The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Discussions
User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12145
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:28 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Jeffk - did you say you have or haven't read Overy's book? The first 105pp or so are masterful. - SM
I haven't yet.

It's on my ever growing list. He actually has several books that look interesting.
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26801
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:41 pm

He's a very good writer along with being knowledgeable and thoughtful as hell. I've read a book he wrote on the origins/start of the war. Also IIRC one on Stalin and Hitler. And something he edited on interrogations of Nazi leaders. "Russia's War" is on my list of things to read. As Zippy the pinhead once sighed, "so many Arby's, so little time."
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 998
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by nickterry » Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:26 pm

Knowing how much else is on your list to read, I'd not necessarily recommend Russia's War, as it's now 20 years old. But time pressures might justify choosing it over other summaries of the Eastern Front, as it's relatively short. And of course, well-written.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26801
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:32 pm

Ah, thanks, he is very good - I am loving this book "The Bombing War." But the Russia thing will go to back burner. I do have a rather long list staring at me. It's not actually a list but stacks of books . . :shock:
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Balsamo » Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:55 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:Me when I hear deniers complain about allied bombing

Image
First, Jeff, they do not complain about allied bombings, they use them, exploit them for their own agenda. The apparent incapacity of some to address this subject fairly, with intellectual honesty, and on the contrary reacting emotionally with prejudice, and sometime hatred and insensitivity, well just give the deniers additional boost.

The bases of those reactions, i am sorry to say, are not far away from those used by deniers neither. Somehow, you say German elderly, women and children, deserved to be targeted because of what their leaders (on should still remember that the majority of the Germans did not vote for the NSDAP in 1933) did. Sorry, but i can't help thinking at Been-there posting hundreds of pages trying to convince anyone that somehow,the Jews were responsible for what took place.

Once one accept a basic concept such as collective guilt and collective punishment, well one opens the doors to such enormities as dehumanizing human beings, and to extremities like ethnic cleansing all the way up to genocide. The logic is quite similar. NOT that i am saying that the British did commit a genocide in Germany. But what i am saying is that they cannot be any genocide or collective massacres without a dehumanization of the targeted group. The comparison stops here.
It is the Deniers who wants to put two distinctive tragedies on the same level, basically saying, "Germans killed the Jews, but you burned the Germans". It is a revolting absurdity.
The same way, it is absurd to say "Hey, you killed the Jews, so your women and children deserved to be burned".
Truth is the Nazi losing the war would have killed the Jews, Bombings or not; and Great Britain would have most certainly have adopted the same strategy even if the German Regime was not a totalitarian fascist and racist one.

So we are confronted with two very distinctive event which therefore should be analyzed separately, and that is what we a trying to do here, as well as the authors whom have been mentioned by Nick,etc.

One of the reasons, i guess, we are wasting some of our lifetime "debating" deniers, well actually defending the veracity of a crime of horrible proportion - at least it is my case - is to make sure such crime never happens again, I mean if a society can convince itself that such a crime did not happened, then it will be able to succumb to the temptation to commit it again, right?

Of course, everyone is free to react like Bobbo and just accept the inhumanity of Humanity - well we are all beasts - and come what may. Or every one can act or even think in order to improve things, that is, confronted with the inhumanity aspect of humanity, trying to lower the level of inhumanity, improve empathy, and such silly and naive notion that every human being is equal in front of death, torture, suffering...

I do not want to sound like Gandhi, here, but not only isn't that easy, but things look pretty bad. A survey just came out in France, over 50% of the population do approve torture, the use of torture...as long as it is not them who are submitted to torture, of course, without even realizing - worse not even giving a second thought to it - that if torture is acceptable for our "designated enemies" it is de facto acceptable if THEY torture us.

Remember legitimacy is only a matter of perspective. Any people tends to trust its legitimate government when it comes to national security - for the better and the worse. A vast majority supported the now infamous "War in Irak", in 2001, because Saddam was associated with 9/11 and the propaganda of the WMD soon to be used to destroy America. No kidding here. This holy war - Good vs Evil - became a national shame only after Americans have discovered they have been lied, after Abu graib, etc.

But this too is a distinctive topic, and i guess one day, it will be treated historically and put into perspective.

So yes, my position it is time to "steal" this controversy on its own" from deniers and talked about it with an open mind, and honesty. No one is forcing you to join.

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Balsamo » Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:10 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Overy also dates the major shift in British policy to 1941 - in his intro. I will explain more when I get to the detail in his narrative.

Strachan is just the first paper in Firestorm.
Oh yes, Firestorm Dresden 45...had it but lost it, have read Overy's chapter posted by Nick...i must have most probably have liked Strachan's opening chapter then...don't remember much of the rest.

As for Overy as a whole, he is just great to read, still have his Goering to read...
Mostly following personal notes on this subject, guess i should do some additional readings too ;)

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26801
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:13 pm

Excellent post, Balsamo.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12145
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:25 pm

Balsamo wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:Me when I hear deniers complain about allied bombing

Image
First, Jeff, they do not complain about allied bombings, they use them, exploit them for their own agenda. The apparent incapacity of some to address this subject fairly, with intellectual honesty, and on the contrary reacting emotionally with prejudice, and sometime hatred and insensitivity, well just give the deniers additional boost.

The bases of those reactions, i am sorry to say, are not far away from those used by deniers neither. Somehow, you say German elderly, women and children, deserved to be targeted because of what their leaders (on should still remember that the majority of the Germans did not vote for the NSDAP in 1933) did. Sorry, but i can't help thinking at Been-there posting hundreds of pages trying to convince anyone that somehow,the Jews were responsible for what took place.

