Way it was described every house on a street would have a drill press in it. Won't find that here.
How innocent are civilians in wartime?
Der Alte
Banned
Allow me to provoke you.
"Are we beasts?" asked Winston Churchill one night in 1943 after watching a film of the bomb damage done to Germany. The question was probably rhetorical: Churchill had authorised the bombing campaign from its puny beginnings in 1940 to the massive Combined Offensive launched with the American air forces in the last two years of war. His language was always intemperate and flowery - "extermination", "annihilation" and so on. Did he mean it? Did the British set out deliberately in the Second World War on a path to the genocide of the German people?
"When I look around to see how we can win the war I see that there is only one sure path. We have no Continental army which can defeat the German military power.. Should (Hitler).. not try invasion (of Britain).. there is one thing that will bring him back and bring him down, and that is an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland. We must be able to overwhelm them by this means, without which I do not see a way through. We cannot accept any aim lower than air mastery. When can it be obtained?" (Extract from Winston S Churchill The Second World War, Volume 2 Their Finest Hour Appendix A), Memo from Prime Minister to Minister of Aircraft Production, 8.July 1940).
The British will be familiar with Dresden, which has come to symbolise the awful horror of a ruthless total war. What they will not know is the fate of a host of other small cities - Kassel, Paderborn, Aachen, Swinemünde, and many more - which were all but obliterated by the bombing, or of the many large cities such as Cologne or Essen which experienced more than 250 raids each, so many that at the end the bombers were simply turning ruins into ruins.
This is a point of view that will probably not go down well with the British public. Britain's ineffectual war effort could do little else for three years after expulsion from France in 1940; the radicalisation of bombing policy reflected the limitations of the air weapon; the necessity of showing Stalin that Britain meant business compelled a raising of the stakes of horror for the political effect it might have. But killing as many German civilians as possible in ways that became progressively more grotesque was Britain's strategy from 1940 to the last attacks in April 1945.
Is this theory complete nonsense or is there any sense in it?
"Are we beasts?" asked Winston Churchill one night in 1943 after watching a film of the bomb damage done to Germany. The question was probably rhetorical: Churchill had authorised the bombing campaign from its puny beginnings in 1940 to the massive Combined Offensive launched with the American air forces in the last two years of war. His language was always intemperate and flowery - "extermination", "annihilation" and so on. Did he mean it? Did the British set out deliberately in the Second World War on a path to the genocide of the German people?
"When I look around to see how we can win the war I see that there is only one sure path. We have no Continental army which can defeat the German military power.. Should (Hitler).. not try invasion (of Britain).. there is one thing that will bring him back and bring him down, and that is an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland. We must be able to overwhelm them by this means, without which I do not see a way through. We cannot accept any aim lower than air mastery. When can it be obtained?" (Extract from Winston S Churchill The Second World War, Volume 2 Their Finest Hour Appendix A), Memo from Prime Minister to Minister of Aircraft Production, 8.July 1940).
The British will be familiar with Dresden, which has come to symbolise the awful horror of a ruthless total war. What they will not know is the fate of a host of other small cities - Kassel, Paderborn, Aachen, Swinemünde, and many more - which were all but obliterated by the bombing, or of the many large cities such as Cologne or Essen which experienced more than 250 raids each, so many that at the end the bombers were simply turning ruins into ruins.
This is a point of view that will probably not go down well with the British public. Britain's ineffectual war effort could do little else for three years after expulsion from France in 1940; the radicalisation of bombing policy reflected the limitations of the air weapon; the necessity of showing Stalin that Britain meant business compelled a raising of the stakes of horror for the political effect it might have. But killing as many German civilians as possible in ways that became progressively more grotesque was Britain's strategy from 1940 to the last attacks in April 1945.
Is this theory complete nonsense or is there any sense in it?
42RM
Banned
In the first months of the war, Bomber Command was anxious to avoid the risk of killing civilians, and constrained itself to leaflet dropping and attacks on naval targets. But after Dunkirk, the heavy bombers remained the only means by which Britain could fight the Nazis in continental Europe.
This was the time when Churchill began to think about the need for an "absolutely devastating exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland." When on the night of 24 August 1940 the German air force - the Luftwaffe - accidentally and against Hitler's orders - dropped some bombs over London, the British prime minister requested a retaliatory raid on Berlin. Hitler responded by going ahead with the Blitz, and the following months and years saw tit-for-tat raids on each country's cities.
At the same time, Britain's air force began to realise that its bombers were not able to find and hit specific war targets such as airfields or armament factories. An investigation revealed that just one in five aircraft was succeeding in dropping its bombs within five miles of its target. Under such circumstances, the bombing offensive could only be effective if it was directed at targets as big as cities.
The aiming points thereafter, for bombing raids, were no longer military or industrial installations, but a church or other significant spot in the centre of industrial towns. And since fire was found to be the most effective means of destroying a town, the bombers now carried mainly incendiary bombs.
Thus, the exigencies of war had rendered the traditional distinction between combatants and non-combatants meaningless. Nearly everybody living in an "industrial town" was considered to contribute directly or indirectly to the German war effort, and had therefore become a supposedly legitimate target.
