Strategic bombing during World War II

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

19kilo:


In a dramatic difference from the other forum members that can raise an argument your's are pathetic. You cannot even refer to any and do a refutation, you just stick with peryorative trollistic rethoric.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

This is so misleading that needs to counter argument:
And you and Karl keep bringing up the scale with what the Germans did in 1938/39/40 with what the RAF was able to accomplish in 1942/43/44/45.
In the previous posts I thought I did already that. However it’s easy to see, from the information of the British Bomber Command reports that the capacity to throw bombs do not correlate to that of inflict casualties if there is no special intention to cause those casualties.

We have that on October 19th, 1944: Brunswick, 847 tons of bombs, 80,000 losing their houses destroyed, 531 dead.
If we see about the Conventry Blitz then 503 tons of high explosives and some 881 incendiary bombs where thrown over the population with a casualties of 380 dead.
So here we can draw and arithmetic ratio 1.59 tons of bombs per death in Brunswick in 1944. And we have some 1.33 tons of bombs per death in Conventry. Which says, to satisfy this morbid sense of patriotism that the Germans were better residencial bombers in 1940 than the British were in Brunswick in 1944.
But that’s a lie altogether because that is not significant. The Germans designed and built a Luftwaffe to support their blitzkrieg and tactical operations whilst the British designed a force to destroy enemy cities.
For the record Germany dropped more bombs on British cities in 1940 alone than the British did on all of Germany (civilian and military targets alike) in the first 2.5 years of the war. For the 1st 4 months of the war Bomber command dropped leaflets on german cities and confined bombing to naval targets in the baltic. IIRC it was until a British civilian in the Orkneys was killed by a stray bomb that inland strikes againt military targets was authorized. And not until the bombing of Rotterdam that targetting was relaxed to allow military targets in and around population centers to be attacked. It wasn't until well after the blitz that the concious directive was made to go systematically go after the German population. It wasn't until early 1942 that the British launched raids on German cities which equalled then exceeded the damage the Luftwaffe had inflicted on Warsaw and London.
That is not entirely true. You made affirmations that need to be backed up. The Luftwaffe attacks against England during the first year of the war were basically against the South Wales docks or Portsmouth or Southhampton or Hastings or Weymouth until the British started bombing Berlin. It was not until September 7th, after two weeks of British bombing of the German capital that the Luftwaffe appeared in force in a daylight raid against London.

Also I do not see why the claims that I raised before on the issue that Dresden was not a military target have not been challenged. Not a word on the railroad junctions. Not a word on Dresden’s military plants. It is better to avoid that, isn’t it.

I hope to have more time and pick up my sources to nail all this, but it seems it will be next Saturday.

Regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by boredatwork »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:This is so misleading that needs to counter argument:
And you and Karl keep bringing up the scale with what the Germans did in 1938/39/40 with what the RAF was able to accomplish in 1942/43/44/45.

In the previous posts I thought I did already that.
No you missed the point completely because you're happy to respond based on what you think a person is arguing rather than trying to take the time to read and understand the point they're trying to make.

If you had read on in my post you would see that I'm asking you for info on the RAF 1940 raids, not 1942, 43, 44:
Neither one of you compared apples to apples by considering what the RAF did in 1939/40/41 - ie with the same technology the germans had at the time they were able to spare resources to attacks on cities.
Instead you waste effort making arguments to points not in dispute:

NO ONE IS ARGUING THE RAF RAIDS POST 1941 WEREN'T FAR MORE DESTRUCTIVE THAN THE BLITZ.
However it’s easy to see, from the information of the British Bomber Command reports that the capacity to throw bombs do not correlate to that of inflict casualties if there is no special intention to cause those casualties.

We have that on October 19th, 1944: Brunswick, 847 tons of bombs, 80,000 losing their houses destroyed, 531 dead.
If we see about the Conventry Blitz then 503 tons of high explosives and some 881 incendiary bombs where thrown over the population with a casualties of 380 dead.
[/quote]

Again so we're clear


NO ONE IS ARGUING THE RAF RAIDS POST 1941 WEREN'T FAR MORE DESTRUCTIVE THAN THE BLITZ.

