed Allied news release concerning the Dresden and other simultaneous bombings, let to an investigation by Headquarters, Army Air Forces, of the purpose and character of the current American strategic bombing operations in Europe.
32. At a meeting with Allied press correspondents on 16 February 1945 a member of the SHAEF public relations staff released inaccurate and misleading statements concerning the current Allied bombing operations against German cities, primarily against communications centers, among which Dresden was obviously included.71 American press accounts of the remarks made to newsmen at SHAEF implied that the American and British bombing forces had begun a deliberate campaign of indiscriminate terror bombing” against German cities, thereby deviating from long-established policies concerning the employment of Allied strategic air power.72 Confirmed with the sensational American news stories and the German propaganda “plants” in the foreign press, Headquarters, Army Air Forces, in Washington, at once demanded from American air authorities in Europe a full explanation of the basis of the lurid press accounts and insisted that American bombing forces must not deviate from official bombing policy, either as to objectives and priorities or as to bombing methods.73
33. Headquarters, United States Strategic Air Forces in Europe, strongly emphasized the following six points in the replies that were immediately dispatched to Washington: (1) it had always been the policy of the American forces that civilian targets were not suitable military objectives; (2) there had been no change in the American policy of precision bombing of military objectives; (3) attacks against German communications were listed as the second priority objective in the Combined Chiefs of Staff “Directive No. 3 for the Strategic Air Forces in Europe (see paragraph 20 above): (4) the power of the Russian advance was regarded ads the greatest strategic factor in the war at that time and should be, as the situation dictated, supported; (5) Dresden, and other key communications centers, had been attacked as targets important to the Eastern Front; (6) the attacks on Dresden and other communications centers were appreciated by the Russians.74 This information satisfied Headquarters, AAF that all open questions concerning the current operations of the American strategic air forces in Europe had been satisfactorily resolved and that the American forces in Europe had been satisfactorily resolved and that the American forces were operating in strict conformity with established bombing policies.75
34. A few weeks later, the issue of the Dresden bombings was reviewed by the Secretary of War. On 6 March 1945, the Secretary was informed by General George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff, that Dresden had been bombed on 14-15 February because it was a communications center of great importance, through which reinforcements passed to reach the Russian front, and because the city was closely related to German potentialities for launching a counterattack against the southern wing of the Russian offensive, and that standard bombing methods had been used in the Allied air attacks against Dresden.76 With General Marshall’s statement to the Secretary of War, the issue of the Dresden bombings within the framework of established bombing policies was considered closed.77
The Specific Forces and Means Employed in the Dresden Bombings in Relation to the Forces and Means Employed by the Allies in Other Aerial Attacks on Comparable Targets in Germany:
35. The Allied bombings of Dresden on 14-15 February 1945 were an example of the standard pattern of RAF night area bombing, followed by Eighth Air Force daylight precision attacks against specific installations in the general area--in this instance, attacks against the Dresden Marshalling Yards. A comparative analysis of the forces and means employed by the respective strategic air forces requires, first, a definition and description of area bombing operations.
36. As defined by the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, area attacks were raids “intentionally directed against a city area by more than 100 bombers with a bomb weight in excess of 100 tons, which destroyed more than 2 per cent of the residential buildings in the city attacked.”78 Area raids had four principal characteristics: they were generally made at night; they were made against large cities; they were designed to spread destruction over a wide area rather than to knock out any specific factory or installations; and they were intended primarily to destroy morals, particularly the morals of industrial workers.79 During World War II, Allied air forces--primarily the RAF--dropped more than half a million tons of bombs in area raids on 61 German cities with populations of more than 100,000.80 The Strategic Bombing Survey estimated that the area raids against these 62 German cities totally destroyed or severely damaged 3,600,000 residential units (some 20 per cent of all the dwelling units in Germany) and that the raids killed about 300,000 people, injured some 760,000 and rendered 7,500,000 persons homeless.81 Against at least 40 of the largest cities in Germany, the RAF conducted fire raids as a specific means of area bombing, and it conducted raids on at least eight other cities that were not among the 62 with populations of more than 100,000.82 Moreover, against certain of the largest cities in Germany the RAF conducted more than one fire raid; for example, at least six against Berlin, at least five each against Hamburg, Munich, and Essen, and at least two against Cologne.83