Hostilities had reached a point where the mere possibility of saving Allied lives was felt to justify the death of tens of thousands of civilians in German towns. In war, morality is a luxury - and some rules of engagement can prove impractical.
This was the time when Churchill began to think about the need for an "absolutely devastating exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland." When on the night of 24 August 1940 the German air force - the Luftwaffe - accidentally and against Hitler's orders - dropped some bombs over London, the British prime minister requested a retaliatory raid on Berlin. Hitler responded by going ahead with the Blitz, and the following months and years saw tit-for-tat raids on each country's cities.
At the same time, Britain's air force began to realise that its bombers were not able to find and hit specific war targets such as airfields or armament factories. An investigation revealed that just one in five aircraft was succeeding in dropping its bombs within five miles of its target. Under such circumstances, the bombing offensive could only be effective if it was directed at targets as big as cities.
The aiming points thereafter, for bombing raids, were no longer military or industrial installations, but a church or other significant spot in the centre of industrial towns. And since fire was found to be the most effective means of destroying a town, the bombers now carried mainly incendiary bombs.
Thus, the exigencies of war had rendered the traditional distinction between combatants and non-combatants meaningless. Nearly everybody living in an "industrial town" was considered to contribute directly or indirectly to the German war effort, and had therefore become a supposedly legitimate target.
Hostilities had reached a point where the mere possibility of saving Allied lives was felt to justify the death of tens of thousands of civilians in German towns. In war, morality is a luxury - and some rules of engagement can prove impractical.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
But if the primary target of these raids were in the end civilians why did they go through the charade of the Nuremberg trials, there is no doubt that the holocaust was something they wanted to punish and rightly so but in 1945 War Crimes laws did not include crimes against your own people.
It was because of this they drafted Article 6 Crimes Against Humanity which were defined as "Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated".
Based on that definition and what has been said by Allied leadership are they not guilty of the same crime or are said crimes only committed by the losing side?
Oh and for interests sake here is a copy of Churchill's memo...
It was because of this they drafted Article 6 Crimes Against Humanity which were defined as "Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated".
Based on that definition and what has been said by Allied leadership are they not guilty of the same crime or are said crimes only committed by the losing side?
Oh and for interests sake here is a copy of Churchill's memo...
Last edited:
LeEnfield
Active member
Like all politicians Churchill had an eye on the future and although he agreed with the bombing policy until the war was almost won. The people that seemed to carry the can for all of this was bomber crews and they were the ones that died implementing the politicians policies. The bomber crews like the German U Boat crews should have their memorial as they earned it doing their duty.
Der Alte
Banned
When one side wins, they get to dictate who or what event was so tragic. There still might have been a Nuremberg trail. If Germany had won, there is no question how the trials would had looked like. The Germans didn't have a holocaust to punish which could deflect anger away from the bombing. I can only imagine the parade of survivors we would bring into the court room to describe how children and relatives and homes and lives were burned out from under them in a firestorm etc etc. Would make for quite a dramatic seen, I'm sure Goebbels would have appreciated the propaganda effect.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Agreed with it, Churchill authorised it.
So far I have yet to see anyone in any thread on any forum claim that bomber crews should carry the can for area bombing, nor should they (and the same applies to Luftwaffe and U Boat crews) and there is no doubt that they should have had their memorials a long time ago but that does not change the fact that Harris and co were no less ruthless that their counterparts in Germany and Japan who were put on trial for their actions.
LeEnfield
Active member
Dresden was authorised by IKE and approved by all parties involved. Being authorised by IKE then the Americans joined in as well so they got the full force of the bombing campaign that went on with Americans bombing by day and the RAF bombing by night. Churchill did not object to it but it was not his idea.
If we look at history with the eyes of today then most, if not all, great generals would be labeled war criminals.
One must make a difference between looking at history from your safe couch or expierenced it. Only the ones who experienced it know what it's like and I think that most if not all americans, brits, french etc have supported the destruction of Germany and Japan, no matter what. It was all out war, them or us. They didn't know the war would be over soon. For them the war would be over with the surrender of Germany and Japan, not sooner.
I have a question for LeEnfield : did you blame the Germans (including civilians) for bringing Hitler to power?
One must make a difference between looking at history from your safe couch or expierenced it. Only the ones who experienced it know what it's like and I think that most if not all americans, brits, french etc have supported the destruction of Germany and Japan, no matter what. It was all out war, them or us. They didn't know the war would be over soon. For them the war would be over with the surrender of Germany and Japan, not sooner.
I have a question for LeEnfield : did you blame the Germans (including civilians) for bringing Hitler to power?
LeEnfield
Active member
Hitlers raise to power was a strange thing and many things came into play. Germany after WW1 was in dire straits with no glimmer of hope on the horizon. Hitler offered the German people hope and only just managed to get into power the first time, then he and his henchmen changed the system so that he couldn't lose next time and had the muscle power to stop the opposition dead in its tracks. After that he got Germany working again and tore up most of the treaties that had been holding Germany back and gave the people hope. Do I blame the German people, well that is a question i have asked my self many times and the only thing I can say that if I was a German I would have probably supported him. Do I agree with what he did in the name of Germany well NO I don't, but by then if you said any thing you would have disappeared, and once he was in power no one in Germany could have stopped him.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Bollocks...