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************
REALLY IMPORTANT: READ THIS
You're making the statement to the effect that the Germans were morally superior in respect to bombing because they never targetted civilians at the same scale.

My argument is your contention rests entirely on the evidence that the Germans did not launch bombing raids of the same scale. The problem is on it's own this is not sufficient to prove your case because the Germans COULD NOT launch bombing raids of the same scale.

Therefore the fact that they didn't is irrelavent as far as a moral judgement goes. Did they refrain from devastating the allied cities because of the moral issues involved? OR did the Germans refrain from devastating allied cities because because they lacked the resources involved?
*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************

EXAMPLE: BECAUSE EVERYONE LOVES EXAMPLES!

If we apply your logic of judging morality solely on the basis of what was and wasn't done, irrespective of OPPORTUNITY, then one could argue for example that Hitler was, in some respects, a more moral man than Truman on the basis the former never ordered the Atomic bombing of enemy civilians while the later did.

Hitler never had an atomic bomb so the fact he never ordered an atomic bombing cannot in and of itself be considered an indication of his morality.
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************


Likewise the point I am trying to make is from 1939-mid 1941, the RAF and the Luftwaffe traded blow for blow in an escalating bombing campaign. The link Jose posted is a good summary. If we exclude Warsaw, neither side was willing to bomb civilians because a) they feared reprisals, and b) the damge to neutral (read American) opinion. Trying to aportion blame for the escalations is a pointless excercise - both sides share responsibility. Though the Luftwaffe's blows were harder (being closer to Britain and Britain being an easier target) both sides played by the same rules.

Again NO ONE IS ARGUING THE RAF RAIDS POST 1941 WEREN'T FAR MORE DESTRUCTIVE THAN THE BLITZ.

In the spring of 1941 both sides had to choose how to continue the war. The British chose to continue their bombing campaign and eventually in early 1942 abandoned attacks on precision targets and escalated it to deliberately target the civilian population.



The Germans on the other hand postponed their campaign not because of any moral qualms, but because the lion's share of available resources were needed for Barbarossa. At that point the fact that the Luftwaffe never conducted any raids on the scale of the RAF is moot - they were in a fight for survival in the east and were never again able to concentrate their resources against Britain.


NO ONE IS ARGUING THE RAF RAIDS POST 1941 WEREN'T FAR MORE DESTRUCTIVE THAN THE BLITZ.




As Alex will no doubt point out it's impossible to prove either way whether a continued Luftwaffe campaign would have involved deliberate attacks against the British population. However that doesn't mean it's impossible to argue which theories are more likely based on available information:

Because Hitler never had an Atomic bomb it's impossible to 'prove' that he would have used it if he had. However given what we know about Hitler personality from the decisions he did make what do you think is the probability he wouldn't have used it?



***************************************************************************************************
If you think the Germans wouldn't have chosen to launch large scale attacks on cities IF THEY HAD BEEN CAPABLE OF GATHERING THE RESOURCES TO DO SO then by all means but forward arguments to that effect.

But the absence of an action that they weren't capable of to begin with is not in and of itself evidence of moral superiority.
***************************************************************************************************
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by alecsandros »

boredatwork wrote: ...But the absence of an action that they weren't capable of to begin with is not in and of itself evidence of moral superiority.
No one can argue with that.

But as far as I am concerned, the allied air-borne genocide is a historical fact, whereas the possible germanic one is hypothetical. For me at least, the first has a different weight attached to it, being a historical fact... While the second... is a counter-factual situation...