Once one accept a basic concept such as collective guilt and collective punishment, well one opens the doors to such enormities as dehumanizing human beings, and to extremities like ethnic cleansing all the way up to genocide. The logic is quite similar. NOT that i am saying that the British did commit a genocide in Germany. But what i am saying is that they cannot be any genocide or collective massacres without a dehumanization of the targeted group. The comparison stops here.
It is the Deniers who wants to put two distinctive tragedies on the same level, basically saying, "Germans killed the Jews, but you burned the Germans". It is a revolting absurdity.
The same way, it is absurd to say "Hey, you killed the Jews, so your women and children deserved to be burned".
Truth is the Nazi losing the war would have killed the Jews, Bombings or not; and Great Britain would have most certainly have adopted the same strategy even if the German Regime was not a totalitarian fascist and racist one.

So we are confronted with two very distinctive event which therefore should be analyzed separately, and that is what we a trying to do here, as well as the authors whom have been mentioned by Nick,etc.

One of the reasons, i guess, we are wasting some of our lifetime "debating" deniers, well actually defending the veracity of a crime of horrible proportion - at least it is my case - is to make sure such crime never happens again, I mean if a society can convince itself that such a crime did not happened, then it will be able to succumb to the temptation to commit it again, right?

Of course, everyone is free to react like Bobbo and just accept the inhumanity of Humanity - well we are all beasts - and come what may. Or every one can act or even think in order to improve things, that is, confronted with the inhumanity aspect of humanity, trying to lower the level of inhumanity, improve empathy, and such silly and naive notion that every human being is equal in front of death, torture, suffering...

I do not want to sound like Gandhi, here, but not only isn't that easy, but things look pretty bad. A survey just came out in France, over 50% of the population do approve torture, the use of torture...as long as it is not them who are submitted to torture, of course, without even realizing - worse not even giving a second thought to it - that if torture is acceptable for our "designated enemies" it is de facto acceptable if THEY torture us.

Remember legitimacy is only a matter of perspective. Any people tends to trust its legitimate government when it comes to national security - for the better and the worse. A vast majority supported the now infamous "War in Irak", in 2001, because Saddam was associated with 9/11 and the propaganda of the WMD soon to be used to destroy America. No kidding here. This holy war - Good vs Evil - became a national shame only after Americans have discovered they have been lied, after Abu graib, etc.

But this too is a distinctive topic, and i guess one day, it will be treated historically and put into perspective.

So yes, my position it is time to "steal" this controversy on its own" from deniers and talked about it with an open mind, and honesty. No one is forcing you to join.

Frankly this is a difficult subject for me.

The more I learn the more I am disturbed over the British bombing campaign and the allied bombing campaign in general.
The bombing campaign still has some justification with me, the problem is that once it went from a purely military excercise to the deliberate destruction of German cities, de-housing and killing women and children, that's when it turned into a war crime.
Naturally I don't equate this with the Holocaust, or what the Germans did to Soviet POWs, or the Euthanasia Program. The intent was not the genocide of the German people (in spite of what Morgenthau wanted or what deniers yammer about).
In any case I'm glad we are still talking about it. I'm going to take a look at some of material I've got and do some research on-line.
I really am surprised that Monstrous or the others haven't jumped on this.
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Balsamo » Fri Jun 24, 2016 12:11 am

As far as i am concerned, i will put any deniers tempted to pollute this thread on ignore. ;)

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26801
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jun 24, 2016 12:31 am

Monstrous hasn't been in the forum since this thread started. David is in the fly-by mode. And Mary is looking for UFOs.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Xcalibur
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Xcalibur » Fri Jun 24, 2016 12:57 am

Balsamo wrote:As far as i am concerned, i will put any deniers tempted to pollute this thread on ignore. ;)

Seriously, even an "A-1" chimp (to borrow a category from Onkel Heini Himmler) :D

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26801
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:27 pm

Overy pp 237-254 show that Jeff_36's chronology is all screwed up.

Even before the German invasion of 10 May 1940, there was intense pressure within Chamberlain's government, coming from leaders within the RAF, for bombing of the Ruhr urban-industrial targets with expectation of "a heavy casualty toll among civilians, including women and children" (War Cabinet paper of October 1939). The final decisions for unrestricted strategic bombing of targets in German cities were taken in a Cabinet meeting of 13 May 1939 - just three days after the German advance and a day before the Rotterdam bombing, which earlier in his book Overy discusses in detail. Rotterdam (14 May 1940) was not mentioned in the war council discussions during 13-15 May when the British formally changed bombing policy (the 1939 policy was not to permit intentional bombing of civilians, attack only identifiable military targets, and require that there be no negligent collateral civilian deaths). One reason for hesitancy was the poor state of the RAF, in equipment, training, and technology, and the fear that if the UK were the first to breach loosely agreed principles regarding the bombing of civilians, the RAF and British air defenses could not guard against the anticipated retaliation.

The policy change, according to Overy, resulted from the German advance into western Europe; the change in government in the UK (ascension of Churchill, whose outlook on bombing differed to that of Chamberlain); and pressure from bombing advocates in the RAF. And, as a first step toward the new British policy, the RAF bombed the German city of Mönchengladbach on 11 May 1940 (one of the fatalities among the civilians was a British woman in the city). On the 13th, strategic raids on oil and rail targets in Germany were approved for the night of 14-15 May. Culminating the developments of 10-13 May, on 15 May the Cabinet formally agreed the policy of independent, strategic bombing of targets in Germany where civilian casualties would occur. Without reference to Rotterdam.

