It may have been perceived at the time as the right thing to do but it was completely unnecessary. Germany was losing the war of attrition and the destruction of their cities did not hasten the end just as the attempted flattening of London didn't break the Brits.
Picture of the day
- Thread starter jwhc
- Start date
It is easy to look back at history and say this or that was unnecessary.
But put yourself into the shoes of the people making the decision at the time and things become more complex and decisions less easy.
Dresden was bombed for a varity of reasons, one of which was because it was requested by the USSR. Information from the USSR was rare, they gave almost no information on their moves and often gave misinformation to their allies.
I am not saying that the bombing campaign was right or wrong, just that it was one of the few ways for the allies to strike at Germany.
But put yourself into the shoes of the people making the decision at the time and things become more complex and decisions less easy.
Dresden was bombed for a varity of reasons, one of which was because it was requested by the USSR. Information from the USSR was rare, they gave almost no information on their moves and often gave misinformation to their allies.
I am not saying that the bombing campaign was right or wrong, just that it was one of the few ways for the allies to strike at Germany.
The bombing of German cities in WWII was done for two reasons: take out industry - especially war materials, and to weaken the will of the German people to wage war.
Technology of the day didn't allow what we call "precision strikes" so huge fleets of bombers had to be used to take out targets. That meant a LOT of civilian casualties.
FYI,Germany was the first country to try its hand at strategic bombing in WWI, with Gotha bombers and Zeppelin airships dropping bombs on England. Germany also was the first to take the war to civilians in WWII with the London Blitz during the Battle of Britain.
Dresden was (IIRC) an important manufacturing centre for Germany's war machine, and as such was a legitimate military target.
Technology of the day didn't allow what we call "precision strikes" so huge fleets of bombers had to be used to take out targets. That meant a LOT of civilian casualties.
FYI,Germany was the first country to try its hand at strategic bombing in WWI, with Gotha bombers and Zeppelin airships dropping bombs on England. Germany also was the first to take the war to civilians in WWII with the London Blitz during the Battle of Britain.
Dresden was (IIRC) an important manufacturing centre for Germany's war machine, and as such was a legitimate military target.
One thing not mentioned very often is that the residents of Dresdin were purposely targeted to take out the factory workers which at the time were getting to be irreplaceable and were considered to be viable targets.
Well the flattening of Dresden has also been described as a coldly brutal exercise calculated to demonstrate to advancing Soviet troops that it would be unwise to underestimate the West's capacity - and capability - for air war!
Wrong.
Churchill started the intentional civilian bombings of German cities in WWII.
Prior to that, while Germany had bombed cities during it's Polish, Norway, and Holland campaigns - but as specific air support for German ground forces.
Britain was bombing German cities, at night, indiscriminately, for 3 months, before the Blitz started. Hitler thought Churchill's actions were the height of insanity, and refused requests from the German High Command, repeatedly, to begin bombing urban centers in England, in favour of continued targeted air strikes on RAF installations.
There are many, many sources for this information. But it is inconvenient to the narrative of the war as told by the victors.
http://www.westernspring.co.uk/who-started-the-bombing-of-civilians-in-world-war-ii/
Now, that's not saying Churchill (and Harris) were wrong. But when it comes down to "who started it" - in the matter of mass bombings of urban centers - it was the British who opened that can of worms in WWII.
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
Interesting that they started with an enclosed position, then went to a gaping feckin' window in the D and F models...
...then back to a window in the G's:
Makes one wonder why. Sudden Onset Stupid? Trying to go lighter, relaizing it wasn't worth the discomfort the guys would experience, and finding a lightweight solution?
...then back to a window in the G's:
Makes one wonder why. Sudden Onset Stupid? Trying to go lighter, relaizing it wasn't worth the discomfort the guys would experience, and finding a lightweight solution?
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
Look at how they changed. Here's a Y1B-17A:
What a masterpiece of aerodynamics. Love that tail, even without a gunner position. There's a gob of superstructire around that waist gun. A lot of weight for a mildly effective advantage. The C model dropped a lot of "fat around the waist" and brought in the nose we're more familiar with:
By the time they got to the G model, the whole bird had mutated considerably:
A very practical set of adaptations, sure, but she's gone all lumpy.
What a masterpiece of aerodynamics. Love that tail, even without a gunner position. There's a gob of superstructire around that waist gun. A lot of weight for a mildly effective advantage. The C model dropped a lot of "fat around the waist" and brought in the nose we're more familiar with:
By the time they got to the G model, the whole bird had mutated considerably:
A very practical set of adaptations, sure, but she's gone all lumpy.
fingers284
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Alberta Cowboy Ranges
Interesting that they started with an enclosed position, then went to a gaping feckin' window in the D and F models...
...then back to a window in the G's:
Makes one wonder why. Sudden Onset Stupid? Trying to go lighter, relaizing it wasn't worth the discomfort the guys would experience, and finding a lightweight solution?
I can see them changing the enclosed firing position to an open one purely for visibility of the targets your trying to hit. Trying to get a lead on a 400 mph fighter from the enclosed option would be a split second exercise in futility I would think. By the time the gunner responded to a fighter it would be out of available sight line... kind of like a running shot on a deer in thick willows, there gone before you can react.
Wrong.
Churchill started the intentional civilian bombings of German cities in WWII.