And about morality of the war-makers... Did they had any ? I would be inclined to say that most major players of WW2 loosely followed some ethical guidelines... Those guidelines were somewhat different from the common moral perspective... [the most obvious disagreement being with the "You shall not kill" commandment :D ] And they were also different among the players... [for the nazis elimination of the Jews was a principle; for the Romanian fascists ("Garda de Fier"), elimination of all political liberals was a core issue... and so on...]. Alot can be written about this...

Anyway, my impression is that 99% of what Karl and you have written is accepted buy everyone around here, but the disagreement comes in the valuation of the facts and possibilities. And valuation is very tricky...

Cheers,
Alex
User avatar
19kilo
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:46 am

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by 19kilo »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:19kilo:


In a dramatic difference from the other forum members that can raise an argument your's are pathetic. You cannot even refer to any and do a refutation, you just stick with peryorative trollistic rethoric.
You say the RAF are just the same as the SS. There is no need to argue with a nazie like you. You have absolutly no credibility any more. SEEK HELP! You are just so........wrong. Interesting how you seem so focused on the "victims" of Dresden, yet you care nothing for the 6+million Hitler exterminated in that war. That speaks VOLUMES about you.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

19kilo:
You say the RAF are just the same as the SS. There is no need to argue with a nazie like you. You have absolutly no credibility any more. SEEK HELP! You are just so........wrong. Interesting how you seem so focused on the "victims" of Dresden, yet you care nothing for the 6+million Hitler exterminated in that war. That speaks VOLUMES about you.
First it is spelled "nazi" not "nazie" which spelled a volume of you. You called me nazi then I called you "ignorant" because you simple didn't even care to read the following that I posted two days ago, nor other posts in which I defend the State of Israel, which put your remark in the altar of ridicule:
Now: it's simple to avoid historical analysis of the topics that are sour to the winner's side just branding the other perspective as "revisionist" which is an euphemism or equates to "neo nazi". Not me nor the historians that bring this topic are neo nazis nor revisionists. The thing is very simple: the nazis were evil and cruel. We all know that. They performed incredible crimes including genocide. And we all know that. This is Historical Fact: there is no way nor purpose nor agenda into deny it. Nobody tries to do so. But there is also another side of the coin here: the allies were no better. One of the "allies" was the second greatest criminal of XX Century: Stalin (second to Mao; Hitler was third). Then we have a huge collection of happenings that clearly shows that WWII was quite different from what Hollywood has tried to make us believe. From the Laconia Incident to the strategic bombings there is a lot that has not been distributed by the mass media but has been clearly on the surface. What happens is that WWII needs to be concieved as a Crusade for Liberty. Liberty? The one that the alllies gave to Poland, which was why the war was started? Or Hungary, or Checoslovaquia, or Bulgaria, or Romania, or East Germany? What about the million soviet POWs that didnt' want to be repatriated to Stalin's slaughterhouse and Uncle Sam send them with a ribbon only to dissapear behind the Urals?
The nazis were evil. The alllies were a bunch of hypocrites and also butchers themselves as the Strategic Bombing Campaing and their alliance with the criminal communist dictatorship of Uncle Joe shows more than plain.
It is clear the moral position from my remarks which you might need to understand. In this case you might need to look for profesional help in the civilized task of "reading properly".
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

In order to dispell 19kilo's absurd acusations that are in order of those macarthists of the 50ies or the witch hunters of Salem please read this:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3279&start=150
Just found this article, by a spanish writter, and thought it will do a lot of good in this thread:

ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ

The following is a copy of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez and published in a Spanish newspaper on Jan. 15, 2008. It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe - and possibly to the rest of the world.

REMEMBER AS YOU READ -- IT WAS IN A SPANISH PAPER
Date: Tue. 15 January 2008 14:30

ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez

I walked down the street in Barcelona , and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz ... We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.

The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.

And under the pretence of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.

Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.

We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.

What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe ...

The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world's population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:
1988 - Najib Mahfooz

Peace:
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1990 - Elias James Corey
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1999 - Ahmed Zewai

Economics:
(zero)

Physics:
(zero)

Medicine:
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad

TOTAL: 7 SEVEN

The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN MILLION or about 0.02% of the world's population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer World

Peace:
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin

Physics:
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger

Economics:
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel

Medicine:
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
1996- Lu RoseIacovino
TOTAL: 129!