Invoking the Final Solution or war crimes planned and carried out during Barbarossa, and the like is not helpful to understanding the evolution of British bombing policy during 1940; from what I have read so far, even the German bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam doesn't figure in the development in a major way, not much more than ex post facto rationalization and PR talking points.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26801
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:17 pm

I can't tell you how good this Overy book is, it is very nuanced (a word I generally think overused) and very deep, well plotted out, well written, full of insights and surprises and layers of thinking. Despite what I posted earlier and have read here, FDR shared a lot of Churchill's outlook about strategic bombing, but the Americans faced a different situation from that of the British, in terms of little things like geography, timing, and not starting the war with a meaningful bombing force.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12145
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:32 pm

One of the things you mentioned, the decision to attack German oil and railway targets on the 14th-15th, strike me as legitimate military targets. Any casualties that resulted would be collateral and not deliberate.
However, the majority of the decisions made about bombing look like deliberate attempts to cause destruction on civilian targets.
Even when the Germans bombed Rotterdam there was a mix up, the Germans were still attempting to negotiate a surrender of the city when the Luftwaffe jumped the gun and bombed the city.
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12145
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:38 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:I can't tell you how good this Overy book is, it is very nuanced (a word I generally think overused) and very deep, well plotted out, well written, full of insights and surprises and layers of thinking. Despite what I posted earlier and have read here, FDR shared a lot of Churchill's outlook about strategic bombing, but the Americans faced a different situation from that of the British, in terms of little things like geography, timing, and not starting the war with a meaningful bombing force.
You realize that you are adding more books to my already overflowing stack!!!!

:lol:

Seriously, though, the Overy book sounds fascinating. My interest on this has never been high, I've read about this subject through the various military histories I have about World War II. Those were chapters, not books dedicated to the subject.
I realize I've sadly neglected this portion of the war.
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26801
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:59 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:One of the things you mentioned, the decision to attack German oil and railway targets on the 14th-15th, strike me as legitimate military targets. Any casualties that resulted would be collateral and not deliberate.
But that is not how Overy describes these bombings. The thinking was that civilians would of course be killed in the course of the attacks, not collaterally. Already, as Overy describes this, a blurring is occurring. Civilian casualties had to come in relation to suitable military targets, not in their own right. That's how Overy paraphrases the decision. But more important: the three tenets of the 1939 policy were discarded during this month - not because of German terror bombing but for the reasons adduced; that is, what we considered to be against international law in 1939 was by May 1940 considered legal and appropriate. Overy describes this as the start of a step by step move to targeting civilians (the de-housing note of February 1942) without relation to targets we'd call "military." By October 1940 - and this was following the start of the Blitz - British policy was for bombers not to return with bombs (that is, to drop them somewhere) and for bombing to target morale (Overy quotes the policy "heavy material destruction in large towns"). Up to this point according to Overy German bombing had been operational, if devastating and cruel, in its nature.
Jeffk 1970 wrote:However, the majority of the decisions made about bombing look like deliberate attempts to cause destruction on civilian targets.
Even when the Germans bombed Rotterdam there was a mix up, the Germans were still attempting to negotiate a surrender of the city when the Luftwaffe jumped the gun and bombed the city.
Overy puts it a bit differently: the city had surrendered, but the German signal to call off the attack if surrender had occurred - flares - was seen by 2/3 of the bombers, who turned away, but not the other 1/3, who delivered their bombs.

Again, here we're trying to establish a fact basis, not make moral judgments. Yet. Churchill will argue (8 July 1940) for "devastating, exterminating, attack by our heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland." Later, in early 1942, Harris will be saying that "We have got to kill a lot of Boche before we win this war" and will seethe that the government won't allow him to state forthrightly the goal of killing German civilians, as was the goal. By summer 1941, explicitly, which is apparent from statements of planners but also the targeting, which called for bombers in striking cities not to "waste" tonnage of dispersed industrial areas but rather to strike city centers (Zone 1) and dense, built-up zones where workers lived (Zone 2a). The thinking, again, explicit will be that more damage will be done to morale and production by destroying residential areas than factories.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12145
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 8:26 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:One of the things you mentioned, the decision to attack German oil and railway targets on the 14th-15th, strike me as legitimate military targets. Any casualties that resulted would be collateral and not deliberate.
But that is not how Overy describes these bombings. The thinking was that civilians would of course be killed in the course of the attacks, not collaterally. Already, as Overy describes this, a blurring is occurring. Civilian casualties had to come in relation to suitable military targets, not in their own right. That's how Overy paraphrases the decision. But more important: the three tenets of the 1939 policy were discarded during this month - not because of German terror bombing but for the reasons adduced; that is, what we considered to be against international law in 1939 was by May 1940 considered legal and appropriate. Overy describes this as the start of a step by step move to targeting civilians (the de-housing note of February 1942) without relation to targets we'd call "military." By October 1940 - and this was following the start of the Blitz - British policy was for bombers not to return with bombs (that is, to drop them somewhere) and for bombing to target morale (Overy quotes the policy "heavy material destruction in large towns"). Up to this point according to Overy German bombing had been operational, if devastating and cruel, in its nature.
Jeffk 1970 wrote:However, the majority of the decisions made about bombing look like deliberate attempts to cause destruction on civilian targets.
Even when the Germans bombed Rotterdam there was a mix up, the Germans were still attempting to negotiate a surrender of the city when the Luftwaffe jumped the gun and bombed the city.
Overy puts it a bit differently: the city had surrendered, but the German signal to call off the attack if surrender had occurred - flares - was seen by 2/3 of the bombers, who turned away, but not the other 1/3, who delivered their bombs.

Again, here we're trying to establish a fact basis, not make moral judgments. Yet. Churchill will argue (8 July 1940) for "devastating, exterminating, attack by our heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland." Later, in early 1942, Harris will be saying that "We have got to kill a lot of Boche before we win this war" and will seethe that the government won't allow him to state forthrightly the goal of killing German civilians, as was the goal. By summer 1941, explicitly, which is apparent from statements of planners but also the targeting, which called for bombers in striking cities not to "waste" tonnage of dispersed industrial areas but rather to strike city centers (Zone 1) and dense, built-up zones where workers lived (Zone 2a). The thinking, again, explicit will be that more damage will be done to morale and production by destroying residential areas than factories.
"but that is not how Overy describes these bombings. The thinking is that civilians would be killed in these attacks and not collaterally."