37. The forces and means employed by the RAF in the area bombing of Dresden were significantly, but not unduly large: 722 heavy bombers dropped 1477.7 tons of high explosives and 1181.6 tons of incendiaries, a total weight of 2659.3 tons.84 In its sustained area raids on Hamburg in 1943, the RAF had used comparable numbers of aircraft in single raids; for example, 740 heavy bombers on 24/25 July, 739 on 28/29 July, and 726 on 29/30 July.85 In other area raids, the British had dispatched such tonnages as 11,773 tons of high explosive and 4,106 tons of incendiaries against Cologne on 9 October 1944, 4,368 tons of high explosives and 3,846 tons of incendiaries against Hamburg on 7 August 1943, and 3,476 tons of high explosives and 3,814 tons of incendiaries against Frankfurt-am-Main on 24 March 1944.86
38. In its 14 February daylight precision attacks on the Dresden Marshalling Yards, the Eighth Air Force employed 316 heavy bombers on the 14th for a tonnage of 487.7 tons of high explosives and 294.3 tons of incendiaries, a combined tonnage of 782 tons, and in its attacks on 15 February it employed 211 heavy bombers and 465.6 tons of high explosives (no incendiaries)--a total of 527 bombers and 1247.6 tons in the two days operations.87 In an attack on railway stations in Berlin on 26 February 1945 the Eighth Air Force employed 1089 heavy bombers for a total tonnage of 2778 tons, and in an attack on the Nurnberg Marshalling Yards on 21 February 1945 the Eighth employed 1198 heavy bombers for a total tonnage of 2868.8 tons.88 Analysis of the Eighth Air Force’s operational missions indicates, in fact, that the goals of the attacks on the Dresden Marshalling Yards was relatively small as compared with many sources of precision attacks in which it employed larger forces and means.89
The Specific Ways and the Degrees to Which the Dresden Bombings Achieved or Supported the Strategic Objectives that Underlay the Attack and wars of Mutual Importance to the Allies and the Russians:
39. The Allied bombings of Dresden on 14-15 February 1945 were one of many major air actions undertaken to bring about the defeat of Germany by a combination of Allied air operations, of Allied ground operations against Germany from the west, and Russian operations against Germany from the east. No single action, whether by land, sea, or air, could of itself bring about the defeat of Germany. Each specific action, through whatever medium or by whatever force, was--if successful--an action that contributed to ultimate victory. The Allied bombings of Dresden were by no means either the largest or the most important air actions that were specific contributions to the defeat of Germany. Nevertheless, the bombing of Dresden was by its design and the degree of success achieved a highly significant air action.
40. The major significance of the Dresden bombings lay in the fact that they were among several immediate and highly successful air actions made in response to the specific Russian request, given by General Antonov at the ARGONAUT Conference, less than two weeks earlier, for Allied air support of the Russian offensive on the Eastern Front. Had the German communications centers leading to that front--among which Dresden was uniquely important--act been successfully attacked by Allied strategic air forces, there can be little doubt that the course of the European war might have been considerably prolonged.90 At the time of the Dresden bombings, Marshal Koniev’s armies were less than seventy miles east of Dresden and by virtue of their extended positions highly vulnerable to German counterattack, provided the Germans could pass reinforcements through Dresden.91 With communications through Dresden made impossible as a consequence of the Allied bombings, the Russian salient in that area was rendered safe throughout the ensuing months of the war.92
41. Of secondary significance, but by no means negligible, was the destruction or disruption of Dresden’s manufacturing activities, particularly of military goods, and the further reduction of Germany’s critically short railway rolling stock and operating facilities. Again, the death and destruction inflicted on the largest German city that had not before undergone large--scale bombing was almost certainly a major contribution to the final weakening of the will of the German people to resist. While the Americans, happily, cannot and would not claim credit for this aspect of the Dresden bombings, the fact remains that the RAF area raid on the city was the last of the instances during World War II in Europe when the shock effects of area bombing resulted in nearly total demoralization of a great enemy city.93
