Blitz Street

Fratton Fred

Did anyone watch any of this? http://www.channel4.com/programmes/blitz-street

it gave some excellent insight into the effects of the various types of bombs dropped on London, including the V1 and V2 rockets.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Did anyone watch any of this? http://www.channel4.com/programmes/blitz-street

it gave some excellent insight into the effects of the various types of bombs dropped on London, including the V1 and V2 rockets.

I watched some of it, It was also on a few weeks ago too unless I am mistaken I had seen the later parts of the programme then.

Tbh last night after the part with the ominous music/ sinister slow-mo images and dramatic voice over along the lines of

'Werner von braun who was an SS Officer !!!!then worked in Nasa !!!'

part I changed channel.

1971

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Did anyone watch any of this? http://www.channel4.com/programmes/blitz-street

it gave some excellent insight into the effects of the various types of bombs dropped on London, including the V1 and V2 rockets.

I wonder what is was like in Hamburg.Berlin with a thousand bomber raid, considering that fact that the Germans only had twin engine bombers.

getz

as a young child in manchester ,i remember going out with other children in the mornings and playing in newly bombed out buildings the timbers still smoking

OS119

i had higher hopes for it - despite it being a Tony-unsociable fatherless-Robinson vehicle. sadly however, all the tripe and some very dodgy methodology got in the way.

the fundamental problem with it is that they are only 'testing' 1/3rd of the physical effects of an air-dropped munition - the blast effect and heat. they, because of reasonable fears about knocking down houses in Hexham, completely miss out the effect of the bomb casing (possibly 500kg of steel in a 1000kg bomb) being turned into super-heated razor blades travelling at warp speed in all directions, and the 'knocking effect' and ground heave of a 2 ton hump of metal hitting the ground at just shy of mach 1 50 yards from a row of houses.

sadly mince.

testicle

Morlar wrote: »

'Werner von braun who was an SS Officer !!!!then worked in Nasa !!!'

Well, umm, he was, and he did!

gizmo555

testicle wrote: »

Morlar wrote: »

Tbh last night after the part with the ominous music/ sinister slow-mo images and dramatic voice over along the lines of

'Werner von braun who was an SS Officer !!!!then worked in Nasa !!!'

part I changed channel.

Well, umm, he was, and he did!

Hardly news, though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVPjuiABp_E

Fratton Fred

1971 wrote: »

I wonder what is was like in Hamburg.Berlin with a thousand bomber raid, considering that fact that the Germans only had twin engine bombers.

maybe you could watch German TV for us and see if they are doing similar documentaries, that way we could find out.

Fratton Fred

OS119 wrote: »

i had higher hopes for it - despite it being a Tony-unsociable fatherless-Robinson vehicle. sadly however, all the tripe and some very dodgy methodology got in the way.

the fundamental problem with it is that they are only 'testing' 1/3rd of the physical effects of an air-dropped munition - the blast effect and heat. they, because of reasonable fears about knocking down houses in Hexham, completely miss out the effect of the bomb casing (possibly 500kg of steel in a 1000kg bomb) being turned into super-heated razor blades travelling at warp speed in all directions, and the 'knocking effect' and ground heave of a 2 ton hump of metal hitting the ground at just shy of mach 1 50 yards from a row of houses.

sadly mince.

you obviously viewed it from a far more technical point than I

I liked a lot of the eyewitness accounts, particularly about people being "Blasted" to death. I wasn't really aware that this caused so many deaths.

1971

Fratton Fred wrote: »

maybe you could watch German TV for us and see if they are doing similar documentaries, that way we could find out.

Maybe you could read bomber command by" Hastings", and this will help you under stand the level of bombing carried out on German cities.23,000 on one night alone in hamburg died, compare that to the total of 90,000 killed in British cities.

I am not been anti British but the level of bombing by the allies was far greater to the civilian population of Germany.

gizmo555

WG Sebald's On the Natural History of Destruction is very good too.

Sebald, a German, was mainly concerned with post-war German public silence in the face of the enormous destruction wrought, but his dispassionate and detailed description of the firebombing of Hamburg, in particular, is harrowing.

Nonetheless, when comparing numbers, one has to recall that Germany invented this type of warfare, with the Zeppelins and Gothas of WW I and refined it from Guernica onwards. I'm no admirer of Bomber Harris, but one's bound to admit he was only stating the obvious with his well known remarks:

The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

As Sebald put it in his work:

. . . the real pioneering achievements in bomb warfare - Guernica, Warsaw, Belgrade, Rotterdam - were the work of the Germans. And when we think of the nights when fires raged in Cologne, and Hamburg and Dresden, we ought to remember that as early as August 1942, when the vanguard of the Sixth Army had reached the Volga and not a few were dreaming of settling down after the war in the cherry orchards beside the quiet Don, the city of Stalingrad, then swollen (like Dresden later) by an influx of refugees, was under assault from 1,200 bombers, and that during that raid alone, which caused elation among the German troops stationed on the opposite bank, 40,000 people lost their lives.

1971

gizmo555 wrote: »

WG Sebald's On the Natural History of Destruction is very good too.