True, but attacking railways and oil installations is a legitimate military excercise. The issue, as I see it, is that civilian casualties were no longer a consideration and even considered a positive. You do go on to say that Overy states this is where the line gets blurred, that international law was no longer considered.
As far as Rotterdam, my understanding is that negotiations were ongoing but that the Luftwaffe got the timetable mixed. I only question the issue of flares, my understanding is that the Luftwaffe planes were equipped with radios. Granted, using flares is a good way to signal planes but why were the planes not given radio instructions? Why wouldn't the commander of this strike force radio the attacking planes and tell them to break off their attack?
BTW, I realize you may not know the answer to these questions and that Overy may not address it. Or even have an answer, I realize there are any number of reasons why radio communication would fail. I do think it important to bring it up in case someone does have an answer.
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Balsamo » Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:13 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:One of the things you mentioned, the decision to attack German oil and railway targets on the 14th-15th, strike me as legitimate military targets. Any casualties that resulted would be collateral and not deliberate.
However, the majority of the decisions made about bombing look like deliberate attempts to cause destruction on civilian targets.
Even when the Germans bombed Rotterdam there was a mix up, the Germans were still attempting to negotiate a surrender of the city when the Luftwaffe jumped the gun and bombed the city.
Remember that at this stage of the war, the issue was to adopt - and by doing that breaking the deal signed -strategic bombing or not. The matter was the center of a debate that started a almost two decades before. So concept like "collateral damage", and "military targets" are kind of anticipations.
The whole concept was to restrict the horrors of war as close as the front line as possible, to kind of finding a compromise between the traditional way to do war and the opportunities given by new technologies.

Remember that biological and chemical weapons already existed, both camps had them, but there was a consensus that they should never been used, a promise that would be kept.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26801
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:21 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:True, but attacking railways and oil installations is a legitimate military excercise.
Again, I am not "there" yet. I'm just trying to get some shared understanding of what developed and how. In 1939 terms - this is Overy's point - the May 1941 change was not legitimate. It was a major escalation and a transgression of what formerly had been put off limits and seen as outside what was legal. In 1945 terms, it looks different, no disagreement, but as the history developed, the movement from "we can strike military targets and take effective steps to minimize civilian casualties" (1939) to "we can strike civilians by also striking military targets" (May 1940) is a very significant change.

Put another way, in 1939 the RAF was instructed to obey the non-binding Hague air warfare convention; not so in May 1939. Part of the change is divorcing bombing from operational support for ground troops, part about the 1939 tenets. As I said, this isn't simple, black and white, yes or no. But in 1939-1940 terms in May 1940 the British were decoupling bombing from operations and were accepting strikes on civilian areas. That's the change.

One "virtue" in Harris's explanations is that they are frank and do not rely on tendentious or misleading use of language or concepts. One can disagree with his morality or his strategy, but at least one will know what it was. For real. No sugar coating or vague language to make it sound like something else.
Jeffk 1970 wrote:The issue, as I see it, is that civilian casualties were no longer a consideration and even considered a positive. You do go on to say that Overy states this is where the line gets blurred, that international law was no longer considered.
Not exactly. In Overy's narrative, there's an awareness of the transgression, and on account of this, the rationalizations - internal and public - are in terms of anticipatory retaliation: the Germans are so bad that they will do these sorts of things, so we will retaliate now to prevent it. This sounds awfully similar to another thought process I've read a lot about. Overy doesn't say that, though. What he does say - and Overy is a master of effective understatement - is that as the May 1940 decisions were implemented, Churchill instructed that the Ministry of Information highlight civilian casualties under German bombs in France and the Low Countries but not say anything about the British policy; that press communiques nearly always put the bombings in terms of military targets - "even though the term was stretched almost to meaninglessness" (this is what Harris railed against, as he wanted the British to state their aims forthrightly); that the British narrative was about what the Germans had done and would do and the necessity of retaliation (and that this narrative stuck), and that by October 1940, shortly after the Blitz began, the British policy was to target civilian "morale." Overy shows the case of a directive stating that attacks would be against "industrial populations" being edited to say "industrial centres": the verbiage didn't change the targeting and the intent.

Overy is trying to explain why a change in British strategy took place - and clarifying that it wasn't because of "Warsaw" or "Rotterdam" or "the Final Solution" etc.

Overy is quite clear that part of the British thinking had to do with popular prejudice about Germans and German character, involving of course German behavior in the Great War. These sections do not make for pleasant Saturday afternoon reading.
Jeffk 1970 wrote:As far as Rotterdam, my understanding is that negotiations were ongoing but that the Luftwaffe got the timetable mixed. I only question the issue of flares, my understanding is that the Luftwaffe planes were equipped with radios. Granted, using flares is a good way to signal planes but why were the planes not given radio instructions? Why wouldn't the commander of this strike force radio the attacking planes and tell them to break off their attack?
Overy quotes from Schmidt's order to postpone the attack due to surrender negotiations. "It was the fault of me": I goofed the surrender wasn't complete, but the attack was called off as Schmidt was on the cusp of completing it. Overy does address the question of radios: Kesserling later testified that radio contact broke down (no technical reason given), so the pilots didn't know what was going on. But Kesserling's explanation is only partially valid, because the commander of the squadrons explained that the surrender was known to the fliers and that the flares were the means of communication chosen to tell the pilots to abort the attack. Smoke from the battle obscured flares for 1/3 of the planes. The more important point is that the bombing of Rotterdam was to be in support of the German advance into the south of the city, not strategic bombing. As the Dutch were defending a populous city, heavy civilian casualties (850 killed but including from artillery) were, absent an evacuation, an inevitable result.
Jeffk 1970 wrote:any number of reasons why radio communication would fail. I do think it important to bring it up in case someone does have an answer.
As someone who drove a racecar as recently as 5 years ago, I can assure you that, yes, there are many reasons why radio communication will fail. :) And, when radios fail, drivers of racecars today will use secondary signals (observations) to gather the information about the track that they need. Radio failures in 2012 were frequent enough for me that I was sometimes surprised to enjoy radio contact with my crew.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12145
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:49 pm