42. The ultimate significance of the Dresden bombings in terms of the strategic objectives that underlay the attack and were of mutual importance to the Allies and the Russians is evident in statements bearing on the last phase of operations that were designed to bring about the final defeat of Germany. On 28 March 1945, in a personal message to Marshal Stalin, General Eisenhower, outlined his plans for total defeat of the German ground forces in the west and stated that his final task would be to divide the enemy’s forces “by joining hands with your forces.”94 The best axis on which to effect the junction of forces, General Eisenhower stated, would be a line through Erfurt-Leipzig-Dresden.95 On 1 April Marshal Stalin replied to General Eisenhower: “Your plan of dividing the German forces by means of the union of Soviet armies with your armies completely falls in with the plan of the Soviet High Command. I also agree that the place of the junction of your and the Soviet Armies should be in the area of Erfurt-Leipzig-Dresden.”96 Less than four weeks later, on 27 April, American and Russian forces joined at Torgau, on the Elbe river near Leipzig, and Hitler’s Germany had been cut in two.97 Eleven days later, on V-E Day (8 May 1945), in the final military action in the war against Germany, Marshal Koniev’s armies entered and captured Dresden. The war in Europe was over.98
III. CONCLUSION
The foregoing historical analysis establishes the following definitive answers to the recurring questions concerning the February 1945 bombings of Dresden by Allied strategic air forces: a. Dresden was a legitimate military target. b. Strategic objectives, of mutual importance to the Allies and the Russians, underlay the bombings of Dresden. c. The Russians requested that the Dresden area be bombed by Allied air forces. d. The Supreme Allied Commander, his Deputy Supreme Commander, and the key British and American operational air authorities recommended and ordered the bombing of Dresden. e. The Russians were officially informed by the Allies concerning the intended date of and the forces to be committed to the bombing of Dresden. f. The RAF Bomber Command employed 772 heavy bombers, 1477.7 tons of high explosive and 1181.6 tons of incendiary bombs, and American Eighth Air Force employed a total of 527 heavy bombers, 953.3 tons of high explosive and 294.3 tons of incendiary bombs, in the 14-15 February bombings of Dresden. g. The specific target objectives in the Dresden bombings were, for the RAF Bomber Command, the Dresden city area, including industrial plants, communications, military installations, and for the American Eighth Air Force, the Dresden Marshalling Yards and railway facilities. h. The immediate and actual consequences of the Dresden bombings were destruction or severe damage to at least 23 per cent of the city’s industrial buildings; severe damage to at least 56 per cent of the city’s non-industrial buildings (exclusive of dwellings); destruction or severe damage to at least 50 percent of the residential units in the city’s non-industrial buildings (exclusive of dwellings); destruction or severe damage to at least 50 percent of the residential units in the city, and at least some damage to 80 per cent of the city’s dwellings; the total disruption of the city as a major communications center, in consequence of destruction and damage inflicted on its railway facilities; and death to probably 25,000 persons and serious injury to probably 30,000 others, virtually all of these casualties being the result of the RAF area raid. i. The Dresden bombings were in no way a deviation from established bombing policies set forth in official bombing directives. j. The specific forces and means employed in the Dresden bombings were in keeping with the forces and means employed by the Allies in other aerial attacks on comparable targets in Germany. k. The Dresden bombings achieved the strategic objectives that underlay the attack and were of mutual importance to the Allies and the Russians.
Allied Aerial Bombardments of the Seven Largest German Cities99
Chart A
City
Population in 1939
American Tonnage British Tonnage
Total Tonnage
Berlin
4,339,000
22,090.3
45,517
67,607.3
Hamburg
1,129,000
17,104.6
22,583
39,687.6
Munich
841,000
11,471.4
7,858
27,110.9
Cologne
772,000
10,211.2
34,712
44,923.2
Leipzig
707,000
5,410.4
6,206
11,616.4
Essen
667,000
1,518.0
36,420
37,938.0
Dresden
642,000
4,441.2
2,659.3
7,100.5
NOTES:
1. Statistics on 8th Air Force bombing from Eighth Air Force Target Summary, Period 17 August 1942 thru 8 May 1945, p. 20. Supporting Document No. 1, Statistics on RAF Bomber Command bombing from Allied Air Attacks Against Targets in Dresden, Headquarters, United States Strategic Air Forces in Europe, Office of the Commanding General, p 1. Supporting Document No. 2.
2. Census of 17 May 1939 as reported in The Statesman’s Year Book, London, 1945, p. 960. Within Greater Germany, which after 1938 included Austria, Dresden ranked eight in size.
3. Statistisches Handbuch von Duetschland: 1928-1944 (Statistical Handbuch of Germany, 1928-1944), Munich, 1949, p. 19
4. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Chicago, 1948, Vol. IV, p. 646
5. Chambers Encyclopedia, New York, 1950, Vol. IV, p. 636.
6. Chambers Encyclopedia, New York, 1950, Vol. IV, p. 636.
7. Statistisches Handbuch von Deutschland: 1928-1944, Munich, 1949, p. 8 (for land area), p. 343 (for railway mileage, and p. 353 (for railway tonnage).
