2nd of foot:
It is all right. But it should also be mentioned that at the end of the war UK killed roughly 10 times more civilians in Germany than Germany in UK. Only Drezden almost made them even.
But you are right the Germans started.
.
sorry for the posts before. no idea how this comes.
hello friends!
first of all, I know, it is a really delicate topic, I fully can understand any brit who has no problems with the attacks because the germans did the same resp. started.
Were as I pointed out the Germans specifically targeted civilians and civilian property to cause terror as a process of war not as a side effect.
when you compare the productivity of the german inudstry, you will find out that the highest output was in 1944 (due to decentalitzation of production and other measures), the effect of destroying industry was there, of course, but it was far less than expected. more effective where the attacks to destroy any kind of oil and gas-production and the infrastructure (railroads, streets).
regarding the german terror-bombing mentioned:
it should be said that cities like rotterdam and warsaw f. e. were military targets per definition (defended, not willing to surrender). even many of the earlier attacks on london where often pointed to targets with a military background (oil-dumps etc.).
sorry for offending anyone (if so), I just tried to make clear the view āfrom the other sideā. it is a question of morale, I guess. okay, we started at least, but is it moralic to do the same in a even bader manner? no. is it moralic to kill so many civilians? I do not mention holocaust here, because this has nothing to do with the bombardment - there never should be any sort of comparison between the two. this was without doubt the biggest crime of all time, but every normal thinking human should be aware that such a mass-slaughter is a crime and so Harris is a true criminal, allthough he is āyoursā.
btw: churchill thought over the use of poison gas to rot out any german. maybe it was pity because the german poison gas at that time was far superior to the allied and the response could have bring some surprise to the other side. (respecting your point of view, but please understand the the other.)
jens
We know that now - largely thanks to the postwar report of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey. The problem is, we didnāt know that at the time, and furthermore the air forces we had were supported by a huge industrial base and were only capable of efficiently attacking certain types of target. RAF Bomber Command for instance was (with a few exceptions) incapable of hitting precision targets reliably.
Following strictly the rules of the Hague convention in force at the time, this is true. However, it is also true - to the same extent - of Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg, etc. You may want to rethink your arguament in this caseā¦
Hi pdf glad to see you again.
Firstly itās wrong the British high command didnāt know about more effective bombing of oil plants and strategic industry. But this objects were good protected by the AAA means -much better than cities. They refuse it. Instead it was taken the Harris plan - total distraction German cities as more āconvenient targetā.
Following strictly the rules of the Hague convention in force at the time, this is true. However, it is also true - to the same extent - of Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg, etc. You may want to rethink your arguament in this caseā¦
Right this is true. The bombing the cities which had a importaint military objects ( or enemy troops) is not forbidden.
But as youāve already know the senslees distruction of cities , villages ( i.e. hadnāt military mean) is the matter of Nurenberg tribunal 
Cheers.
This is wrong becouse already after june 1944 was open second front.As you may be know the most cruel and senslees firebombing was in preiod after landing in France i/e/ summer 1944 - march 1945
Moreover there was a point if not dear strategic bombing ( which absorbed a great part of British war budget) they could landed early.
But we go around the whole thread;)
Cheers
Following strictly the rules of the Hague convention in force at the time, this is true. However, it is also true - to the same extent - of Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg, etc. You may want to rethink your arguament in this caseā¦
no. as I mentioned before: it`s a question of morale and ehtics. do I have to commit the same crime it someone does this to me? maybe, I can understand the reaction of course but this makes Harris not an innocent war-hero at all. and we are talking about him here. I did not try to excuse any attacks of that sort but I have the feeling that there is a strong belief that the german airforce only tried to wipe out all cities of the reich-enemies and that the mass-bombardments were a logic answer to the luftwaffe-raids. many of the earlier attacks of the luftwaffe were taken out to military or strategic targets int the cities and civil losses were accepted indeed. BUT even coventry was a valuable target by their means as they tried to destroy industry, this was the first aim and NOT to kill as many inhabitants as possible! so there are always slight differences that are overlooked. to pick out dresden - it now seems quite clear that this city had NO military (only masses of fleeing persons and some soldiers hasting back from the east got stuck there) value at all. it was pure mass-murder, nothing else. no matter with what oher attacks this will be excused. and once again for all: I do not try to excuse any German aggression and I understand responses from the other, but there happended enough bad to innocents that was not heroic, even the winners did it.
but maybe we are turning around here in fact. :neutral:
jens
Yeah, I stick my head above the parapet somewhat at random from time to time. I feel a bit like a gopher actually!