Balsamo wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:One of the things you mentioned, the decision to attack German oil and railway targets on the 14th-15th, strike me as legitimate military targets. Any casualties that resulted would be collateral and not deliberate.
However, the majority of the decisions made about bombing look like deliberate attempts to cause destruction on civilian targets.
Even when the Germans bombed Rotterdam there was a mix up, the Germans were still attempting to negotiate a surrender of the city when the Luftwaffe jumped the gun and bombed the city.
Remember that at this stage of the war, the issue was to adopt - and by doing that breaking the deal signed -strategic bombing or not. The matter was the center of a debate that started a almost two decades before. So concept like "collateral damage", and "military targets" are kind of anticipations.
The whole concept was to restrict the horrors of war as close as the front line as possible, to kind of finding a compromise between the traditional way to do war and the opportunities given by new technologies.

Remember that biological and chemical weapons already existed, both camps had them, but there was a consensus that they should never been used, a promise that would be kept.
This is off topic but the Japanese did in fact use biological and chemical weapons in China.
The Germans did practice a type of biological warfare in Belorussia in 1944 by placing typhus victims in front of the advancing Red Army, both to force the Red Army to treat the victims and in hopes that it would infect the advancing troops.
I also believe that the US and British stockpiled mustard gas in case the Germans starting using gas (as far as I know neither side ever did). I believe there was in fact an accident, the Luftwaffe bombed an American ship carrying mustard gas.
There are probably other incidents, I just can't think of any off hand.
Back to your point, there was widespread fear that "the bomber will always get through" before the war ever started. Both France and Britain feared the damage that the Luftwaffe could wreak on their cities. Chamberlain, though known as an "arch-appeaser," actually started the process of building the fighter force that helped defeat the Luftwaffe during the "Battle of Britain," mainly as a way to defeat attacks by bombers.
To some extent their fears were justified. The Luftwaffe showed during the attack on Poland that they could inflict considerable damage on civilian targets with their bombing of Warsaw and other targets (though the damage they caused was nothing compared to the damage the allies would inflict on Germany).
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12145
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:56 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:True, but attacking railways and oil installations is a legitimate military excercise.
Again, I am not "there" yet. I'm just trying to get some shared understanding of what developed and how. In 1939 terms - this is Overy's point - the May 1941 change was not legitimate. It was a major escalation and a transgression of what formerly had been put off limits and seen as outside what was legal. In 1945 terms, it looks different, no disagreement, but as the history developed, the movement from "we can strike military targets and take effective steps to minimize civilian casualties" (1939) to "we can strike civilians by also striking military targets" (May 1940) is a very significant change.

Put another way, in 1939 the RAF was instructed to obey the non-binding Hague air warfare convention; not so in May 1939. Part of the change is divorcing bombing from operational support for ground troops, part about the 1939 tenets. As I said, this isn't simple, black and white, yes or no. But in 1939-1940 terms in May 1940 the British were decoupling bombing from operations and were accepting strikes on civilian areas. That's the change.

One "virtue" in Harris's explanations is that they are frank and do not rely on tendentious or misleading use of language or concepts. One can disagree with his morality or his strategy, but at least one will know what it was. For real. No sugar coating or vague language to make it sound like something else.
Jeffk 1970 wrote:The issue, as I see it, is that civilian casualties were no longer a consideration and even considered a positive. You do go on to say that Overy states this is where the line gets blurred, that international law was no longer considered.
Not exactly. In Overy's narrative, there's an awareness of the transgression, and on account of this, the rationalizations - internal and public - are in terms of anticipatory retaliation: the Germans are so bad that they will do these sorts of things, so we will retaliate now to prevent it. This sounds awfully similar to another thought process I've read a lot about. Overy doesn't say that, though. What he does say - and Overy is a master of effective understatement - is that as the May 1940 decisions were implemented, Churchill instructed that the Ministry of Information highlight civilian casualties under German bombs in France and the Low Countries but not say anything about the British policy; that press communiques nearly always put the bombings in terms of military targets - "even though the term was stretched almost to meaninglessness" (this is what Harris railed against, as he wanted the British to state their aims forthrightly); that the British narrative was about what the Germans had done and would do and the necessity of retaliation (and that this narrative stuck), and that by October 1940, shortly after the Blitz began, the British policy was to target civilian "morale." Overy shows the case of a directive stating that attacks would be against "industrial populations" being edited to say "industrial centres": the verbiage didn't change the targeting and the intent.

Overy is trying to explain why a change in British strategy took place - and clarifying that it wasn't because of "Warsaw" or "Rotterdam" or "the Final Solution" etc.