8. Dresden, Germany, City Area, Economic Reports, Vol. No. 2, Headquarters U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, 10 July 1945; and OSS London, No. B-1799/4, 3 March 1945, in same item.
9. Interpretation Report No. K. 4171, Dresden, 22 March 19145, Supporting Document No. 3.
10. Interpretation Report No. K. 4171, Dresden, 22 March 1945, Supporting Document No. 3.
11. OSS London, T-3472, Germany: Air/Political, Conditions in Dresden, 6 April 1945, in same source as footnote 8.
12. MS NO. P-050, Historical Division, European Command
13. United States Army in World War II: The European Theatre of Operations: Cross-Channel Attack, Washington, D. C., 1951, pp. 121-126. (This volume is by G. A. Harrison.)
14. Ibid.
15. OCTAGON Summary, Office No. 691, United States Military Mission Moscow, 16 September 1944; Memorandum of Conversation, Marshal I. Y. Stalin, Prime Minister Churchill, Ambassador Harriman, Moscow, 14 October 1944.
16. Ibid.
17. Memorandum, Conversation between the American Ambassador, Mr. Harriman, and Marshal I. V. Stalin, 14 December 1944. Supporting Document No. 4
18. Ibid.
19. Message, SHAEF 1659 WARX-82070, 25 December 1944. Supporting Document No. 5.
20. Message, WARX-82144 SHAEF, 26 December 1944. Supporting Document No. 6.
21. Memorandum of Conference with Marshal Stalin, 15 January 1945. Supporting Document No. 7.
22. Same item and Message 22378, U.S. Military Mission Moscow, 16 January 1945. Supporting Document No. 8.
23. J.I.C. (45) 31 (O) (Revised Final), 25 January 1945. Supporting Document No. 9.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Message, SHAEF SCM OUT 4025 1274A, 31 January 1945 . Supporting Document No. 11.
27. ARGONAUT Conference Minutes of the Plenary Meeting between the U.S.A., Great Britain, and the U.S.S.R., held in Livadia Palace, Yalta, on Sunday, 4 February 1945, at 1700. Supporting Document No. 12.
28. Message, Air Ministry NSW 207, Serial No. 7/9, 8 February 1945. Supporting Document No. 13.
29. Message, SHAEF SCM IM 5157, 14 January 1945. Supporting Document No. 14.
30. Supporting Document No. 15.
31. Ibid.
32. Message, ARGONAUT-OUT-43, 061739Z, 6 February 1945, Supporting Document No. 16; Message HQ USTAAF UA-53861, 7 February 1945, Supporting Document No. 17; letter, Maj. Gen. S. P. Spalding, Acting Chief, U.S. Military Mission (Moscow), to Maj. Gen. N. V. Slavin, Assistant Chief of Staff of Red Army, 8 February 1945, Supporting Document No. 18; Message, ARGONAUT 122, 10 February 1945, Supporting Document No. 19; letter, Spalding to Slavin, 10 February 1945 , Supporting Document No. 20; Message, HQ HAAF MI-45899, 11 February 1945, Supporting Document No. 21.
33. Supporting Document No. 12
34. Message, USTAAF UA-53861, 7 February 1945. Supporting Document No. 22. It must be presumed that the Commander-in-Chief, RAF Bomber Command, forwarded a similar message to the British Military Mission, Moscow, although the documentary sources that would verify this fact are not available at the present time to the USAF.
35. Ibid.
36. Letter, Maj. Gen. S. P. Spalding, Acting Chief, U.S. Military Mission, Moscow, to Maj. Gen. N. V. Slavin, Assistant Chief of Staff of Red Army, 8 February 1945. Supporting Document No. 23.
37. Message, HQ USTAFF US-642102, 12 February 1945. Supporting Document No. 24.
38. Letter, Maj. Gen. E. W. Hill, Chief, Air Division, U.S. Military Mission, Moscow, to Maj. Gen. N. V. Slavin, Assistant Chief of Staff of Red Army, 12 February 1945. Supporting Document No. 25. Again, it must be presumed that similar information was conveyed to the Russians by the British, through the British Military Mission, indicating that the RAF Bomber Command was preparing to strike Dresden.
39. Message, Eighth Air Force D-63497, 13 February 1945. Supporting Document No. 26.
40. Message, Eighth Air Force D-0010, 13 February 1945, Supporting Document No. 27; Letter, Lt. Col. D. V. Anderson, Executive Officer, Air Division, U.S. Military Mission, Moscow, to Maj. Gen. N. V. Slavin, Assistant Chief of Staff of Red Army, 13 February 1945, Supporting Document No. 28.