The Jews are NOT promoting brain washing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims. The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants. There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church. There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people.

The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.

Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.

Muslims must ask 'what can they do for humankind' before they demand that humankind respects them.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel's part, the following two sentences really say it all:

'If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel." Benjamin Netanyahu

General Eisenhower Warned Us It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.

He did this because he said in words to this effect:

'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened'

Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offends' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the, 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who were 'murdered, raped, burned, starved, beaten, experimented on and humiliated' while the German people looked the other way.

Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.

This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people. Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.

How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center 'NEVER HAPPENED' because it offends some Muslim in the United States?

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member

Posts: 4670
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Private messageE-mail Karl HeidenreichMSNM/WLMAIM
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

19 kilo owes me an apology for it's insult and for his supreme lack of reading comprehension. As I know that the only one in this forum that has asked apologies to other posters, me, then I in reality do not expect none. It's is suficient to have prove not that I'm not what this incredible ignorant acussation is just as empty as an eggshell but to prove that the origin of the accusation is not part of the civilized world but just another fanatic.

Best regards,

PD/ I was right that this was a topic to keep to myself as I posted early this week. Some cannot even handle their miserable existence of their lives to try to deal with more complex moral dilema.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

boreatwork:

Maybe I was missing it but that is irrelevant in the measure that your line of argumentation was already answered:

boreatwork:
NO ONE IS ARGUING THE RAF RAIDS POST 1941 WEREN'T FAR MORE DESTRUCTIVE THAN THE BLITZ.
Far on the contrary I prove to you that the Coventry blitz, in a bomb/death ratio was more effective in 1940 than the Brunswick bombing by the RAF in 1944:
If we see about the Conventry Blitz then 503 tons of high explosives and some 881 incendiary bombs where thrown over the population with a casualties of 380 dead.
So here we can draw and arithmetic ratio 1.59 tons of bombs per death in Brunswick in 1944. And we have some 1.33 tons of bombs per death in Conventry. Which says, to satisfy this morbid sense of patriotism that the Germans were better residencial bombers in 1940 than the British were in Brunswick in 1944.
When you misquoted me in your answer you simply avoid this part of the paragraph. You stopped a sentence before making it sound as you wanted to sound.

I do agree in some of your points and the fact remains that we do not know, for a fact, if the Luftwaffe would have conduct itself in a criminal way as the RAF during the lenght of the war. Maybe, as you say, it was for lack of resources or, as I say, because it was not part of the German military doctrine.

But some points here are being avoided 100%:

The RAF policy in carpeting bombing against residential areas which is cristal clear from the Memo from Sir Charles Portal to Norman Bartolomy.

The specific studies from Prof. Lindeman and their PRACTICAL application by the RAF in order to maximize the specific and deliberate killing of civilians.

The absurd claims on the specific Dresden bombing that it was a legitimate military target (if it was the British would have bomb it since 1943); the nonexistent claims that the bombing was to destroy the railroad junctions that were in fact barely damaged; the false claim that the soviets asked for it's bombing, which they denied in the first place and which there is not a single document, telegram, memo whatsoever as evidence of such a request. This last point misses that the soviets by 1945 had their own strategic bombing force and was used before. If the soviets would have been in need to kill the civilian population of a city that did not even had flak defenses they would have done it themselves: they were only too happy to kill Germans in exchange for their own civilian casualties in the East.

There are also some other facts that are being ignored:

That for the USAF last wave of bombers the crews were lied on the origin and targeting of the city of Dresden. That escort planes were specifically ordered to shoot the population with their machine guns.

If the allies thought that they were in need to produce terror in order for an earlier capitulation of the nazi Germany then the argument is sealed: they try it and they failed. However to try to disguise it in a moral way is where I do not share a bit and my argument rises. There was no moral difference between the nazis and the allies because both were in the disposition of killing inocent civilians as a means for their ulitmate victory.