Overy is quite clear that part of the British thinking had to do with popular prejudice about Germans and German character, involving of course German behavior in the Great War. These sections do not make for pleasant Saturday afternoon reading.
Jeffk 1970 wrote:As far as Rotterdam, my understanding is that negotiations were ongoing but that the Luftwaffe got the timetable mixed. I only question the issue of flares, my understanding is that the Luftwaffe planes were equipped with radios. Granted, using flares is a good way to signal planes but why were the planes not given radio instructions? Why wouldn't the commander of this strike force radio the attacking planes and tell them to break off their attack?
Overy quotes from Schmidt's order to postpone the attack due to surrender negotiations. "It was the fault of me": I goofed the surrender wasn't complete, but the attack was called off as Schmidt was on the cusp of completing it. Overy does address the question of radios: Kesserling later testified that radio contact broke down (no technical reason given), so the pilots didn't know what was going on. But Kesserling's explanation is only partially valid, because the commander of the squadrons explained that the surrender was known to the fliers and that the flares were the means of communication chosen to tell the pilots to abort the attack. Smoke from the battle obscured flares for 1/3 of the planes. The more important point is that the bombing of Rotterdam was to be in support of the German advance into the south of the city, not strategic bombing. As the Dutch were defending a populous city, heavy civilian casualties (850 killed but including from artillery) were, absent an evacuation, an inevitable result.
Jeffk 1970 wrote:any number of reasons why radio communication would fail. I do think it important to bring it up in case someone does have an answer.
As someone who drove a racecar as recently as 5 years ago, I can assure you that, yes, there are many reasons why radio communication will fail. :) And, when radios fail, drivers of racecars today will use secondary signals (observations) to gather the information about the track that they need. Radio failures in 2012 were frequent enough for me that I was sometimes surprised to enjoy radio contact with my crew.
Thanks for answering the question about the radios.

As for Harris, it's obvious that his goal was always the mass destruction of German cities
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26801
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:23 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:As for Harris, it's obvious that his goal was always the mass destruction of German cities
But, as Overy has it, Harris was an especially zealous and uncompromising advocate of a policy that was already in place - he didn't alter policy but was instrumental to making it work: "Though Harris's appointment no doubt marked a turning point in the bombing war, he was not, as is so often suggested, the originator of the area-bombing campaign."
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26801
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:32 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:. . . did bomber command accept that the bombing didn't have the desired results?

The USAAF questioned Speer very closely before the IMT, wanting to know how much bombing affected German industry, civilian morale, etc.

What surprised them is how much Speer dismissed the effect of mass bombing.
The Allies did know, however, what impact the Blitz had on British morale. They studied this, they studied damage done homes and residential districts from the bombing, they undertook in-depth psychological surveys of victims. They simply concluded that Germans would react differently. You know, the tough stuff and stern perseverance of the British bearing up better than the morally suspect Germans. British planners should have known, of course, the approximate scale of damage to industrial production which bombing would do to the Germans - again based on their surveys of their own experience (during the Blitz resumption of production took place quickly and the overall impact was not great). Anyhow, the planners of Allied bombing had first-hand evidence from which to extrapolate and that evidence suggested the strategic bombing would neither deliver the promised knockout blow nor destroy the morale of the enemy civilian population.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26801
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jun 26, 2016 11:41 pm

Overy pp 326-329, 336-338 very interesting discussion of British bombing "science" - research, preparation for bombing campaigns, and success metrics, covering inter alia study of incendiaries, methods for creating firestorms, use of explosives - to create conditions for spread of fire and to prevent civil defense and fire-fighting responses on ground, German domestic architecture and building materials and susceptibility to fire (Walter Gropius enlisted), optimal mix and weight of bombs, optimal concentration of bombs, additional ways to prevent effective firefighting, delayed-action explosives and other anti-personnel weapons to kill and discourage relief workers, meteorological considerations - aimed at making dense urban residential areas burn to the point of fire hurricane/firestorm ("a German house will burn well"; "the complete destruction by fire of the built-up areas of a city"); use of such metrics as homelessness, houses destroyed and damaged, "city-days" lost output due to destruction of working class neighborhoods, loss of civilian life, % loss of aircraft, bombs dropped, accuracy ratios (within 3 miles target area), devastation per ton of bombs dropped, "devastation per acre of built up area attacked," % production cut, days to recover production.

This perspective was that mainly of the RAF, albeit in collaboration with the Eighth Air Force - however, the US Air Force prioritized bombing in support of or preparatory to ground operations, and primarily on German air capability and industrial targets, whereas the RAF's strategic perspective was to damage morale and production through area attacks on cities and causing such devastation to such an extent that ground operations would not be necessary.

An interesting question is why through 1943 the strategic perspectives of the US and British differed. The US did not favor area bombing of cities in its strategic campaigns (although the Americans evolved by the end of 1943 to use area bombing in support of missions against industrial targets). The US collaborated with the British, to be sure, and did not oppose area bombing of cities; however, in general US officials were during 1942-1943 were puzzled by the approach of Portal and Harris, concerned that the bombing was wasteful, and failed to comprehend the strategic goals and merits of the approach. Some of the adjectives applied to latter-day discussion in this forum that is in this same vein - deniers, Nazi apologists and moral relativists who bitch and moan - surely, the words cannot be applied to the American Air Force . . . ?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:32 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:..... delayed-action explosives
Off Topic
One of the great English TV dramas was "Danger UXB" (Un-exploded Bomb)". It had "British scientists" working out solutions to ever changing German timing devices on their bombs.


The world's worst job, ever..........

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12145
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:54 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:..... delayed-action explosives
Off Topic
One of the great English TV dramas was "Danger UXB" (Un-exploded Bomb)". It had "British scientists" working out solutions to ever changing German timing devices on their bombs.


The world's worst job, ever..........
Yes, that is the worst job, ever.

The Germans just forced concentration camp inmates to deal with unexploded ordinance.
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843

Xcalibur
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Xcalibur » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:03 am

Never had a problem with that bombing: fortunes of war. Sad, yes. Should it have happened, no.

User avatar
Cerdic
Poster
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:55 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Cerdic » Mon Jun 27, 2016 9:34 am

SM - thanks for the summary of some of Overy's book. Been on my wishlist for a while but never got round...