Sebald, a German, was mainly concerned with post-war German public silence in the face of the enormous destruction wrought, but his dispassionate and detailed description of the firebombing of Hamburg, in particular, is harrowing.

Nonetheless, when comparing numbers, one has to recall that Germany invented this type of warfare, with the Zeppelins and Gothas of WW I and refined it from Guernica onwards. I'm no admirer of Bomber Harris, but one's bound to admit he was only stating the obvious with his well known remarks:

The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

As Sebald put it in his work:

. . . the real pioneering achievements in bomb warfare - Guernica, Warsaw, Belgrade, Rotterdam - were the work of the Germans. And when we think of the nights when fires raged in Cologne, and Hamburg and Dresden, we ought to remember that as early as August 1942, when the vanguard of the Sixth Army had reached the Volga and not a few were dreaming of settling down after the war in the cherry orchards beside the quiet Don, the city of Stalingrad, then swollen (like Dresden later) by an influx of refugees, was under assault from 1,200 bombers, and that during that raid alone, which caused elation among the German troops stationed on the opposite bank, 40,000 people lost their lives.

Darnstadt why bomb this town??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmstadt

Fratton Fred

1971 wrote: »

Maybe you could read bomber command by" Hastings", and this will help you under stand the level of bombing carried out on German cities.23,000 on one night alone in hamburg died, compare that to the total of 90,000 killed in British cities.

I am not been anti British but the level of bombing by the allies was far greater to the civilian population of Germany.

great, thanks for the info. I am well aware of the scale of bombing that Germany endured.

what you are effectively saying though, is that the people of Britain cant complain, because the Germans suffered more.

gizmo555

1971 wrote: »

Darnstadt why bomb this town??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmstadt

Once again as Harris said,

gizmo555 wrote: »

They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

If you go round bombing other countries' cities, what can you expect but more of the same in return?

To be clear, I'm not saying it was justified and indeed it is especially difficult to see a lot of the bombing of Germany which the Allies did towards the end of the war as anything other than a collective punishment of the Germans and an awful warning of what they might expect if they were ever foolish enough to start another war.

1971

Fratton Fred wrote: »

great, thanks for the info. I am well aware of the scale of bombing that Germany endured.

sound!!

what you are effectively saying though, is that the people of Britain cant complain, because the Germans suffered more.

They just seem to always talk about the blitz, is it not time to move on ,yes German civilian suffered more than their British counterparts.

Mahatma coat

on the topic of Arthur Harris, this quote is why a lot of people think he was a C*nt

harris wrote:

The aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive and the part which Bomber Command is required by agreed British-US strategy to play in it, should be unambiguously and publicly stated. That aim is the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers and the disruption of civilised community life throughout Germany.

It should be emphasised that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories

gizmo555

Mahatma coat wrote: »

on the topic of Arthur Harris, this quote is why a lot of people think he was a C*nt

Well, you know, although Harris was a c*nt, he was a a bluntly honest one. Others at very senior levels in Britain, up to and including Churchill persisted with the public pretence that all bombing was aimed at clear military targets instead of admitting the truth, as Harris did.

There's no difference between what he stated as the aims of the bombing and paragraph 1 of the Casablanca Directive to British and US air force commanders, issued by the Allied Combined Chiefs of Staff in February 1943:

Your Primary object will be the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial, and economic system, and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened.

Fratton Fred

1971 wrote: »

They just seem to always talk about the blitz, is it not time to move on ,yes German civilian suffered more than their British counterparts.

no disrespect or anything, but advising people they should move on, on a board discussing history......

anyway, the people of stalingrad suffered more than anyone else, so why do people constantly go on about Dresden etc...maybe they should move on.

1971

Fratton Fred wrote: »

no disrespect or anything, but advising people they should move on, on a board discussing history......

No disrespect taken, but i was referring to the British public when I said "move on"

anyway, the people of stalingrad suffered more than anyone else, so why do people constantly go on about Dresden etc...maybe they should move on.

I must agree with you on the facts that Russia suffered a lot in the War, and Stalingrad is a very good example

Tony EH

1971 wrote: »

Maybe you could read bomber command by" Hastings", and this will help you under stand the level of bombing carried out on German cities.23,000 on one night alone in hamburg died, compare that to the total of 90,000 killed in British cities.

I am not been anti British but the level of bombing by the allies was far greater to the civilian population of Germany.

Actually, the death toll for Hamburg is somewhat higher, closer to 40,000 on the worst night and the death toll for British cities is somewhat lower, just under 60,000 for the entire war.

Tony EH

1971 wrote: »

Darnstadt why bomb this town??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmstadt

Not only that, but...

. . . the real pioneering achievements in bomb warfare - Guernica, Warsaw, Belgrade, Rotterdam - were the work of the Germans. And when we think of the nights when fires raged in Cologne, and Hamburg and Dresden, we ought to remember that as early as August 1942, when the vanguard of the Sixth Army had reached the Volga and not a few were dreaming of settling down after the war in the cherry orchards beside the quiet Don, the city of Stalingrad, then swollen (like Dresden later) by an influx of refugees, was under assault from 1,200 bombers, and that during that raid alone, which caused elation among the German troops stationed on the opposite bank, 40,000 people lost their lives.