41. Message, HQ USTAFF UAX-64452, 18 February 1945. Supporting Document No. 29.
42. All figures in this paragraph taken from Eighth Air Force Target Summary, Period 17 August 1942 thru 8 May 1945, p. 20, and Allied Air Attacks Against Targets in Dresden. Headquarters, United States Strategic Air Forces in Europe, p.1. Supporting Documents Nos. 1 and 2.
43. Ibid.
44. See Supporting Document No. 3 and footnote 8.
45. See Supporting Documents Nos. 1 and 3.
46. RAF incendiary raids on 32 German cities (exclusive of Dresden) with populations over 100,000 are described and analyzed in Fire Raids on German Cities. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Physical Damage Division, 1947. Especially pertinent sections of this document are reproduced in Supporting Documents Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35.
47. Supporting Document No. 3.
48. Ibid.
49. OSS London, T-3472, Germany: Air/Political, Conditions in Dresden, 6 April 1945. Endnotes 8 and 11.
50. Air Ministry, RE. 8. Area Attack Assessment: Dresden, undated (filed 30 October 1945). Supporting Document No. 35.
51. Supporting Document No. 3.
52. Contemporary estimates of one number of refugees and evacuees in Dresden in February 1945 ranged from several hundred thousand into several millions. See Supporting Document No. 2 (second enclosure thereto) and extract from Keesing’s Contemporary Archives, 1943-1946, p. 7054, in Supporting Document No. 36.
53. Supporting Document No. 34.
54. Air Ministry RE. 8, Area Attack: Dresden. Supporting Document No. 35.
55. Supporting documents Nos. 37 and 38.
56. Supporting Document No. 2 (second enclosure thereto) for examples of the propaganda releases issued by the Germans immediately following the bombings.
57. MS No. P-050, Historical Division, European Command
58. Overall Report (European War), United States Strategic Bombing Survey, 30 September 1945, p. 95
59. Ibid.
60. Fire Raids on German Cities, United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Physical Damage Division, January 1945. Supporting Document No. 34.
61. Contemporary estimates of one number of refugees and evacuees in Dresden in February 1945 ranged from several hundred thousand into several millions. Supporting Document No. 2 and extract from Keesing’s Contemporary Archives, 1943-1946, p. 7054, in Supporting Document No. 36.
62. The Report of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, used as the basis for this comparison does not list the number of injured in the fire raids cited.
63. CCS 166/1/D, 21 January 1943.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid.
66. Report of Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker on USAAF Activities in the UK Covering Period from February 20, 1942 to 31 December 1943.
67. USTAFF Message 161551B, 16 April 1945.
68. A basic statement of the American objectives to participating in area and morale bombing in Europe is contained in the remarks of General H. H. Arnold and Admiral William D. Leahy in the minutes of Joint Chiefs of Staff, 176th Meeting, 14 September 1944.
69. On 14 February, following the RAF area bombing of the city, Heinrich Himmler, Chief of the German SS, sent this message to the head of the SS in Dresden: “The attacks were obviously severe, yet every first air raid gives the impression that the town has been completely destroyed.” Supporting Document No. 2
70. Same item, and Supporting Document No. 27
71. War Department Message CM-IN-18753, 19 February 1945.
72. War Department Message CM-IN-39730, 18 February 1945. Support Document No. 39.
73. War Department Message CM-OUT-39222, 17 February 1945. Support Document No. 40.
74. War Department Message CM-IN-18652 and 18745 , 18 and 19 February 1945. Supporting Documents Nos. 41 and 42.
75. War Department Message CM-OUT-39954, 19 February 1945. See Supporting Document No. 43.
76. Memorandum for the Secretary of War, by G. C. Marshall, Chief of Staff, 6 March 1945. Supporting Document No. 44.
77. Official files for 1945 do not contain further significant reference to the Dresden bombings of 14-15 February 1945.
78. Over-all Report (European War), United States Strategic Bombing Survey, p. 72.
79. Over-all Report (European War), United States Strategic Bombing Survey, p. 71.
80. Over-all Report (European War), United States Strategic Bombing Survey, p. 72.
81. Ibid.
82. Fire Raids on German Cities, United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Table No. 2.
83. Fire Raids on German Cities, United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Tables Nos. 4 and 5.
84. See paragraph 23, above.
85. A Detailed Study of the Effects of Area Bombing on Hamburg, United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Area Studies Division, January 1947.