Here's the US strategic bombing survey of Sep 1945. http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm Just looking at the table of contents, clear those writing the report focused more on precision bombing than area bombing. Here is the section of the report on civilians:
The Civilians

A word should perhaps be added on the effect of the air war on the German civilian and on the civilian economy. Germany began the war after several years of full employment and after the civilian standard of living had reached its highest level in German history. In the early years of the war -- the soft war period for Germany -- civilian consumption remained high. Germans continued to try for both guns and butter. The German people entered the period of the air war well stocked with clothing and other consumer goods. Although most consumer goods became increasingly difficult to obtain, Survey studies show that fairly adequate supplies of clothing were available for those who had been bombed out until the last stages of disorganization. Food, though strictly rationed, was in nutritionally adequate supply throughout the war. The Germans' diet had about the same calories as the British.

German civilian defense was examined by Survey representatives familiar with U. S. and British defenses. The German system had been devised as protection against relatively small and isolated attacks. The organization had to be substantially revised when the attacks grew to saturation proportions. In particular, arrangements were made by which a heavily bombed community might call on the fire-fighting and other defensive resources of surrounding communities and, as a final resort, on mobile reserves deployed by the central government

Page 15
through the more vulnerable areas. In the attacks on German cities incendiary bombs, ton for ton, were found to have been between four and five times as destructive as high explosive. German fire defenses lacked adequate static and other water reserves replenished by mains independent of the more vulnerable central water supply. However, in the more serious fire raids, any fire-fighting equipment was found to have been of little avail. Fire storms occurred, the widespread fires generating a violent hurricane-like draft, which fed other fires and made all attempts at control hopeless.

German shelters, so far as they were available, were excellent. In England the policy was to build a large number of shelters which protected those taking refuge from bombs falling in the area and from falling and flying debris but which were not secure against a direct hit. The Germans, by contrast, built concrete bunkers, some of enormous size, both above and below ground, designed to protect those taking shelter even against a direct hit. One such shelter in Hamburg, named the "Holy Ghost" for its location on Holy Ghost Plaza, sheltered as many as 60,000 people. There were not, however, enough such shelters; at the close of the war shelter accommodation was available for only about eight million people. The remainder sheltered in basements, and casualties in these places of refuge were heavy. After raids the Germans did not attempt systematic recovery of all bodies or even of all trapped persons. Those that could not readily be removed were left.

Official German statistics place total casualties from air attack -- including German civilians, foreigners, and members of the armed forces in cities that were being attacked -- at 250,253 killed for the period from January 1, 1943, to January 31, 1945, and 305,455 wounded badly enough to require hospitalization, during the period from October 1, 1943, to January 31, 1945. A careful examination of these data, together with checks against the records of individual cities that were attacked, indicates that they are too low. A revised estimate prepared by the Survey (which is also a minimum) places total casualties for the entire period of the war at 305,000 killed and 780,000 wounded. More reliable statistics are available on damage to housing. According to these, 485,000 residential buildings were totally destroyed by air attack and 415,000 were heavily damaged, making a total of 20 percent of all dwelling units in Germany. In some 50 cities that were primary targets of the air attack, the proportion of destroyed or heavily damaged dwelling units is about 40 percent. The result of all these attacks was to render homeless some 7,500,000 German civilians.

It is interesting to note some of the effects of air attack upon medical care and military casualties during the war. The aerial warfare against Germany forced the German military and civilian authorities to recognize that national health and medical problems were a joint responsibility. The destruction of hospital equipment, pharmaceutical production, and medical supplies, incident to area raids, forced a dispersal of medical supply installations and the removal of hospitals from city to suburban and country sites. This program came in late 1943 at a time when air raids on cities were causing increased casualties among civilians and resulted in shortages in ether, plasters, serums, textiles, and other medical supplies. At the same time the increased tempo of tactical air action was having an effect on military casualty rates, and is reflected in the fact that, according to German reports, war casualties from aerial weapons moved from third place in 1942 to first place in late 1943, 1944, and 1945, followed in order by artillery fire and infantry weapons. The casualty effects of air action are shown by the fact that the proportion of wounded to killed shifted from a ratio of eight to one in 1940 and 1941 to a ratio of three to one in 1944 and 1945. Personnel wounded by air action suffered as a rule multiple wounds and shock, resulting in longer periods of hospitalization and convalescence, and in a decided reduction in the number of patients who could be returned to either full or limited military duty.
Regarding morale, it later says:
4. The mental reaction of the German people to air attack is significant. Under ruthless Nazi control they showed surprising resistance to the terror and hardships of repeated air attack, to the destruction of their homes and belongings, and to the conditions under which they were reduced to live. Their morale, their belief in ultimate victory or satisfactory compromise, and their confidence in their leaders declined, but they continued to work efficiently as long as the physical means of production remained. The power of a police state over its people cannot be underestimated.
„(...) Wenn wir irgendetwas beim Nationalsozialismus anerkennen, dann ist es die Anerkennung, daß ihm zum ersten Mal in der deutschen Politik die restlose Mobilisierung der menschlichen Dummheit gelungen ist.“ Kurt Schumacher 23. Februar 1932

Vote Your Conscience.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Monstrous » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:48 pm

What to say? That the bombings was just one of many monstrosities? (no relationship to Monstrous)

Just look at this!!!
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Claimed_ma ... WII_Allies

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12145
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:27 pm

Monstrous wrote:What to say? That the bombings was just one of many monstrosities? (no relationship to Monstrous)

Just look at this!!!
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Claimed_ma ... WII_Allies

He's back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26801
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:55 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:An interesting question is why through 1943 the strategic perspectives of the US and British differed.
Discussion of area bombing, of the type identified with Harris and touted by Jeff_36, and implemented as the main strategic concept of the RAF, inevitably involves the issue of opportunity costs. In this regard, Overy states unequivocally, in his view, that "In the end the defeat of the German Air Force was an American achievement." (p 368) He shows how the RAF failed to develop the accuracy and air warfare tactics needed to win this part of the war and how American air power was able to damage German air power gravely, minimizing US losses vs British experience. The US fighters and bombers scored effective hits on Axis oil output, reduced German fighter plane output vs plan, destroyed large numbers of German war planes and killed many trained pilots, and eventually gained air supremacy over Europe. This success came because of US strategy, which emphasized strikes on German air capacity over indiscriminate urban bombing favored by the RAF. Overy gives rich detail on this pp 368-377.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5080
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Jeff_36 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:31 pm

Monstrous wrote:What to say? That the bombings was just one of many monstrosities? (no relationship to Monstrous)

Just look at this!!!
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Claimed_ma ... WII_Allies
I rest my case you guys. These events, while unfortunate, were understandable in the context of the time. Goose steppers and Himmler-humpers like this jerkoff here have used them as a platform for their propaganda.

