Dresden,Frankfurt

[Horch]

Dresden before and after. Frankfurt,before and after British bombers.

[Freightshaker]

Not sure which is worse; the targeting of civilians or the loss of British airmen on such a wasteful mission.

[Horch]

Originally Posted by Freightshaker

Not sure which is worse; the targeting of civilians or the loss of British airmen on such a wasteful mission.

Both. Not to forget all the historical non military 'targets'.They should have dropped some of those politicians out the Bombays.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Horch

Both. Not to forget all the historical non military 'targets'.They should have dropped some of those politicians out the Bombays.

Just to play devil's advocate here, because I don't necessarily disagree with either of you (in fact I find some of what happened on both sides rather abhorrent), but wasn't the total "annihilation" of Germany necessary to break her of her warmongering ways? Her loss in the Great War didn't deter her from waging war again. In fact, many Germans believed that they hadn't really lost that war, or had lost it because their nation was stabbed in the back.

Let's also not forget the bombing of Belgrade. The code name for that was "Operation Punishment". The bombing of Rotterdam after the surrender, the destruction of Warsaw, and the massacres of huge numbers of civilians and POW's including retaliation for partisan activities by executing innocent civilians were all examples of direct targeting of the helpless by Germany's politicians and her military forces. What about the continued bombing of London and other British civilian targets? Minsk was bombed on June 24, 1941 in three waves. The water supply was interrupted by the bombing and fires could not be put out. As much as 85% of Minsk and its entire infrastructure was destroyed. Over 1,000 people were killed.

P%C5%82on%C4%85ca_obl%C4%99%C5%BCona_Warszawa.jpg
Warsaw in 1939


Rotterdam.jpg
Rotterdam, bombed after the surrender. About 800 to 900 people were killed and 80,000 made homeless. Around 2.6 square kilometers (1 square mile) of the city was almost leveled. 24,978 homes, 24 churches, 2,320 stores, 775 warehouses and 62 schools were destroyed.


Blitzaftermath.jpg
London during the Blitz


German_bombing_of_Piraeus.jpg
Piraeus, in Greece

Unfortunately both sides were in a war of annihilation and neither side was "good". It's easy for those of us who live in our hemisphere and didn't suffer the way the people of Europe did to point out the mistakes that politicians made when they conducted the war. But let's not forget the perhaps 10 million Soviet civilians who died in the war, 1.2 million in the siege of Leningrad alone.

War is dirty business. No side is usually blameless. Civilian losses on all sides are tragic. Even Churchill said, in retrospect, that the bombing of Dresden had gone too far. This was a war where many new, extremely deadly new weapons were used. The world learned lessons from that. Blaming world leaders for decisions they made which they thought best is easy for those of us who didn't lose mothers, fathers, brothers, or sisters. I lost dozens of family members (if not over 100) in the Łódź Ghetto and Chelmno. And that's just one of four branches of my family (my father's father's side). The Nazis were continuing to massacre civilians in the concentration camps right up until at least April of 1945. Put into perspective, these bombings were meant to bring Germany to her knees and force a surrender. In retrospect it would have been more effective to have disrupted power generation and transmission facilities. Had they known it, the Allies might have chosen that route.

One of the results of having totally defeated and destroyed Germany was that it forced an attitude adjustment. Germany is not currently a danger to peace in Europe and has become a good friend to her former enemies in the West. Churchill and Roosevelt did not ask for this war. Churchill was right about Hitler when Chamberlain and Édouard Daladier were wrong about him. So if we want to blame politicians for the destruction of Germany, we should also blame those who appeased Hitler along the way. They're the ones most responsible for all of it (after Hitler and his crew) as they had the "last clear chance" to prevent it.

[Wolster]

Excellent post Jim, it is always easy to judge these things in retrospect. Lets remember that the majority of those airman killed died believing in what they were doing just as American and British troops are dying today believing in what they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Freightshaker]

I see no difference in killing civilians of any nationality. As for Warsaw and Rotterdam; both were objectives of ground offensives and both were given ultimatums for the evacuation of military personnel. The Rotterdam bombing was meant to be called off, which half of the force was. The Dutch purposely prolonged negotiations and finally settled after the aircraft had already been sent on their mission. That doesn't justify it though.

"Put into perspective, these bombings were meant to bring Germany to her knees and force a surrender."

Now days this is called state sponsored terrorism.

I believe both US and British airforces would've been put to better use attacking infrastructure and most definitely petroleum supplies. For as much as everyone says Germany dropped the first bombs, the Luftwaffe was never equipped or intended at a strategic airforce. On the other hand, Britain invested heavily in a strategic airforce, almost to the determent of Fighter Command, and was a strict adherent to the theories of Douhet. Germany never launched a "Worker Dislocation Program" aimed at destroying housing and creating refugees. Bomber Command launched that campaign.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Freightshaker

I see no difference in killing civilians of any nationality. As for Warsaw and Rotterdam; both were objectives of ground offensives and both were given ultimatums for the evacuation of military personnel. The Rotterdam bombing was meant to be called off, which half of the force was. The Dutch purposely prolonged negotiations and finally settled after the aircraft had already been sent on their mission. That doesn't justify it though.

"Put into perspective, these bombings were meant to bring Germany to her knees and force a surrender."

Now days this is called state sponsored terrorism.

I believe both US and British airforces would've been put to better use attacking infrastructure and most definitely petroleum supplies. For as much as everyone says Germany dropped the first bombs, the Luftwaffe was never equipped or intended at a strategic airforce. On the other hand, Britain invested heavily in a strategic airforce, almost to the determent of Fighter Command, and was a strict adherent to the theories of Douhet. Germany never launched a "Worker Dislocation Program" aimed at destroying housing and creating refugees. Bomber Command launched that campaign.