86. Fire Raids on German Cities, United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Table No. 5.
87. See paragraph 23, above.
88. Eighth Air Force Target Summary, Period 17 August 1942 thru 8 May 1945.
89. Ibid.
90. Memorandum for the Secretary of War, by G. C. Marshall, 6 March 1945, Supporting Document No. 44
91. See Map No. II.
92. See Maps III-V.
93. Over-All (European), United States Strategic Bombing Survey, p. 74.
94. SHAEF Message 18264, 28 March 1945. Supporting Document No. 45.
95. Ibid.
96. Telegram from Marshal I. Stalin to General Eisenhower, 1 April 1945. Supporting Document No. 46.
97. David Marley, The Daily Telegraph Story of the War: January 1st-September 9th, 1945, London, 1946, p. 142.
98. Facts on File Yearbook 1945, New York, 1945, p. 142.
99. For American bomb tonnages, Eight Air Force Target Summary, Period 17 August 1942 thru 8 May 1945, and Fifteenth Air Force Daily Bombing Operations by Target; for Britian tonnages, War Room Manual of Bomber Command Operations 1939-1945.
-
Well, this thread will win the prize of the "most interesting discussion" AND the "longer posts on AH BBS" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
keep up the good work !!
Toad, just a little think
The reasons for and the nature and consequences of the bombing of Dresden, Germany, by Allied air forces on 14-15 February 1945 have repeatedly been the subject of official and semi-official inquiries and of rumor and exaggeration by uninformed or inadequately informed persons. Moreover, the Communists have with increasing frequency and by means of distortion and falsification used the February 1945 Allied bombings of Dresden as a basis for disseminating anti-Western and anti-American propaganda. From time to time there appears in letters of inquiry to the United States Air Force evidence that American nationals are themselves being taken in by the Communist propaganda line concerning the February 1945 bombings of Dresden.
The first think comes to my mind reading this point is:
Are we reading a counter-propaganda article?
Answer?
Yes
And is clearly stated, too.
Is amazing how simpleminded cut be propaganda. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
White and black White and black White and black White and black White and black White and black White and black White and black White and black
-
Naso,
I just post what I find.
Rather than a whole bunch of unsupported personal opinion without anything but personal bias to support it, I go looking for something that has a bit of substance to it.
This is of course a USAF position paper. If you are going to debate a position, don't you at least want to hear what the other side has to say?
The author attempted to provide support and background material for his positions. He has documented his findings with footnotes.
One may agree or disagree with what the guy has to say. That is human nature.
However, if one was going to argue his points, I'd think a person would want to be a little more specific and use some supporting information.
It's easy to say "it's all propaganda and I don't agree."
It's a little tougher to do some research and disprove his argument with fact.
You will note that throughout this thread I have not taken a "personal" position. I have provided a counterpoint to the "prevailing" position.
I assure you, I could argue the other side of the question just as easily.
For me, the point is to examine BOTH sides of the question, without preconceived prejudice. From there, I try to come to a conclusion that I feel I can support.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Yeh, great debate this. Learned a few thing, and found someone with even more patience and tenacity than myself, which is quite unusual (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
So, Toad, you American pseudo-intellectual, just what the hell do you do for a living?
Regards
--
StSanta
Danish pseudo-intellectual rock imitator
JG54 "Grünherz"
-
Toad, in my post was not offence to you intended, i appreciate your production of infos, as is very interesting.
I am just a listener of this discussion, but i felt the need to point at the premis of this (i repeat this) source or document you used, because is not useful (altough will be interesting) using a propaganda document as evidence in a rational discussion (remember the kai guy?).
The USAF felt the need to defend itself from the accuse to be guilty of such atrocity, so used every possible reason to justify the action (even that Hitler was there for holidays, joking).
When USAF bombed Rome railyards, and Rome was a "open city" at the moment, meaning the agreement of no military assets will be based on it, the USAF made very good moves:
[list=1]- Selection of the bombardiers (sp? the guys using norden sights?) based on religion (only catolics to avoid "near misses" on the Vatican)
- Lower bombing alt.
- Accurate planning of the raid and strict orders
- small number of bombers with the best bombardiers available (survived to the point 1 selection)[/list=a]
This resulted in very low "collateral damage", and, later, a military occupation of town by the gerries.
