WWII Tactical vs. Strategic Bombing

Greetings Dean,

I was referring to this statement: "While most (if not all) of the factories in Germany and the occupied territories were indeed destroyed, Germany maintained an industrial base right up to the end of the war". My answer was, and it is based on the United States Strategic Bombing Survey and the work of economic historians, that very little equipment was destroyed. If that is what you meant by "industrial base", sorry for the correction. None was needed.
 
Ollie Garchy said:
Greetings Dean,

I was referring to this statement: "While most (if not all) of the factories in Germany and the occupied territories were indeed destroyed, Germany maintained an industrial base right up to the end of the war". My answer was, and it is based on the United States Strategic Bombing Survey and the work of economic historians, that very little equipment was destroyed. If that is what you meant by "industrial base", sorry for the correction. None was needed.

The key part of the sentence was "in the occupied territiories". As I undestood it, factories were destroyed or rendered inoperable as the front lines passed over them. On the Eastern Front, they were rendered inoperable as the Russians removed all of the machinery that could be removed, and destroyed the rest. While the Western Allies did not do the same thing, (except, perhaps at Peenumunde and other specific interest sites) I have not heard of any factory of any kind continuing production after the war passed it by. I think the reason that you did not understand what I was saying was my use of occupied. I meant land that was occupied by the Allies, not the Germans. If there were any factories that did continue immediatly afther the Allies took over, I would love to hear about it.

Gotta go to work.....

Dean.
 
LeEnfield said:
Peenumunde was badly damaged but much of it was moved to caves and tunnels built by slave labour.

Peenemünde was a research facility and had very little to do with the conventional German war effort. Nor did the "V" weapons.
 
Dean said:
If there were any factories that did continue immediatly afther the Allies took over, I would love to hear about it.

The VW works in what is now Wolfsburg is one example...and there are many others. The American military supported a policy of quick recovery to offset "disease and unrest".
 
Ollie Garchy said:
The VW works in what is now Wolfsburg is one example...and there are many others. The American military supported a policy of quick recovery to offset "disease and unrest".

Hmmm... I did not know about that policy, although it does dovetail rather nicely with the philosophy behind the Marshall Plan. Ah, well, another subject to read up on.... Thank you.

Oh about Peenumunde. AFAIK, it was one of the few places that the Allies went over with a fine toothed comb to find anything of military or scientific value. Everything and anyone found there went right back to the US, including V-2 rockets and Werner Von Braun. I do know that other factories were not looted, but this is the only exception that I remember.

Dean.
 
Dean said:
Hmmm... I did not know about that policy, although it does dovetail rather nicely with the philosophy behind the Marshall Plan. Ah, well, another subject to read up on.... Thank you.

Oh about Peenumunde. AFAIK, it was one of the few places that the Allies went over with a fine toothed comb to find anything of military or scientific value. Everything and anyone found there went right back to the US, including V-2 rockets and Werner Von Braun. I do know that other factories were not looted, but this is the only exception that I remember.

Dean.

Actually, the western Allies looted Germany to a considerable extent. One of the problems is the lack of attention given the subject. Some historians just argue that whatever was taken was not enough to compensate the victims. The only problem with this theory is that the actual victims were rarely compensated at all. The great powers took what they wanted and kept it for themselves.

Instead of behaving according to international law, with all seizures accounted for in order to determine real reparations, all of the four occupying powers undertook a policy of what is called "hidden reparations". No power came close to the Soviet Union, of course. The French behaved like the Soviets but did not have the time to take their zone to pieces. The British took what they thought valuable. Only the Americans restrained themselves somewhat. The totals still reach into the many billions (I argue hundreds of billions). The French would have gutted Germany, but the Americans and British forced them to behave.

All of this complicates the analysis of postwar German industry for the purpose of determining the impact of strategic bombing.
 
Ollie Garchy said:
Peenemünde was a research facility and had very little to do with the conventional German war effort. Nor did the "V" weapons.

The V weapons used considerable resources which could have been used for conventional weapons.
 
Ollie Garchy said:
Actually, the western Allies looted Germany to a considerable extent. One of the problems is the lack of attention given the subject. Some historians just argue that whatever was taken was not enough to compensate the victims. The only problem with this theory is that the actual victims were rarely compensated at all. The great powers took what they wanted and kept it for themselves.

Instead of behaving according to international law, with all seizures accounted for in order to determine real reparations, all of the four occupying powers undertook a policy of what is called "hidden reparations". No power came close to the Soviet Union, of course. The French behaved like the Soviets but did not have the time to take their zone to pieces. The British took what they thought valuable. Only the Americans restrained themselves somewhat. The totals still reach into the many billions (I argue hundreds of billions). The French would have gutted Germany, but the Americans and British forced them to behave.

All of this complicates the analysis of postwar German industry for the purpose of determining the impact of strategic bombing.

Interesting moral point, but as the saying goes to the victor the spoils. The Germans did the same, mainly in the east, for example in the stripping of the Ukraine leaving people to starve.

I think unofficial reparations has occured since the first war in history.
 
Peenumunde was badly damaged but much of it was moved to caves and tunnels built by slave labour.

Yes the V2 industry was moved from Peenemunde to a vast underground complex near Mittlewerk in central Germany around February 1945. Interestingly this was to be within the Soviet sphere, but the Americans temporarily controlled this area until the 20th June 1945 so it was quite a rush to get the rocket assemblies and scientists moved out of East Germany.

Since Hitler decreed that German industry should be destroyed rather than surrendered to the allies (although Speer never really carried out this order) Von Braun had the blueprints hidden. An American Major had the job of finding these and shipping everything out of the Soviet sphere. The SS took Von Braun and most of the top Scientists to Bavaria were they finally surrendered to the Americans.
 
perseus said:
Yes the V2 industry was moved from Peenemunde to a vast underground complex near Mittlewerk in central Germany around February 1945. Interestingly this was to be within the Soviet sphere, but the Americans temporarily controlled this area until the 20th June 1945 so it was quite a rush to get the rocket assemblies and scientists moved out of East Germany.

Since Hitler decreed that German industry should be destroyed rather than surrendered to the allies (although Speer never really carried out this order) Von Braun had the blueprints hidden. An American Major had the job of finding these and shipping everything out of the Soviet sphere. The SS took Von Braun and most of the top Scientists to Bavaria were they finally surrendered to the Americans.

Perseus,

This last point is important. Braun and some of his boys, like thousands of other German scientists, were illegally shuffled off to the United States to continue their work in military R&D. The Soviets (hardly surprising) forced Germans to relocate at gun-point while the Americans offered such hard-to-get commodities such as food. An American-Soviet saying emerged: "Our Germans are better than yours". The continuation of German military research was of course declared illegal by the Allied Countrol Council in Berlin. Like virtually every aspect of the German occupation, the victors promulgated laws that they had no intention of following. Potsdam was a testament to the hypocrisy of international law. This drain on German scientific talent constituted another "hidden reparation".
 
Ollie Garchy said:
The continuation of German military research was of course declared illegal by the Allied Countrol Council in Berlin. Like virtually every aspect of the German occupation, the victors promulgated laws that they had no intention of following. Potsdam was a testament to the hypocrisy of international law. This drain on German scientific talent constituted another "hidden reparation".

I am interested in your thought on this issue. Do you feel that the removal of German scienitists was wrong and why? You must remember the context of the time, with the different societies of the western and eastern allies. German scientists held by the west could go back to germany, a lot quicker than from the east.

The ultimate question is: was it right to punish and re-educate germany? What would you have done differently?
 
Reiben said:
I am interested in your thought on this issue. Do you feel that the removal of German scienitists was wrong and why? You must remember the context of the time, with the different societies of the western and eastern allies. German scientists held by the west could go back to germany, a lot quicker than from the east.

The ultimate question is: was it right to punish and re-educate germany? What would you have done differently?