...contains not only little fact, but outright falsehoods too. Guernica was a mickey mouse attack that's been blown completely out of proportion since the event occured in 1938. Likewise, Warsaw, Belgrade and Stalingrad were attacked becasue the enemy armies had GARRISONED THEMSELVES THERE. The Luftwaffe was used in it's primary role, as flying artillery to support the land attacks. Besides, Yugoslavia wouldn't been touched if it wasn't for a British backed coup that ousted the previously neutral government. As for Rotterdam, this is another highly exaggerated raid. Churchill blow the death toll out of all proportion for this one, claiming, incredibly, that the Germans had killed 30,000+ people. Quite remarkable when you consider that only about 60 He111's of KG54 actually attacked the docks because they failed to hear the recall signal given to the bombers. The subsequent fires, caused by the material (food stores) hit on the docks, came as much as a shock to the Germans as it did to the Dutch as a total of only 90 tons of bombs were actually dropped. In addition, the allies bombed Rotterdam several times during the war and they caused MUCH wider damage and loss of life. And finally, concerning Stalingrad...there is ZERO proof that anywhere near 40,000 civilians were killed (at least not by bombing alone) during the attacks there on the 23rd Aug '42. That is an absolute falsehood and was first spread by Soviet propaganda during the war itself. Joel Hayward in his book 'Stopped at Stalingrad' suggests that perhaps up to 25,000 COULD have been killed. But, I would say that this is way too high as well. Especially when one considers that the majority of attacks were carried out by Fiebig's Stukas. A machine that was completely impractical for carpet bombing. as it was designed to attack a pin point target, not an area...such as the Lancaster. Perhaps 40,000 civilans were killed in the battle, but NOT on one day and not by bombing alone. The Luftwaffe simply didn't have the capability. In fact, just a month later Luftflotte IV was down to just 500 aircraft, over a hundred of which were for recon purposes and only a percentage of that 500 planes were actually serviceable.

Tony EH

BTW...wasn't too impressed with Blitz Street.

1971

Tony EH wrote: »

Actually, the death toll for Hamburg is somewhat higher, closer to 40,000 on the worst night and the death toll for British cities is somewhat lower, just under 60,000 for the entire war.

I was in the parliament ( Rathaus) , in the main lobby of the building there is a picture of the devastation to commemorate the 34,000 people who lost their lives on one night.

I will agree with you on the silly program Blitz street, any way i do not like tony Robinson drool voice.It's very hard to take the like of him serious after black adder

Tony EH

Numbers are generally bunkum anyway. You'll always have fluctuations. Does the Rathaus figure of 34.000 take into account the missing and never found?

Either way, I've seen figures as low as 20.000 being put forward. At the end of the day, it'll come down to what it always comes down to and that's what one chooses to believe.

I actually like Tony Robinson. He's made some decent programs. The 'Worst Jobs in history' was great.

gizmo555

Tony EH wrote: »

Guernica was a mickey mouse attack that's been blown completely out of proportion since the event occured in 1938.

....

And finally, concerning Stalingrad...there is ZERO proof that anywhere near 40,000 civilians were killed (at least not by bombing alone) during the attacks there on the 23rd Aug '42. That is an absolute falsehood and was first spread by Soviet propaganda during the war itself. Joel Hayward in his book 'Stopped at Stalingrad' suggests that perhaps up to 25,000 COULD have been killed. But, I would say that this is way too high as well. Especially when one considers that the majority of attacks were carried out by Fiebig's Stukas. A machine that was completely impractical for carpet bombing. as it was designed to attack a pin point target, not an area...such as the Lancaster. Perhaps 40,000 civilans were killed in the battle, but NOT on one day and not by bombing alone. The Luftwaffe simply didn't have the capability. In fact, just a month later Luftflotte IV was down to just 500 aircraft, over a hundred of which were for recon purposes and only a percentage of that 500 planes were actually serviceable.

In the afternoon, the panzer crews looked up, squinting against the sunlight, to see waves of Junkers 88 and Heinkel 111 bombers, as well as squadrons of Stukas in 'tightly packed groups', flying towards Stalingrad.

. . .

Richthofen's aircraft began to carpet bomb in relays, 'not just industrial targets, but everything', said one student present that day.

. . .

Descriptions of scenes in the city make it hard to imagine anyone surviving outside a cellar.

. . .

The aerial assault on Stalingrad, the most concentrated on the Ostfront, represented the natural culmination of Richthofen's career since Guernica. Fourth Air Fleet aircraft flew a total of 1,600 sorties that day and dropped 1,000 tons of bombs for the loss of only three machines. According to some estimates, there had been nearly 600,000 people in Stalingrad, and 40,000 were killed during the first week of bombardment.

Beevor, Stalingrad, pp. 104-106

Tony EH

In the afternoon, the panzer crews looked up, squinting against the sunlight, to see waves of Junkers 88 and Heinkel 111 bombers, as well as squadrons of Stukas in 'tightly packed groups', flying towards Stalingrad.

So what?

Richthofen's aircraft began to carpet bomb in relays, 'not just industrial targets, but everything', said one student present that day.