And they never feel the need (or be asked) to apologize or defend theirselves for this raid.
The point is the allied need to keep the Italian civilian friendly, as they already were, and plan with this optics.
Different matter was the behaviour with the Germany (At yalta they agree to left "only sheep pasturing on the German soil").
In fact on Dresden the plan was to recreate the "Firestorm", casually (or maybe not) happened on Hamburg, with a difference.
Hamburg was really a military target, and was for big part evacuated by the civvies, meanwhile Dresden was elected as safe city by the German civvies, and was full of refugees when bombed, but the worst is: the Allied know this.
Of course the bigger share of responsability of this "crime" of war has to be given to the RAF Bombing Command, specifically Sir R. Harris, (and the lust for revenge for Coventry and London bombing) but a smaller share has to be given to the USAF.
Last (for now), you know the load of the bombers?
RAF bombers had big part of load as incendiary bombs to start fires
USAF bombers had big part of load with small GP bombs, some with retarding device to kill or render inoperative the antifire squads, so keep the firestorm going.
If the targets were the factories and railyards, why this amazing bombload?
The usual load of big GP bombs was'nt more useful?
Regarding the sources of what i am saying, is difficult to indicate, because is since 25 years ago, that i am interested about the 2nd WW, and i have read a lot of books, but if the AH addiction dont take control, when i come back home (i am at the office now), i will dig in archive and drop some title (no links, i am no really addicted or capable to search on internet).
But, you know?
Titles, quotes, links, are valuable to contribute the birdth of an idea, but the idea have to be a mix of all the sources you read, with elaboration of you own brain, hopefully not biased (jokes apart, i dont think to be so biased as you said, if you dig over the provocations i usually make to your "ugly american" soul (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)), only one source is not enough, if not compared to the opposite source, so to be a perfect "politically correct opportunist" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif), you have to show the "communist" point of view, so we can make confrontations.
Or a nice and interesting (very interesting, indeed) discussion have to become a race to the bigger amount of paper one can throw in?
And last but not least, my position is in a strange way between your's and StSanta's, i think the civvies bombing whas pre-meditated (??sp.??) and immoral (for my point of view as actual citizen of the world), but, at the same time, i understand in that times the feelings were different, and in time of war such thinks happen a lot, from ALL the parts involved, nobody excluded.
At least we know, now, the terrorism vs civvies is'nt useful to win the war.
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
So, Toad, you American pseudo-intellectual, just what the hell do you do for a living?
Ahem, I think Ram made me a "pseudo-DOCTOR"...a P-PHD? Since he's already got that rank, I'll have to ask him the correct initials! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Right now Santa, I fly the 737-800 for an American Imperialist Opportunist Major Airline. I just got my "20 year pin and cheap gold watch" too.
Prior to that I flew the RC-135 for the American Imperialist Opportunist Air Force as a "spy-plane" pilot. I have seen your country from the air a few times. I went by it a lot, but the rain usually kept me from seeing much of it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
It was a fun job. I've been off the coast of every Communist country that HAS a coast at one time or another.
The Russkies shot down a few KAL airliners apparently thinking they had me or one of my squadron mates in the bag. Or else they just have it in for KAL. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Because of the nature of my job <"hurry up and wait"> I read. A lot. I always have. Talk about weird, I read De Seversky's book (Victory Through Airpower) when I was about 15. Douhet and Mitchell not long after that. I always knew I was going to be an American Opportunist Imperialist Warmonger Pilot. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
By coincidence, I pinned on my wings on December 7th. Sort of makes one's responsibility all the more clear. Lord, that was a looooooooong time ago.
Anyway, it's been fun sparring with you. But don't take off the gloves just yet. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-08-2000).]
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
There's no wearing you out, I see. Usually, my persistence helps me out in these matters, but not here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
It's just the story of the "old bull and the young bull" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
and I gather you know *exactly* when to and not to post a link
If I stumble across info that I think will help clarify or provide pertinent info I ALWAYS post a link. Like any other person, I tend to clip that part that will provide a strong counterpoint and PERHAPS trigger enough interest that others will go and read and become even more informed on the subject.
Hm, I don't doubt Douhet's intention as you've laid them out.
Read Douhet for yourself. I think you will find him interesting. <See Giulio Douhet, The Command of the Air, Joseph P. Harahan and Richard H. Kohn, editors (Washington, D.C., 1983)>...and here's another quick overview if you can get to the site:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1986/sep-oct/eula.html (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1986/sep-oct/eula.html)
BTW, I've been to the "valor and horror" site. I'm now looking for tapes of the programs. Interesting site.