I think this is clear enough.

Regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by boredatwork »

alecsandros wrote:
boredatwork wrote: ...But the absence of an action that they weren't capable of to begin with is not in and of itself evidence of moral superiority.
No one can argue with that.

But as far as I am concerned, the allied air-borne genocide is a historical fact, whereas the possible germanic one is hypothetical. For me at least, the first has a different weight attached to it, being a historical fact... While the second... is a counter-factual situation...

The reason counter-factual arguments are necessary is because the war wasn't a scientifically controlled experiment. The participants weren't presented with identical resources, war aims, or OPPORTUNITIES and their responses recorded and analysed. Instead what you have is a variety of asymetric events that in order to be compared and make value judgements one must make reasonable hypothetical evaluations as to what would have happened had a person/country/ship/etc been in the same situation and thus ascertain the relative importance of the event, incident, decision, or person the counterfactual hypothesis is negating.

This goes back to origins of this thread - the high scores of German aces.

NO ONE disputes the FACT German Aces were by far the highest scoring aces of the war. What is being disputed is the accuracy of kills as a measure of skill. German and Allied pilots fought 2 very different air wars as such kill totals has little scientific value in a measure of skill. Even within the same airforce can you say with reasonable certainty that a US pilot who got 5 kills over 3 years in Europe is more skilled than another US pilot who didn't achieve a single kill while patrolling the coast of Alaska? That's not to say the German aces weren't necessarilly the most skilled, only that kill totals considered in isolation is insufficient to prove that theory.

Or as yet another example, you could argue that Bismarck was a more powerful battleship than Yamato on the basis that Bismarck sank a capital ship while Yamato didn't. That ignores the fact that Yamato never had the opportunity to fire on a capital ship. For that to have real scientific meaning Yamato would also have to face Hood and you would have to repeat the test multiple times to eliminate the luck factor. In the absence of that possibility all that you have left is conditional argument - IF Yamato had encountered the Hood under similar conditions, from what we know of her technical characteristics there is no reason to believe that she couldn't have destroyed the Hood with ease.

Or as an example in another thread the performance of Monty during the Normandy campaign. How can you criticise (or praise) his performance without considering the counter factual possibilities of what *might* have happened had things been done differently.

Or another of Karl's arguments that Hitler was responsible for fewer deaths than Mao or Stalin upon which he points out that Stalin was on the allied side. On a purely factual basis this is possibly true. But again it's not a valid scientific argument. Yes Stalin potentially killed more than Hitler but then Stalin was in power for ~30 years. Hitler was only in power for 12. Again OPPORTUNITY must be considered when making moral judgements. IF Hitler had won the war, and his expressed goal was to enslave and/or exterminate the Jewish and Slavic populations of Europe to make space for German resettlement which he demonstrated he was only too prepared to do, what do you think the odds are that he wouldn't have equalled or exceeded Stalin's or even Mao's totals?



And about morality of the war-makers... Did they had any ? I would be inclined to say that most major players of WW2 loosely followed some ethical guidelines... Those guidelines were somewhat different from the common moral perspective... [the most obvious disagreement being with the "You shall not kill" commandment :D ] And they were also different among the players...
I agree completely.

However I have 2 principle criticisms of Karl's statements - not that the allies comitted attrocities, which he seems to be under the delusion I'm denying but rather:

1) that the Germans wouldn't attack Britain at the same scale - which given the fact that the Germans failed to develope a heavy bomber force despite trying is at best unprovable and there is reasonable evidence to suggest the contrary.