Have you got a source on the protection of oil refineries and the like by flak? Thatās a new statement to me, and given the propensity of the RAF to bomb the Ruhr (a heavily industrial target) on a regular basis it seems rather odd to me that the RAF would be deliberately ignoring such targets. They were taking such horrendous losses anyway (only U-boat crews suffered higher proportional casualties in the entire war) that a small amount of incremental risk for a greater effect would probably have been accepted.
Are you thinking of Oradour-sur-Glaine, Lidice and the like? Theyāre the only sort of cases I can think of which ended up before the Allied Military Commission, and the difference is that under the Hague convention these places were undefended, in that there were no ground troops offering resistance to the Germans moving in. Thatās the critical difference - one was legal under Hague 1907 (however morally objectionable) the other illegal.
Seeing that Iāve already explained in another thread that no Luftwaffe officer ever faced criminal charges over the bombing of British civilian targets, why should it be any different for Harris ???
I did not try to excuse any attacks of that sort but I have the feeling that there is a strong belief that the german airforce only tried to wipe out all cities of the reich-enemies and that the mass-bombardments were a logic answer to the luftwaffe-raids. many of the earlier attacks of the luftwaffe were taken out to military or strategic targets int the cities and civil losses were accepted indeed. BUT even coventry was a valuable target by their means as they tried to destroy industry, this was the first aim and NOT to kill as many inhabitants as possible! so there are always slight differences that are overlooked. to pick out dresden - it now seems quite clear that this city had NO military (only masses of fleeing persons and some soldiers hasting back from the east got stuck there) value at all.
According to the 1944 handbook of the German Army High Commandās Weapon Office, the city of Dresden contained 127 factories that had been assigned their own three-letter manufacturing codesā¦. This assured secrecy, while at the same time allowing military authorities to identify individual weapons, munitions, and military equipment back to their manufacturing sources. ā¦ā¦
As the 1942 Dresdner Jahrbook (Dresden Yearbook) boasted:
Anyone who knows Dresden only as a cultural city, with its immortal architectural monuments and unique landscape environment, would rightly be very surprised to be made aware of the extensive and versatile industrial activity, with all its varied ramifications, that make Dresdenā¦ one of the foremost industrial locations.
There is also the fact that 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. The density, volume, and importance of the Dresden-Saxony railway system within the German geography and economy is seen in the fact 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.
Both, or either of, these facts make Dresden a legitimate target
About the effectiveness of the bombing.
In Jan 1945 Albert Speer compiled a report on German industry which said that in 1944 bombing had cost them 31% of aircraft production, 35% of tank production and 42% of truck production.
Both, or either of, these facts make Dresden a legitimate target
if you try hard you always manage to make a civil target legitime for bombing. it`s just the same with cities like coventry where also industrial plants were bombed - it is the same argument the other way round but not many brits will accept that, I guess. but I have to admit we are turning around somehow.
In Jan 1945 Albert Speer compiled a report on German industry which said that in 1944 bombing had cost them 31% of aircraft production, 35% of tank production and 42% of truck production.
this is the result of the bombing of industrial complexes, not becaue they bombed the houses and the people. even the argument to wipe out the workers will not prove because there were masses of slave workers.
Seeing that Iāve already explained in another thread that no Luftwaffe officer ever faced criminal charges over the bombing of British civilian targets, why should it be any different for Harris ???
this is exactly what I mean: it is always the question of equality here: the germans and japanese have not deserved a better treating because they acted the same. but to fight crime with crime makes the whole thing not a good one and harris not a hero. but there are slight differences in the way people here deal with the past. except some stupid neo-nazis, nobody here would celebrate a person like hermann gƶring f. eā¦ it seems, this is different in other countries.
jens
Seeing the British have never considered the bombing of Coventry a war crime as such, why should we consider Dresden to be a war crime ?
this is the result of the bombing of industrial complexes, not becaue they bombed the houses and the people. even the argument to wipe out the workers will not prove because there were masses of slave workers.
Not so.
The British copied the tactic of area bombing not out of revenge, but because they had noted that disrupting the infrastructure( housing, utilities, etc) of the workforce and their families had as an important effect on production as bombing the factories did.
this is exactly what I mean: it is always the question of equality here: the germans and japanese have not deserved a better treating because they acted the same. but to fight crime with crime makes the whole thing not a good one and harris not a hero. but there are slight differences in the way people here deal with the past. except some stupid neo-nazis, nobody here would celebrate a person like hermann gƶring f. eā¦ it seems, this is different in other countries.
jens
It is a question of equality. The bombing of Britain by the Germans isnāt considered a war crime, so why should the bombing of Germany be considered a war crime ???