It is easy in most cases to distinguish "operational necessity" and a crime (which was proven at Nuremberg as no Axis personnel were tried for conducting aerial operations) and given that we have a greater understanding of both sides position 70 years after an event because we not only have survivors from both sides available we also have documents from both sides available.
70 years ago all you had was LeE looking at the damage the Luftwaffe did and Der Alte looking at the damage the RAF did, shaking fists at each other, vowing revenge and justifying a continued fight, now we can not only put them in a room to discuss the issues we can provide everyone else's involvement as well and you are telling me our views can't be accurate?
As for total support of Area Bombing, not quite...
Bishop Bells said in a speech at the House of Lords on February 9, 1944,
which was a continuation of and earlier, 10th May 1941, Bell made a speech where he described the "night-bombing of non-combatants as a degradation of the spirit for all who take part in it".
Labour MP Alfred Salter stated in an debate on the bombing of civilians:
He was supported by Richard Stokes Labour MP who is considered to be the person that changed Churchill's direction after the Dresden raid.
LeEnfield
Active member
So what a lot of people are saying that it is okay for the Germans to use area bombing in all the areas that they are in conflict, but wrong for the Allies to use the same tactic. Or are we all back to two wrongs don't make right, now most of those who complain about the bombing on the allied side were know doubt sitting safely tucked away some where away from the bombing, and probably did not have any member of their family in the armed forces and in harms way. As I have said before I was grew up in south London during the war and can tell you there were no complaints about the RAF bombing Germany from people that lived there.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
In an all out total war ethics and moral behaviour goes out the window. If you were getting the shite bombed out of you, you would want to hit back and hit back hard. Call it what you like, call it revenge, call it tit for tat but the fact remains when it's your family being killed, you will want to hurt the enemy by any and every means available. That is the real world not some school yard justification.
On this one I have to agree with LeEnfield.
Big_Z
MilForum Recon
Germany was too serious of a threat to fight the war without the initiative. They had a far greater developed maneuver doctrine than the allies at the onset. They owned by far the best armor on the planet. You cant judge ww2 doctrine by modern warfare standards. Nations such as the US have such a far more advanced military forces then their foes that they can operate on presence patrols to draw the enemy giving the insurgents the initiative.
No such luxury with the Germans, it was fully apparent if left unchecked they could have the potential to become undefeatable. It had to be total war against a enemy who would exterminate our cultures. I have nothing but respect for the bomber pilots.
No such luxury with the Germans, it was fully apparent if left unchecked they could have the potential to become undefeatable. It had to be total war against a enemy who would exterminate our cultures. I have nothing but respect for the bomber pilots.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I disagree, it is a school yard justification because it is used without objectivity much in the way "school yard" slanging matches evolve the assumption is always that you are justified in doing anything because the other guy started it and is therefore always wrong.
Don't get me wrong the Japanese were the worst for it especially if you look at the fate of those captured from the Doolittle raid that would be the classic example.
Der Alte
Banned
My uncle who was fireman in Hamburg throughout the war, never forgave the Allied bombing against Germany. He often said that the mass killings we perpetrated against Jews and other undesirables is the biggest shame we have brought upon ourselves and never can murder of civilians be just no matter who did it or how it was done.
His position on this was; that more people died in the bombing of Hamburg alone that in the entire German bombing campaign against England. This was Englands holocaust and one day they will have to answer for this deed.
I never experienced these bombings since I grew up in a small town and then came to the front. It took until 1946 before I saw the devastation of the major cities in Germany. During the war, I was believer in total war but today it is my position that any deliberate attack on civilians is the same as sacrificing our conscience on the altar of war.
His position on this was; that more people died in the bombing of Hamburg alone that in the entire German bombing campaign against England. This was Englands holocaust and one day they will have to answer for this deed.
I never experienced these bombings since I grew up in a small town and then came to the front. It took until 1946 before I saw the devastation of the major cities in Germany. During the war, I was believer in total war but today it is my position that any deliberate attack on civilians is the same as sacrificing our conscience on the altar of war.
LeEnfield
Active member
Der Alte
It was not just Britain that Germany bombed to peices, there was some 60.000 people killed in one German air raid against Stanligrad just before the first attack went in by land. The first night big night raid on London in 1940 was a German attempt to start a fire storm which nearly succeded.
It was not just Britain that Germany bombed to peices, there was some 60.000 people killed in one German air raid against Stanligrad just before the first attack went in by land. The first night big night raid on London in 1940 was a German attempt to start a fire storm which nearly succeded.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
If I chucked a Mills 36 threw your front window where you and your family were sitting you'd sit back and say "Never mind, I'll turn the other cheek and wont rip his head off." Like hell you would. You can never compare total war with anything else, because there is nothing else like it including school yard justification.
Total war isn't chivalry with knights in shining armour on white chargers, its nasty and you do your best to win whatever it takes.