The vast majority of Luftflotte IV's aircraft was incapable of "carpet bombing" anything. I couldn't care less what "one student" says.

Descriptions of scenes in the city make it hard to imagine anyone surviving outside a cellar.

Meaningless.

The aerial assault on Stalingrad, the most concentrated on the Ostfront, represented the natural culmination of Richthofen's career since Guernica. Fourth Air Fleet aircraft flew a total of 1,600 sorties that day and dropped 1,000 tons of bombs for the loss of only three machines. According to some estimates, there had been nearly 600,000 people in Stalingrad, and 40,000 were killed during the first week of bombardment.

In a week, perhaps, but not by bombing alone, especially when one considers the payload, type and targeting priority of the airforce concerned. In any case, the claim by Sebald (and others) is 40,000 killed in a day. Aug 23rd. And it still remains bunkum.

If you're really interested on the Luftwaffe's role over Stalingrad, I suggest that you read Joel Hayward's 'Stopped at Stalingrad'. It focuses entirely on the German air ops. In it, it's listed the specific targets that that were assigned for bombing.

It becomes pretty clear that it wasn't "everything".

The Kampfgeshwader and Stukageschwader had particular targets assigned and made great efforts to hit them, including dangerous low alt bombing runs. They simply couldn't afford to waste ordnance on blind indiscriminate attacks on "everything" as that would have been tactically useless. The bombers of the Luftwaffe were set up as flying artillery. They were a tactical force, not a strategic one al la Bomber Command. So they way the German airforce was employed was very different. The prime directive for the Luftwaffe was to clear the way for the land forces. This meant that specific targets had to be hit. Simply dumping tons of bombs on "everything" would have achieved nothing. The most targeted and hit point in the city was the Red October factory areas to the east. They were churning out T-34's that were being thrown into battle straight away. Putting that out of action made tactical sense.

Bombing "everything" wouldn't have.

gizmo555

Unresolvable arguments about how many were killed in a day (for example, does someone wounded on day one and who died a week later count?), or whether the Luftwaffe's attack met the strict definition of carpet bombing (reading accounts of the destruction wrought, even if precision targeting was intended, that was certainly not the outcome) are ultimately sterile and anyway miss the overall point.

Sebald may err in detail (he was a literary author, not a professional historian), but on the overall point he makes, that Germany pioneered this type of warfare - not just technically, but far more importantly making the widespread and indiscriminate bombing of cities an acceptable part of the usages of war - he is entirely correct.

As for Guernica being "Mickey Mouse", it was certainly minor compared to some of the horrors to be unleashed in WW II, but it is hardly possible to overstate the shock it caused at the time, or its influence in convincing other countries that Germany intended to employ similar methods in any future conflict. And as Sebald and Beevor both note, what Richthofen learned in Spain where he commanded the Condor Legion, he applied to vastly greater and more devastating effect in the East.

Tony EH

Unresolvable arguments about how many were killed in a day (for example, does someone wounded on day one and who died a week later count?), or whether the Luftwaffe's attack met the strict definition of carpet bombing (reading accounts of the destruction wrought, even if precision targeting was intended, that was certainly not the outcome) are ultimately sterile and anyway miss the overall point.

Depends what the overall point is.

Besides, I was correcting the quote from Seabald, which as I said, not only contains errors, but outright falsehoods too.

In addition, the destruction wrought upon Stalingrad did not come from the results of airial bombing alone. The place was a battlefield for months. Images of destruction within Stalingrad that one sees should not be put into the simple brackets of "Luftwaffe bombing". There were numerous causes and not just from the Germans either.

Sebald may err in detail (he was a literary author, not a professional historian), but on the overall point he makes, that Germany pioneered this type of warfare - not just technically, but far more importantly making the widespread and indiscriminate bombing of cities an acceptable part of the usages of war - he is entirely correct.

No, it's not. The German's didn't "pioneer" anything of the sort. The Luftwaffe as a whole was set up for a completely different purpose. It was a tactical battlefield airforce, not a strategic airforce. It's aircraft and doctrine were designed to produce immediate effects on the battlefield. It's one of the failings of the Luftwaffe that they didn't follow the British ideas of producing heavy bombers for the purpose of area bombing.

The theoretical applications of area bombing had been advanced by the British and the Italians long before the Luftwaffe was even a potent force. The Germans were way behind on that matter. In fact, they never even got off the ground in that respect. The programs for four engined strategic bomber airforce never became a reality, whereas Bomber Command's evolution is very clear.

The Luftwaffe rejected Douhet's theory of "terror bombing" outright, saying that it was a "counter-productive" idea. That's not to say that, at times, they didn't engage in such actions, especially later in the war and even then the results were miniscule compared to Bomber Command's efforts.

As for Guernica being "Mickey Mouse", it was certainly minor compared to some of the horrors to be unleashed in WW II, but it is hardly possible to overstate the shock it caused at the time, or its influence in convincing other countries that Germany intended to employ similar methods in any future conflict. And as Sebald and Beevor both note, what Richthofen learned in Spain where he commanded the Condor Legion, he applied to vastly greater and more devastating effect in the East.