Redcoat:
So you agree that they bombed 600.000 civilians (children, women, elderly) on purpose? Right?
Well our āfovoriteā J.Fuller wrote in āSecond world warā
To destroy with the aid of those existed then means entire or large part of the German defense industry was clearly impossible. It was considered that the military plants of Germany were placed in the territory into 130 sq. miles and to subject to their bombardments even for several years it would require, possibly, such astronomical quantity of aircraft, that all industrial resources of England would not make it possible to build them.
This is why one ought not to have undertaken the attempt, which, however, was made. If Churchill thought strategically, instead of thinking about the devastation, then it would become clear that the objects of bombardments had to be not industrial enterprises themselves, but their energy sources, i.e., coal and oil. If these sources steadily were weakened, then in the final analysis German industry to 90% was stopped.
Against this there were only two possible objections. The first consisted in the fact that carbon mines is difficult to destroy, and the second - that the oil is produced in few and, therefore, strongly protected points; therefore films on them would bypass very dear
The first difficulty, however, it was not more than that being seeming. If we continuously bombard the railroads, which lead into the carbon regions of the ruhr and saar (each roads they were close purposes), then coal could not be exported.
However, none of these arguments, probably, was not discussed also for that simple reason, that the destruction of industry was only the part of the general plan of the devastation of Germany and terrorization of its citizen. In any case, this is confirmed by the measures, which up to the spring 1944 can be distributed to two stages: 1) economic offensive, 2) moral offensive.
And my notice:
In Romanian oil fields Ploeshty there was a powerfull AAA-defence.
It was much easy to bomb the germans cities then the strategic objects indeed.
Are you thinking of Oradour-sur-Glaine, Lidice and the like? Theyāre the only sort of cases I can think of which ended up before the Allied Military Commission, and the difference is that under the Hague convention these places were undefended, in that there were no ground troops offering resistance to the Germans moving in. Thatās the critical difference - one was legal under Hague 1907 (however morally objectionable) the other illegal.
We have already discussed this early, right. So i donāt wish to repit it again especially for you dear pdf.
Cheers.
becouse Germans didnāt used the carpet firebombing tactic agains centres of cities which had not millitary sence ( i/e/ against civilians). This tactic let to burn the civilians in the scale which couldnāt be equaled with Coventry.
Moreover the mass killing of germans was the primary goal of strategic bombing.
unlike the britain Germany never spended the half of war budger to the bombing which was directed mostly to the terrorizing of civilians.
It is a question of equality. The bombing of Britain by the Germans isnāt considered a war crime, so why should the bombing of Germany be considered a war crime ???
This is personal problem of allies- why they didnāt demand to judge the Goering also and for terrible bombing of Britain.
I heared it was the spesial point not to create the danger juridical precident. In fact the Nurenderg city ( like and other german cities) was fully distructed by allies bombing.
So it would be much easy to hung Goering for the Holocaust then for his real crimes.
Cheers.
So in your view the holocaust wasnāt real then ?
Holocaust really was, but the figure of 6 million is very exaggerated and has no real basis.
The official ātheory of Holocaustā try to represent the killing the jews as the main goal for the Nazi. This is wrong becouse the his main task was to capture the Eastern territories and people as the slaves. The killing of low races ( and the jews partically) particulary was nāt primary aim for the Hitler.
If you wath to the statistic of millions victims you 'll learn that the reall henocide was in the East for the Ukrainian, Belorussian, Polish and Russian native peoples (which had nāt any relation to the jews).
But jewish mass-media tryed to represent the jews as the main victims of Nazi. This is wrong IMO.
If you wish you could believe this, but just simple critic analysis give to you the refuse some of its arguments.
Cheers.
Redcoat:
Here we go againā¦ Holocaust card being playedā¦
1,000 heavy bombers donāt generally arrive over a city and drop 10,000,000-odd pounds of high explosives by accidentā¦
Wasnāt he after āLebensraumā (literally, room in which to live) rather than slaves? If so, surely it would be a matter of national policy to depopulate the captured reasons. Certainly, the Germans made quite a good start on depopulating the areas of Poland and the Soviet Union they captured. In Poland something like 25% of the population died during the war.
Odd that you missed out the word āmenā in your list of civilians :roll: