Originally Posted by perseus

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".

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

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?

Originally Posted by Reiben

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 19TACson

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.