2) that he argues in terms of greys for the Germans - Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Coventry aren't as bad because because there was justification - while arguing in terms of Black and White for the allies that their actions were equal to the evilists of German actions: "So the British intentions in this regards was no different from the SS Einsatzgruppen." Did the western allies keep killing Germans en mass once they had occupied Germany? No. While it's true that the raid on Dresden had limited military value - it's also true that it was attacked LAST, not first, only after the majority of German cities with greater miltiary value had been reduced to ruins. At the very least it could be argued that the bomber offensive forced Germany to divert resource to counter it. What was the military value of the Einsatzgruppen's actions?

Again I'm not saying the allies conducted the war with Virgin purity - I'm merely arguing that on a scale of darkness from not killing at all on one hand to exterminating occupied, unresisting civilians simply because they exist on the other, Bomber Command's war effort covers an entire spectrum of greys with the Leaflet campaigns being off white and Dresden would be closer to charcoal grey.
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by boredatwork »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:When you misquoted me in your answer you simply avoid this part of the paragraph. You stopped a sentence before making it sound as you wanted to sound.
*sigh*
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by Byron Angel »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:boreatwork: But some points here are being avoided 100%:
<snip>
The absurd claims on the specific Dresden bombing that it was a legitimate military target (if it was the British would have bomb it since 1943); the nonexistent claims that the bombing was to destroy the railroad junctions that were in fact barely damaged; the false claim that the soviets asked for it's bombing, which they denied in the first place and which there is not a single document, telegram, memo whatsoever as evidence of such a request. This last point misses that the soviets by 1945 had their own strategic bombing force and was used before. If the soviets would have been in need to kill the civilian population of a city that did not even had flak defenses they would have done it themselves: they were only too happy to kill Germans in exchange for their own civilian casualties in the East.

..... Avoided 100% ????? I seem to recall having recommended a book to you that offered a different perspective on several aspects of the Dresden raid that you are clutching onto. Do you intend to read the most recent scholarship by Taylor? Taylor has written with what I perceive to be laudable objectivity and a high standard of research integrity; he was the first (and to the best of my knowledge so far the ONLY) author to write on Dresden with benefit of the East German archival data. Irving wrote his book 40 years ago WITHOUT access to the East German archives. If you choose not to inspect and review ALL the available evidence, then you have no grounds upon which to make such sweeping claims and accusations nad force me to re-assess my opiunion of your own objectivity.

B

Strictly my opinion, ofcourse.
User avatar
19kilo
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:46 am

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by 19kilo »

There is no arguing with KH. In his mind he is completely right and everyone is wrong. No amount of evidence or reasoned argument will get to him. Its sad really. What can you say to someone that equates the RAF or allies in general with the SS? The simple fact is, Germany started the war, and she paid for it. The end. (STILL waiting on a "moral" explanation of the V-1 and V-2.)
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

19kilo:
There is no arguing with KH. In his mind he is completely right and everyone is wrong. No amount of evidence or reasoned argument will get to him. Its sad really. What can you say to someone that equates the RAF or allies in general with the SS? The simple fact is, Germany started the war, and she paid for it. The end. (STILL waiting on a "moral" explanation of the V-1 and V-2.)
Isn't it hilarious? This 19kilo guy came forward and says that I do not permeate with some other's arguments. Reasoned arguments. If we follow this full thread he has been the only one that has not brought a single shred of an argument. I reckon boreatwork, Alex and Byron had. But not him, not at all: look for it at the thread and there is none. Just light comments and ad hominen falacies.

On the V-1 or V-2 I will refer as soon as you comment on the issues raised by Portal and Bartolemey; as you refer to the fact that in Dresden the world famous railway junctions were not the target; that the soviets never asked for the bombing. I raised those points first so you answer them first. And with an argument not a two line trollistic nonsense. Then I will refer to the V-1 and V-2.

My guest.

PD: how do you feel that the nazi scientists that build and fired the V-1 and V-2 were later All American Heroes sending the Apollo missions to the moon and getting a Federal pension?

Moral? Don't make me laugh!
Regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
19kilo
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:46 am

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by 19kilo »

Cant deal with it? Thought so. Germany lost. Thank goodness.
Post Reply