A tough question to answer. It should be addressed in another thread. Here is a quick answer:

(1) No Collective Guilt: Postdam declared Germans were not collectively guilty. This means that a scientist working in aerodynamics for the aircraft industry was not guilty of crime unless such a thing could be proven. Random executions or imprisonment (ie. the Soviet or French method) had little to do with modern concepts of law.

(2) Reparations: The Allies set an overall sum of $20 billion in reparations. This ultimately meant that reparations had to be accounted for. The Allies could not just take whatever they wanted. Random seizures had little to do with modern concepts of law. The Allied Control Council in Berlin tried to set up a workable system. It failed.

(3) State Punishment: Because the German people were not considered collectively guilty, punishing "Germany" was a non-starter. The concept is actually dependent on a system of values that have nothing to do with democratic or even socialist thinking. It was only possible (and rightfully so) to punish those people involved in actual crimes.

(4) German Scientists: The movement of German scientists to the United States (or outside of Germany) was illegal. The American military did so under the noses of Congress...and Congress freaked out when the information was leaked. Nor did this policy constitute demilitarization because the German specialists continued their work on modern armaments systems.

(5) Soviet Methods were Nazi Methods: Soviet troops raped over 3 million German women, killed around 3 to 5 million Germans, rounded up millions for slave labour, etc. Does this sound like justice? Sure, if an eye for an eye is written into our legal code. The American/ British military in Germany found Soviet behaviour disgusting. It was also against international law. Was international law only a tool to punish the vanquished? If so, what does that tell us about our society and our noble legal systems?

Sorry, do not have much time today. Tell me what you think, and I will try to find some time to deal with this issue. But, it does not have much to do with strategic/tactical bombing...so we should start another thread.
 
tactical bombing (ground attack) WWII

Have we lost tactical action in the discussion by focusing almost entirely on strategic bombing?
 
I feel the strategic bombing had a great effect 'overall' on the war. It did cause production problems with German industry but, its impact was not great there. For many periods of time bombing of Germany was the only combat the Western allies contributed, while ground combat was almost daily with the Soviets!
The two greatest effect strategic bombing had was to destroy the seven major railroad hubs in Germany which greatly reduced German industry's ability to produce finished war goods. ( Only about 300 Me-262 were delivered to the Luftwaffe while over 1,000 engines and fuselages were in various stages of production but could not be transported to deliver complete weapons because the rail system no longer functioned.) Second, strategic bombing forced the Luftwaffe to degrade its training of new pilots because the lack of fuel for new pilots to train to be effective. Third, is once the Western allies had fighters to escort the bombers... the bombers became the bait to force the Luftwaffe to get into the air and be shot down. Strategic bombing indirectly caused the Luftwaffe interceptors to be eliminated in the air. If the Luftwaffe had still been a fighting force, the D-Day invasion probably would have failed. As it was, so effectively was the Luftwaffe eliminated that it only made a few sorties on the D-Day invasion!
 
Ask US 3rd Army grunts about the value of tactical support by the 9th AAF.

They were able to rip across France because of 19th TAC protection of their flanks.
 
Ask US 3rd Army grunts about the value of tactical support by the 9th AAF.
They were able to rip across France because of 19th TAC protection of their flanks.
I was not discounting the efforts of the tactical fighters in the ETO but, the Luftwaffe would not have come up to fight if it had not been for the strategic bombing campaign. Starting in January of 1944, the bombers became the sacrificial lambs to according to the journals/diaries of several command level generals. The Luftwaffe had to be eliminated before D-Day, so the bombers did not fly any diversionary routes. All routes deep into Germany took the bombers as close to as many Luftawffe fighter bases as possible. The interceptors had to come up to fight the bombers and the bomber escorts killed the Luftwaffe. It was a team effort and each played their own part.... I don't feel it was one versus the other.
The Luftwaffe was virtually eliminated as a major fighting force and was not in any position to oppose the D-Day landings. So yes, the 9th AF guarded the right flank of Patton's 3rd Army but, that was only possible because of the preparations to eliminate the Luftawffe leading to D-Day.
 
Back
Top