Scott,

Hindsight is always 20-20. You are judging 1943-1945 decisions on the basis of your 2008 morality and knowledge. Conveniently, you picked two of the MANY events that I listed. But destroying 24,978 homes, 24 churches, 2,320 stores, and 62 schools along with the 775 warehouses did not make Rotterdam center a legitimate target for carpet bombing. There's some debate about whether that attack was "meant to be called off". Many scholars believe that those orders were intentionally delayed. Do you have an explanation for the bombing of Belgrade? How about the destruction of Warsaw before the German Army retreated? Hitler had planned, had he won the war, to level Warsaw and make it a big lake. What about Hitler's order to level Paris during the retreat? When you fight an enemy that's willing to massacre civilians as a tactic of war then you have to think long and hard about the tactics you use. Unfortunately that often descends to the least common denominator. It's a sad fact, but it is a fact nevertheless.

German civilian deaths in the war are estimated at 1.6 million. USSR at 10-12 million plus another 1 million Jews in Belorussia and the Ukraine. There were 2.4 million non-Jewish Polish civilian deaths plus virtually the entirety of Poland's 3 million Jews. Pre-war Poland had roughly half the population of pre-war Germany. She lost approximately 16% of her population, and almost all of them were civilians (>95%). Germany lost 10-11% of her pre-war population and three-quarters of those deaths were military. Civilian deaths were going to happen. This was an evil enemy (the regime, not the people). You can use all of the hyperbole that you like about "state sponsored terrorism". Tell that to the 10 million Soviet mothers who lost sons and daughters fighting in the Red Army defending the Motherland from murderous invaders (the Nazis, not the soldiers) in the Great Patriotic War (I can do hyperbole too). What the Nazis did was state sponsored terrorism pretty much from when they stole Czechoslovakia until the fall of Berlin. Sadly the citizens they led suffered a great price, as did their military, but like I said, war is dirty business. On the scale of things, the "state sponsored terrorism" of the Western Allies, as you put it, pales in comparison to the real state sponsored terrorism perpetrated by the Nazis, on their own people and on those they conquered.

As for the resources, there's no question that they could have been managed better. The best minds in the world had no experience in using these weapons and they did what they thought would work best. Displacing workers was a legitimate tactic in that regard. They can't make bullets if they can't get to the factory. I agreed that disrupting power generation and transmission would have been more effective. Again, that was a lesson learned in hindsight. Calling it "state sponsored terrorism" when it was, in fact, designed to disrupt Germany's economy and her citizens' will to fight and hopefully shorten the war is strong words. You're entitled to believe that and I'll just agree to disagree with you. I believe it was a tragic mistake in judgment.

Let's also not forget that Germany could have surrendered at any time. Her leaders knew that her cities would be reduced to rubble and that only unconditional surrender would be acceptable. Those around Hitler were unable to put a bullet in his head and this was one of the consequences.

[MAGNA]

Dresden was one of four cities to be bombed by American and British planes. This was after demands by the USSR at the time. The soviets pushed to have these cities bombed to aid their advance. Whether they needed it to happen is not really known but it is highly probable they wanted to decimate German infrastructure and the Western allies air power was another way to do this.

[Freightshaker]

Originally Posted by Jim O

Scott,

Hindsight is always 20-20. You are judging 1943-1945 decisions on the basis of your 2008 morality and knowledge. Conveniently, you picked two of the MANY events that I listed. SNIPPED...

You talk as if I'm trying to defend Germany's action, which I doubt anyone besides David Irving could do. I chose those two actions because those are the ones I knew off the top of my head. I have no access to a library in my truck and don't have time to research online. I don't consider it hindsight all. Douhet's theories were proven wrong historically and actually caused the reverse effect on the population. Harris should've realized this after the Blitz experience but personal prejudice and the necessity of using the weapons you have at hand prevented this. As I said previously, civilians of any nationality should not be military targets.

Targeting housing a legitimate tactic? How did Allied intelligence know who was home and who wasn't? You meant to say: "They can't make bullets if they're buried in the rubble." Right?

Originally Posted by MAGNA

Whether they needed it to happen is not really known but it is highly probable they wanted to decimate German infrastructure and the Western allies air power was another way to do this.

Considering Dresden wasn't occupied till after the German capitulation, I would say it wasn't necessary. It did manage to wipe out a major cultural city though...

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Freightshaker

You talk as if I'm trying to defend Germany's action, which I doubt anyone besides David Irving could do. I chose those two actions because those are the ones I knew off the top of my head. I have no access to a library in my truck and don't have time to research online. I don't consider it hindsight all. Douhet's theories were proven wrong historically and actually caused the reverse effect on the population. Harris should've realized this after the Blitz experience but personal prejudice and the necessity of using the weapons you have at hand prevented this. As I said previously, civilians of any nationality should not be military targets.

Targeting housing a legitimate tactic? How did Allied intelligence know who was home and who wasn't? You meant to say: "They can't make bullets if they're buried in the rubble." Right?

Now you're putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about what I meant. Wars are not fought only where no civilians exist. Clogging roads with refugees and preventing soldiers and supplies from getting to the front and people getting to factories to produce war matériel is a legitimate tactic IMMHO. You may not like it but again, consider the enemy that you are fighting. You're right about one thing though. Intelligence could not have known who was home. Tragic. But not "state sponsored terrorism".

Oh, and read Pat Buchanan some day. He'd have you believe that Churchill caused both world wars and that Hitler wasn't such a bad chap, just misunderstood.