I.e more death in lesser time?
Slow military bureaucracy does not excuse anything seen on that picture, IMHO.
Yes, that's probably exactly it. I'm sure there were those saying "we need a larger bomber force" or "we have to hit them 7 days in a row in the same place". You've never been in a military staff meeting, have you? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Well, they knew how succesful the Germans had been. Hell, the Brits knew exactly how their civilian population had reacted, and still they pushed on.
Of course! My point exactly! EVERY military organization thinks they can do it better than the other guy! They are SURE this time, we'll do it right and show them how its done.
Whole new game after the Americans showed what *one* plane with one nuke could do to a city.
Yes, indeed. But that result is what they were TRYING to achieve with "strategic bombardment" <iron bombs> in Europe. In the end, the Bombing Survey said it didn't work.
You may find it hard to believe that they didn't see it wasn't working earlier. Having been IN the military, I find that EASY to believe (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) Not necessarily agree with, but believe.
What was the first one again?
The troll on Danish War Heroes and Danish Altruism. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
BTW, "altruism" isn't really related to just having smart, generous folks like Bohr. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
As I said, yeh the Danish government were semi traitors, betraying their people, but the people at the time really weren't that pleased with having the Jerries around.
Not really the point. In the pre-war years, there appears to be a reliance on another achievement of neutrality. The US was guilty of the same thing, but had two huge oceans as frontiers to buy time to mobilize. However, had the Japanese been able to follow up Pearl Harbor and land troops on the mainland, does anyone doubt that the US would have fought rather than collaborated?
I think all citizens must take ultimate responsibility for their government's actions. Good or bad. <Believe me, I DO NOT support everything my government has done or is presently doing. I do stay in contact with my representatives, too.>
Go ahead, punk. Make my day.
LOL! you watch too many decadent Hollywood movies!
Hm, I've reread it, and it still sounds like classical isolationist US philosophy.
Not at all. "America's orientation toward all nations be one of "peace and harmony." Peace, not war; commerce, not conquest"...
"It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be coextensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn."
We haven't done that...but I wish we had. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I think you're right, and that your politicians are way outta control and outta touch with the average American. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that."
Worse, our politicians are stupid, vain and greedy. Sort of like all the rest in the world. I see none with the true purpose of making the world a better place.
Could be argued that it's "not my problem". Or that it happened in the first place because of the isolationist philosophy. Or that it is always the duty of the strong to protect the weak. Or a myriad of other arguments justifying other approaches.
Let's see..let me get this straight...you wanted the US to be the world's policeman BEFORE the war? We were a second rate power before the war! Heck, nobody would listen to Wilson at Versailles! Wonder what it would have been like if the had let him write the deal alone? No reparations and all the 14 points?
Yep, let the French do it, they wouldn't mind. Or the Brits, they like influence too.
They're welcome to it. I sure don't want us involved!
Remind me to tell you the joke about the Brits, French, Italians, Germans and Swiss splitting up the duties in the world. You probably have heard it.
Gotta run, going to miss my flight!
-
oops, sorry, doubled
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-08-2000).]
-
Good post Toad, <S>!
ehmm...
Can you please write down the joke?
Remind me to tell you the joke about the Brits, French, Italians, Germans and Swiss splitting up the duties in the world. You probably have heard it.
-
Naso, it's an old joke..I forget when I first heard it.
What is Heaven and what is Hell?
Heaven is where:
The British are the Police
The French are the Chefs
The Germans are the Mechanics
The Italians are the Lovers
The Swiss are the Bankers
Hell is where:
The British are the Chefs
The French are the Mechanics
The Germans are the Police
The Italians are the Bankers
The Swiss are the Lovers
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
LOL
-
Hehe, American "imperialist opportunistic" Airlines, ROTFLOL Toad.
Toad, two things, Glad to see you flying Boeing A/C (worked for Boeing since 1979) and <S> and thanks for serving our country.
Ripsnort
-
Rip,
Just got a 757/767 bid too! School in Oct.
I've almost always flown Boeings, for many, many thousands of hours now. They always bring you home; got to love that "belts and suspenders" engineering philosophy.
I did have a brief, intense love affair with a Lockheed 1011, but she grew old and sickly. The Doctors just couldn't keep her healthy. No new parts, no miracle cures. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
As for serving, that's an "aw, shucks". Just doing my bit. Thanks, though.