Wrong, Germany started the habit in WWI with Zeppelin attacks on civilian targets, starting with Liege, Belgium on the second day of the war! They went on to attack London for about a year, killing over 500 civilians. All in contravention to the Hague Treaty Germany had signed, but once you start calling the treaties you sign, "scraps of paper", (Belgian neutrality), why stop with just one eh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_strategic_bombing_during_World_War_I
And just to make sure there was no confusion, the German navy bombarded several coastal British cities in 1914: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Scarborough,_Hartlepool_and_Whitby killing more civilians. No pretense of military targets again, just terrorism, such as was the declared policy of the Germany Army on the continent. The Austrians also used terrorism against civilian populations particularly in the Balkans. Try a google search.
Prior to that, while Germany had bombed cities during it's Polish, Norway, and Holland campaigns - but as specific air support for German ground forces.
Ever heard of Rotterdam? (Hint: it's in Holland), the city bombed during a cease fire in 1940, during yet another unprovoked German attack on a neutral state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_Blitz
As in WWI, simply "terror-bombing" which your military geniuses thought would undermine the Allies will to resist! Duh.
Britain was bombing German cities, at night, indiscriminately, for 3 months, before the Blitz started. Hitler thought Churchill's actions were the height of insanity, and refused requests from the German High Command, repeatedly, to begin bombing urban centers in England, in favour of continued targeted air strikes on RAF installations.
Utter BS. The RAF was dropping nothing but leaflets on Germany in the "Phoney War" period, and only attacked a few military targets after that. The first raid on Berlin was August 26th 1940, was in response to German bombing of the City of London and the West End the day before, purportedly "by mistake." The first RAF raid on Berlin ordered the next day in response, targeted only armament factories and the main airport.
As a result Berliners started called Goering "Mayer", as he said they could if an enemy plane ever bombed Berlin, LOL, and Molotov had a laugh while sitting in an air raid shelter in Berlin listening to Ribbontrop tell him the war was as good as won. LOL.
Adolf then worked himself into a lather on September 4th before a massed crowd of thoughtful Germans and promised "we will raze their cities to the ground!"
And so the Luftwaffe began indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets in the UK: "the Blitz". Nothing new, they'd already been doing it for almost two years, just not over Britain. Incendiaries and high explosive mixed, delayed action bombs designed to burn out the cities and obstruct fire-fighting, all the same stuff the herrenvolk would soon learn to enjoy themselves.
A few more RAF raids of military targets in Germany followed, then on February 26 1942, after six months of German area bombing of cities, the RAF introduced its Area Bombing Directive which made cities themselves legitimate targets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive
And so we adopted the German policy, after two years of Luftwaffe air terrorism, which of course actually began in Spain in 1936 at Guernica!
Poor Germany, so misunderstood, so ill-treated... it's enough to make you cry.
There are many, many sources for this information. But it is inconvenient to the narrative of the war as told by the victors.
http://www.westernspring.co.uk/who-started-the-bombing-of-civilians-in-world-war-ii/
Thanks for your little neo-nazi link: ht tp://www.westernspring.co.uk/is-it-time-for-the-rehabilitation-of-national-socialism/ Personally, I don't trust nazis and fascists trying to piggy back their ####e on top of legitimate social issues of our time. They are in fact the de facto allies of those they proclaim to be the enemies of, since by their "advocacy" all they do is discredit legitimate viewpoints. No different from communists and their piggy-backing on other legitimate social questions.
Now, that's not saying Churchill (and Harris) were wrong. But when it comes down to "who started it" - in the matter of mass bombings of urban centers - it was the British who opened that can of worms in WWII.
Nice try, but the facts don't agree with your fables.
Indeed, in fact the British did not have any heavy bombers at the start of WW2. The Halifax joined squadrons in November 1940 and was followed in January 1941, by the Short Stirling. Neither was as successful as the Avro Lancaster which reached squadrons early in 1942.
British Short Stirling RAF Heavy Bomber
Avro Lancaster
Handley Page Halifax
Last edited:
I'm referencing WWII, and sorry to burst your bubble, but you're wrong.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/the-bombing-war-by-richard-overy-review/
I think History tends to cloud the fact of how people actually felt at the time.
Perhaps the way that Japanese Canadians & German Canadians were treated is shameful by today's standards...but it was certainly better than the way they treated the vanquished.
They were the enemy that was trying to defeat us; and they played dirty pool. The fact that we responded in kind isn't shocking at all to me.
One of my mothers shirttail relatives walked out of Germany with her infant to escape persecution, and she was German...nasty bit of business the Second World War. We had a prison camp for German soldiers in town in WW2, it's not just words in a book. People were scared & mad, is it a wonder that cities got bombed back into the Stone Age? The enemy would have and sometimes did the same.
Hindsight is always 20/20
Perhaps the way that Japanese Canadians & German Canadians were treated is shameful by today's standards...but it was certainly better than the way they treated the vanquished.
They were the enemy that was trying to defeat us; and they played dirty pool. The fact that we responded in kind isn't shocking at all to me.
One of my mothers shirttail relatives walked out of Germany with her infant to escape persecution, and she was German...nasty bit of business the Second World War. We had a prison camp for German soldiers in town in WW2, it's not just words in a book. People were scared & mad, is it a wonder that cities got bombed back into the Stone Age? The enemy would have and sometimes did the same.
Hindsight is always 20/20