And that's the point. Guernica was in fact nothing that new. By 1937, towns had been bombed before and with greater loss of life too. In fact, more people had been killed in crossfire within towns and villages than died at Guernica. Less than a 200 people (including Republican military forces) were killed, some say it was less. Much different than the 2000 suggested at the time. What's entirely different about Guernica was the propaganda usage the Republican forces (and others) got out of it. Propaganda that colours perception to this day, I may add.

And as for method, most of the aircraft employed in the Guernica raid by the Condor Legion were JU-52's. Hardly the bomber aircraft of choice, due to the very small bombload. Likewise, the He-51 bi-planes employed carried an even smaller load.

Seabald and Beevor's hyperbole notwithstanding, what Von Richthofen "learnt" in Spain was to hone the German bomber force into a pricise tool for the support of ground troops. A function it excelled at throughout most of the war.

drakshug

I doubt if you could say that the Germans didn't adhere to terror bombing.
The bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam were done to provoke terror and extinguish resistance. Baedeker raids were there to destroy culture and therefore sap moral.
The Germans reaped the wind and got it back thousandfold. It is fine to us with the benefit of hindsight to go on about the allied bombings but for the British in Coventry, Clydebank and Lodon and Liverpool it was apt that the Germans were being Coventrized.

Tony EH

The bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam were done to provoke terror and extinguish resistance

Not true. Warsaw was bombed not as an act of terror, but because the Polish military was garrisoned there. No army is going to send in it's land forces with an armed and dug defence waiting for them, that hasn't been softened up. That contravenes basic military logic. That civilians died during the bombing is a fact, but the targeting of civilians wasn't reason for the Luftwaffe's employment. Warsaw was a fortified city with and active military presence and it's attack was well within the established rules of a targeted bombardment.

Likewise, the bombing of Rotterdam focused on the port and was limited to a very small tonnage. This is in no way a "terror bombing" and that moniker only comes from the allied propaganda used at the time. But, I have already gone into this.

While ALL nations engaged in bombing civilians at one point or another during the war, the ONLY nation to do so as an expressed policy was Britain.

gizmo555

Tony EH wrote: »

Warsaw was bombed not as an act of terror

Terror, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder.

Tony EH wrote: »

Likewise, the bombing of Rotterdam focused on the port and was limited to a very small tonnage. This is in no way a "terror bombing" and that moniker only comes from the allied propaganda used at the time.

It may have "focussed" on the port, but a square mile of the city centre was razed to the ground. That's a fact, not propaganda.



Imagine a square mile of Dublin centred on O'Connell Bridge flattened and tell me with a straight face that wouldn't be "terror bombing".

Tony EH wrote: »

While ALL nations engaged in bombing civilians at one point or another during the war, the ONLY nation to do so as an expressed policy was Britain.

On the basis that one is assumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, Germany intended to bomb civilians just as much as anyone. Arguably, in fact, whether or not you agree with what they did, the British were more honest and straight up about their intentions.

Fratton Fred

Tony EH wrote: »

Not true. Warsaw was bombed not as an act of terror, but because the Polish military was garrisoned there. No army is going to send in it's land forces with an armed and dug defence waiting for them, that hasn't been softened up. That contravenes basic military logic. That civilians died during the bombing is a fact, but the targeting of civilians wasn't reason for the Luftwaffe's employment. Warsaw was a fortified city with and active military presence and it's attack was well within the established rules of a targeted bombardment.

Likewise, the bombing of Rotterdam focused on the port and was limited to a very small tonnage. This is in no way a "terror bombing" and that moniker only comes from the allied propaganda used at the time. But, I have already gone into this.

While ALL nations engaged in bombing civilians at one point or another during the war, the ONLY nation to do so as an expressed policy was Britain.

What were the V1 and V2 then?

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What were the V1 and V2 then?

In my view there really is no comparison in terms of the scale of damage inflicted on a civilian population, between what the V weapons did and what happened to, for example, Dresden.

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

In my view there really is no comparison in terms of the scale of damage inflicted on a civilian population, between what the V weapons did and what happened to, for example, Dresden.

Maybe not, but not for the lack of trying on the part of the Germans.

If Dresden had have happened at the start of the war, there would have been a lot less killed. The RAF/USAF were pretty much unchallenged, so all the aircraft got through, the number of people in the city was swollen with refugees etc.

Compare that with London where everyone had pretty decent air raid shelters and the protection of the RAF and AA guns. When the Germans attacked Exeter, Bath, Norwich and Canterbury, they killed quite a lot of people in relatively small raids, because of the lack of defences.

None of the Badeaker raids targeted anything other than civilians btw.

gizmo555

Morlar wrote: »

In my view there really is no comparison in terms of the scale of damage inflicted on a civilian population, between what the V weapons did and what happened to, for example, Dresden.

That's precisely the point. The German's established the principle, after that everything was merely a question of scale. Guernica at one end of the continuum and Hiroshima & Nagasaki at the other. There is no moral distinction, it's just a question of who was more efficient and effective.

(By the way, on the question of propaganda and exaggeration, the civilian death toll at Dresden was also exaggerated - by an order of magnitude. First the Nazis and then the Soviets, because it suited their purposes in the Cold War, claimed around 250,000 died. An independent historical commission appointed to investigate the matter by Dresden City Council concluded in 2006 that in fact between 18,000 and 25,000 died.)

As for Tony's argument that Rotterdam, for example, was intended as a precise strike against clearly defined military targets, and not against the city as a whole, this is the ultimatum of the German general Schmidt to the Dutch commander before the attack:

To the Commander of Rotterdam
To the Mayor and aldermen and the Governmental Authorities of Rotterdam

The continuing opposition to the offensive of German troops in the open city of Rotterdam forces me to take appropriate measures should this resistance not be ceased immediately. This may well result in the complete destruction of the city. I petition you - as a man of responsibility - to endeavour everything within your powers to prevent the town of having to bear such a huge price. As a token of agreement I request you to send us an authorised negotiator by return. Should within two hours after the hand-over of this ultimatum no official reply be received, I will be forced to execute the most extreme measures of destruction.

The commander of the German troops. [unsigned]

Hindsight is always 20:20 but here is cut & dried evidence that the Germans clearly envisaged at least a substantial possibility of widespread and unconfined destruction in the city, far beyond any identifiable miltary target, unless the entire city was defined as such.

Morlar

gizmo555 wrote: »

That's precisely the point.

The point in talking about V weapons is that the V was for Vengeance (Vergeltungswaffen) - ie revenge weapons, revenge for what had previously been done to German civilians and German cities. They were developed late war don’t forget. The often quoted hitler saying of ' We will eradicate their cities' is only half of the what was said, the other half was 'if they eradicate our cities then we will eradicate their cities'.

gizmo555 wrote: »

The German's established the principle,

This is very very far from proven in my estimation. I am not talking about proven as in to mean taking a Robert powell narration off a ww2 documentary at face value as proven - I mean actually proven. I have studied this period for many years and I just don’t take your assertion that somehow this is proven.

gizmo555 wrote: »

(By the way, on the question of propaganda and exaggeration, the civilian death toll at Dresden was also exaggerated - by an order of magnitude. First the Nazis and then the Soviets, because it suited their purposes in the Cold War, claimed around 250,000 died. An independent historical commission appointed to investigate the matter by Dresden City Council concluded in 2006 that in fact between 18,000 and 25,000 died.)

Let’s just stop there for a second. Dresden estimates have always been very high for several reasons, you seem to be asserting that they are high for solely propagandaistic reasons. It could equally be argued that this particular ‘lowball figure’ study you refer to is the propaganda-istic one in that it is the lowest that there has ever been. The longer standing estimates are more widely accepted than that study and by such people as ex German chancellors and famous Americans who happened to have survived that night in that city That study is not widely accepted – it is contentious at the least and needs to be taken in the correct context ; this was a hard left green party (coalition elected) mayor (later charged with financial corruption) who was known for comments along the lines of ‘Let us never forget Dresden was not an innocent city’. His hand selected group of historians were all from the establishment side of the fence. The climate of political correctness which affects German historians in contemporary times with regards to WW2 holocaust or German suffering is not to be underestimated in my view and this panel were the hand picked cream of the ‘safe bets’.
The context of the bombing is that it happened 3 months before the end of the war at a time when other reich cities were also being obliterated and the reich was crumbling and falling to pieces. Civilians fled in vast numbers TO Dresden to protect their families from other ravaged cities (some of which Did have military targets) & also from the east. This is late war crumbling reich refugees everywhere and the notion that every refugee was properly catalogued on arrival and recorded as having even been present in Dresden at that time were extremely slim. They were arriving by their hundreds each day and there was by all accounts a very large but undocumented number. Dresden was the untouched city and no one was expecting it to be essentially vapourised.
The bombs dropped on Dresden were incendiary and high explosive bombs. There have been reports from a Berlin archaeologist that glass was found 3 feet beneath the surface due to sand which melted even at that depth from the incredible temperatures and in an environment where there was reportedly no oxygen whatsoever below 3 metres. Large numbers of people simply died and burned to ash in the inferno. I have seen aerial photographs of Dresden (which I can not find online at the moment) where no matter how hard you look in that entire city you will not find a single building with a roof intact. This is not an exaggeration – I mean literally miles of a city where every single building has been burned to a crisp and only the concrete walls still stand. Large areas and entire streets were simply rubble with even no walls left in place.

The study you reference above is based on funeral records. The idea that late war Germany and in the panic and shock of the aftermath that
a) there were bodies left to bury for all those who died and burned to ash or were beneath tons of rubble,
b) they were buried and
c) they were recorded as having been buried (and not just thrown in to mass unmarked graves) in the ruins & shock and panic of the aftermath.

I think it’s an extremely narrow frame of reference and 100% guaranteed to produce an artificially deflated number. The point is that the report you reference has been criticised and is in my opinion dubious at best.

gizmo555 wrote: »

As for Tony's argument that Rotterdam, for example, was intended as a precise strike against clearly defined military targets, and not against the city as a whole, this is the ultimatum of the German general Schmidt to the Dutch commander before the attack:
To the Commander of Rotterdam
To the Mayor and aldermen and the Governmental Authorities of Rotterdam

The continuing opposition to the offensive of German troops in the open city of Rotterdam forces me to take appropriate measures should this resistance not be ceased immediately. This may well result in the complete destruction of the city. I petition you - as a man of responsibility - to endeavour everything within your powers to prevent the town of having to bear such a huge price. As a token of agreement I request you to send us an authorised negotiator by return. Should within two hours after the hand-over of this ultimatum no official reply be received, I will be forced to execute the most extreme measures of destruction.

The commander of the German troops. [unsigned]

I am not excusing that but there was a military objective whereas Dresden was to kill as many civilians as possible notwithstanding the fact that the mid february 1945 mayor of Dresden recieved no such ultimatum.

Tony EH

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What were the V1 and V2 then?

What do you mean "What were the V1 and V2 then?". They weren't part of Luftwaffe doctrine and "Terror bombing" is a doctrinal position and the thread has been limited to conventional aerial bombing, that's why they haven't been commented on.

Besides, as I have already stated

...ALL nations engaged in bombing civilians at one point or another during the war

The rocket attacks were certainly arbitrary in their nature, nobody is disputing that.

Tony EH

gizmo555 wrote: »

On the basis that one is assumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, Germany intended to bomb civilians just as much as anyone. Arguably, in fact, whether or not you agree with what they did, the British were more honest and straight up about their intentions.

Completely untrue.

The Luftwaffe were simply not set up for such a purpose. It just wasn't designed for attacking civilian targets like cities. Douhet's theories which were accepted by the British) were rejected completely by the German's. That's why they didn't have a strategic bomber program (albeit tiny and abortive) until the middle of the war. It simply didn't factor into their military thinking.

That the Kampf Flieger was employed from time to time in such endeavors, from 1940 onwards is a given, but even then the changes forced upon it didn't sit well with the designs of the original aircraft and Luftwaffe practice.

It was quite a large sea-change from the established order of business, when Hitler lifted his ban on bombing British cities (borne out of Churchill's order to bomb German cities in 1940). This was the first time that the Luftwaffe were used in such a manner.

But, we're getting off the road here and it's going to develop into the usual is/isn't argument.

The original points that Warsaw, Rotterdam and Stalingrad were comparable in any way to Cologne, Hamburg or Dresden and that the Germans "pioneered" bombing purely for the sake of terror is simply and demonstrably false.

Tony EH

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If Dresden had have happened at the start of the war, there would have been a lot less killed. The RAF/USAF were pretty much unchallenged, so all the aircraft got through, the number of people in the city was swollen with refugees etc.

The reason that so many died in Dresden was because Bomber Command had simply targeted the centre of the Altmarkt. It was the same reason so many died at Hamburg and Cologne. Had they wished, they could have performed a limited raid on the bridge and the marshaling yards that was the centre of the US bombing the next day. The Allies had complete control of the sky and there was nothing stopping them from carrying out such an attack. But, the stated policy of Bomber Command was to kill civilians. If anything of military value was hit, then so be it. Dresden was just another city ripe for attack according the British bombing doctrine. There's nothing that special about it, other than the fact that public distaste had forced Churchill into backing away from his previous position of supporting terror bombing of German civilians. Bombing simply "...to increase the terror" was frowned upon in 1945, whereas it had previously been embraced by the PM.

The reason so few comparatively died in German raids over Britain was because the Luftwaffe actually tried to hit the targets they were assigned to hit. Less than 600 people (out of 300,000) were killed in the much talked about Coventry raid and that had nothing to do with ARP facilities. Simply put, the Luftwaffe targeted and hit the many factories that were assigned for the raid. Much effort to get the bombs onto the target was endured. Had the Germans simply wished to bomb the centre of the city, they wouldn't have bothered with the likes of X-Gerat. They simply would have unloaded on the city centre. However, the combination of unusually hot weather and the fact that the water systems had been knocked out meant that fires had spread and were uncontrollable and this led to the loss of much property, if not a huge loss of life.

What's REALLY important about Coventry is the propaganda value that the British got from the attack and the fact that it gave the more aggressive elements in the High Command to finally move to full indiscriminate bombing of German cities. A move that had been on the table by the likes of Hugh Trenchard since before the war.

When one compares similar sized raids by British bombers on German cities, the contrast in loss of life is remarkable.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

None of the Badeaker raids targeted anything other than civilians btw.

Again, not true. The Baedeker raids targeted old English structures in a Vergeltungsangriffe, or retaliation raid. This was brought about by the British bombing of Lübeck (and other historic German towns like Rostock). The British first engaged in burning down medieval German towns (because of their historic past) and Baedeker was the German response. Lübeck was deliberately chosen for a target because the town was largely wooden in construction and would "go up like a light".

Tony EH

gizmo555 wrote: »

That's precisely the point. The German's established the principle,

Completely untrue and will remain so, no matter how many times you repeat it.

gizmo555 wrote: »

As for Tony's argument that Rotterdam, for example, was intended as a precise strike against clearly defined military targets, and not against the city as a whole, this is the ultimatum of the German general Schmidt to the Dutch commander before the attack:

To the Commander of Rotterdam
To the Mayor and aldermen and the Governmental Authorities of Rotterdam

The continuing opposition to the offensive of German troops in the open city of Rotterdam forces me to take appropriate measures should this resistance not be ceased immediately. This may well result in the complete destruction of the city. I petition you - as a man of responsibility - to endeavour everything within your powers to prevent the town of having to bear such a huge price. As a token of agreement I request you to send us an authorised negotiator by return. Should within two hours after the hand-over of this ultimatum no official reply be received, I will be forced to execute the most extreme measures of destruction.

The commander of the German troops. [unsigned]

And nowhere does this state that bombing would result in the possible "complete destruction of the city". What Rudolf Schmidt is saying here is that Rotterdam will become a battleground if the Dutch garrison refused to surrender. In other words the city would become embroiled in a massive land battle for it's control, which of course would have been the outcome if the two armies had clashed over the area.

In fact the commander of the 18th Army, von Kuechler had ordered Schmidt "to use all means to prevent unnecessary bloodshed amongst the Dutch population".

This is STILL no proof that the Luftwaffe engaged in "terror bombing" in Rotterdam, or that they intended to either.

And besides, people may wish to damn the miniscule German raid of 1940, but what is said of the much larger and truly indiscriminate British attacks later in the war on Rotterdam which resulted in a larger loss of life and destruction?

The German bombing of Rotterdam is relatively minor, even in contemporary terms. The reason why it has stuck in the myth of WWII, was because British propaganda at the time made much use out of it, claiming that 35,000 people had been killed and the entire city had been destroyed. If the Germans had that capability using just 97 tons of HE bombs, then the war would have been over in a few months.

drakshug

Who hit cities first, Tony?

Tony EH

drakshug wrote: »

Who hit cities first, Tony?

That's not the correct question.

It's "Who hit what dieliberately in cities first".

There's quite a difference.

BTW, that's not an admonition of any nation.

drakshug

Seeing how my question doesn't suit your agenda I'll chuck in the town on of weilun in Poland. Now accepted as having no military importance. Reason - to provoke terror.
As for German policy on strategic bombing. Pre-war there was seen the need for heavy bombing but the alun bomber programme was scrapped for economic reasons. Hitler's pre war speeches threatening to bomb cities made the allies expect the worst.

Edit: forgot to mention Frampole. This was described as a tactical test run at the time. No military presence. 90% of town destroyed.

Tony EH

1. I don't have an "agenda".

2. There's LOTS of nonsense about Wieluń. The most ridiculous being that the town was "totally" destroyed. It couldn't have been. The only aircraft employed in the attack were Ju87's (from St.G. 76, St.G. 77 and St.G. 2) whose small bomb load wasn't designed to "destroy" towns and just simply wouldn't have been enough. If the Germans had wanted to destroy the town, they wouldn't have used Stukas.

3. Historians today (including some Polish) generally agree that the Luftwaffe was targeting Polish cavalry and troop concentrations in or near the town in advance of the military. These had been spotted by an Aufklarungs unit the previous day. Visability was less than 1 kilometre and a ground fog had shrouded a lot of areas on the 1st of September and had affected many Luftwaffe and Polish sorties. Three waves of attacks were sortied and the town was taken on the same day shortly after by ground troops. It certainly does NOT constitute a "terror bombing" in any way, shape, or form.

4. The 36 pułk piechoty Legii Akademickiej actually shot down a number of stukas just outside the town.

5. I have no problem believing that the Polish civilians of Wieluń thought that they were the target of German bombs. When an aerial attack takes place on or around you, you tend to believe that every bomb is aimed at you. But these impressions are highly subjective.

Tony EH

I have read nothing about Frampol, to conclude it was a "terror bombing".

drakshug

So basically the allies are bad for admitting to targetting civilians but the Germans never did because it wasn't their official policy?
So the Germans always had a military objective? Try giving that argument in Clydebank? By the way, if pulky is the same as pulkas in Lithuanian then we are not talking a large concentration of troops. We all know the allied bombing strategy and it can't be condoned now but you cannot say that the Germans, even with their limited resources, did not practice terror bombing. Is this an anti Brit standpoint?

Fratton Fred

Tony EH wrote: »

What do you mean "What were the V1 and V2 then?". They weren't part of Luftwaffe doctrine and "Terror bombing" is a doctrinal position and the thread has been limited to conventional aerial bombing, that's why they haven't been commented on.

Besides, as I have already stated



The rocket attacks were certainly arbitrary in their nature, nobody is disputing that.

Sounds like semantics to me. V1 and V2 rockets were designed to create terror in London. Regardless of "Doctrine" that to me is terror bombing.

Tony EH

drakshug wrote: »

So basically the allies are bad...

Who said anything about "good" or "bad"?

drakshug wrote: »

....but you cannot say that the Germans, even with their limited resources, did not practice terror bombing.

:rolleyes: Some people just don't read before writing. I specifically said "...ALL nations engaged in bombing civilians at one point or another during the war." The first time the Germans moved to such a measure was over London in September 1940, after Hitler lifted his ban on bombing British cities. It would be in the Russian campaign that the Luftwaffe would practice it next, over Moscow and Lenningrad.