All I'll say about this matter is that if you fly with the crows, you get shot with the crows.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19283
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:42 pm

Balsamo wrote:Of course, everyone is free to react like Bobbo and just accept the inhumanity of Humanity - well we are all beasts - and come what may. Or every one can act or even think in order to improve things, that is, confronted with the inhumanity aspect of humanity, trying to lower the level of inhumanity, improve empathy, and such silly and naive notion that every human being is equal in front of death, torture, suffering...
You, as I suspect most here do, read much too fast. Too fast to observe its your own bias you are responding to, certain trigger words and ideas, rather than what I actually post. That often happens when you mostly talk to others of the same mindset.

War is inhumanity on full bore. The question I highlight is where is that inhumanity best allowed to play out? Among "your own people"........or the "enemy."

Do you make the moral equivalency that your enemy is the same as your own people? Confused as to the limits of compassion for our common humanity? Its our common humanity that wants to kill you and occupy your country.

What you gonna DO? Lamenting decisions made...............is a luxury only the winners have.

Deal with Reality.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26801
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jun 27, 2016 8:07 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:
Monstrous wrote:What to say? That the bombings was just one of many monstrosities? (no relationship to Monstrous)

Just look at this!!!
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Claimed_ma ... WII_Allies
I rest my case you guys. These events, while unfortunate, were understandable in the context of the time. Goose steppers and Himmler-humpers like this jerkoff here have used them as a platform for their propaganda.

All I'll say about this matter is that if you fly with the crows, you get shot with the crows.
So what? Monstrous is a {!#%@} idiot. Know-nothingism doesn't cut it - the US had a strategy different to Harris's. Why?

So here's a question: by 1944-1945 the Allies had the capacity to use chemical, biological and atomic warfare against German cities. You've said that anything goes. Should they have use biological agents, e.g., anthrax, or poison gases to kill large numbers of German civilians? (I think you've already endorsed atomic weapons . . . right?)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19283
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 27, 2016 8:25 pm

Chemical and Biological===too dangerous FOR OUR OWN TROOPS/allies. Thats an opinion.

Nukes? War aga Germany over in early May while Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made asap on August 6 and August 9, 1945.

Rare to find you in factual error.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12145
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 8:30 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Chemical and Biological===too dangerous FOR OUR OWN TROOPS/allies. Thats an opinion.

Nukes? War aga Germany over in early May while Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made asap on August 6 and August 9, 1945.

Rare to find you in factual error.
I believe first successful test of the bomb was in July 1945.
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19283
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 27, 2016 8:34 pm

Supporting the point that Nuking Germany was not possible.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12145
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 8:46 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Chemical and Biological===too dangerous FOR OUR OWN TROOPS/allies. Thats an opinion.

Nukes? War aga Germany over in early May while Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made asap on August 6 and August 9, 1945.

Rare to find you in factual error.
July 16th, 1945.

However, this doesn't rule out the use of "dirty bombs" before then, if it had occurred to anyone to do so.



Hhhhhhhmmmmm.....I wonder if there was enough radioactive material to make that possible to use for bombs in Germany. I feel like this is more of a theoretical possibility because I don't know if there is proof of this.

Or, if this was safe at that point for an allied plane to actually drop a "dirty bomb" over Germany or anywhere else.
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26801
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jun 27, 2016 8:52 pm

Well, Jeff_36 has already written that he approved of the use of atomic bomb, so I didn't press that issue. Nor did I get into specifics with gas or germ warfare - gas warfare was possible actually before 1944, during 1944 and 1945 Portal and Churchill discussed conditions under which gas might be used; germ warfare research was pushed forward in 1944 but not until April 1945 were sufficient agents available for effective use; and atomic weapons were available by summer 1945. I actually didn't want to get into the detail (dirty bombs, which agents, etc) but to focus on the "should" question, which is now kind of getting lost.

However, further discussion could get into specifics of atomic warfare: atomic weapons were, of course, used in August 1945, and Overy alludes to Allied consideration of using atomic weapons in Europe, too, should the war last deeper into 1945. That's something I wasn't aware of. The point pretty much knocks the legs out from under the Alperovitz thesis. (My recollection is same as Jeffk's - a few weeks before Hiroshima and Nagasaki was first test). Anyway, since atomic weapons were used, we don't need hypotheticals.

Biological and chemical (gas) warfare was planned and workable (Churchill advocated using gas, but his military chiefs were opposed) although, according to Overy not until April 1945 - from the air, which would not endanger troops. The Allies settled on preparing retaliatory strikes using gas - not going to gas warfare first. But, again, I am interested in Jeff_36's opinion whether the Allies should have escalated to use of gas and/or biological warfare.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19283
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Bombing Campaigns of the Allies and the Germans

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 27, 2016 8:56 pm

Well...at time points relevant....the War with Germany was "end in sight" for a long time with Russia doing the final coup de grace.

Such was NOT the case with Japan what with Invasion by Allies not including Russia was the default position. If one were humanitarianly inclined....I suppose a blockade and starving them into submission would have worked too.....but then....I suppose we should then humanely have bombed the civilians with food???

I'll say again something that is only in a way the truth, moreso about Japan than jut about anyone else: There were no civilians.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?