Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6
Results 101 to 108 of 108

Thread: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

  1. #101
    Princeps
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,036
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

    In reality from a purely military perspective they were largely ineffective and the resources used on these missions could be better spent attacking targets that had more military value.
    Define "military value".
    The sad truth about total war (where each nations pits all its ressources on the prosecution of said war), the civilian worker back in the factory becomes the foundation of every victory.
    Without the worker, the military front will collapse in short order due to failing logistics.
    Therefore, crippling the enemy warmaking capability is of prime importance.
    The RAF in 1941 did not have the precision bombing ability nor the strenght to mount a bomber offensive against small targets like a factory complex without causing massive collateral damage.
    Neither was it able to sustain the kind of losses incurred during daylight accompanying such an offensive.
    Remember, the US Airforce had to break off it's long range attacks into germany in 1943 before the P51 was available as a long range escort.
    Therefore, it concentrated on the one link in the chain it could reach, the housings of the factory workers. The main goal was not to kill the worker, but rather to destroy his home to break his morale.
    Did it succeed? Yes and no. It didn't break the workers morale, although the Gestapo became icnreasingly worried about possible revolts after such assaults. At times, they even stopped parts of the holocauts (the famed Rosenstrasse Protests) for fear it might lit the spark of an rebellion.
    But it did put an extreme strain on the german warmachine. Children had to be evacuated, workers were often absent after the bombings to look after their families and their belongings, and a massive buildup in air defenses was necessary.

    After the war, it became clear that no revolt had happened, but during the war it was never clear if a revolt could not happen or what might have been a more usefull application of the bomber ressources.

    IIRC (but I don't remember the book) what really broke the germans back was the attacks in 1944 on their fuel making infrastructure, and Speer remarked that a concetrated offensive on german powerplants would have been equally destructive on their production output.


    The military futility of the bombing should have been even more clear to the Allies looking at the complete failure of the Blitz, yet they had gone even more enthusiastically through the same mistakes.
    The Blitz cleard the channel from british freigth shipping, hit several industrial targets like Coventry and brought the london east end, on which most of the attacks were concentrated, dangerously close to war weariness (before Buckingham Palace was hit), quite the opposite of the often portrayed picture of the plucky, unflappable englishman.
    It probably would have been better for the germans to start mining all the seaports they could reach, but hindsight is always superior to the onthespot decision.

    In reality even if the Allies hadn't reached the same monstrosity of the Nazi death camps at the same time their mindset wasn't so different when they were evaluating the value of harm done to the civilians.
    For the most time, the allies had a military goal in mind when attacking civilians, how again is that the same of letting prisoners of war starve on purpose, engaging in indiscriminate retaliation actions against the civilian population and shooting the inteligentsia of conquered nations?
    Neutral to the teeth.
    “'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'”
    G.K. Chesterton

  2. #102
    Karabekian's Avatar Aquilifer
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    317
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

    Quote Originally Posted by KEA View Post
    Just take Dresden for example, which was leveled on 13th/14th of February 1945, with no allied or German forces of note around and a point when everyone, save Hitler, knew that the war was over.
    Sorry to jumping in like this, enjoyed the read by other posters.

    But I have to say this, Hitler knew very well that the war was lost. The first time he admitted it was to his Luftwaffe adjutant, von Below sometime in December 1944. This is I think the first (not sure if only) time he spoke out of defeat.

    What followed in 1945 was not a collapse of a leader but the collapse of an entire system. The German people never stood a chance to oppose or change their fate due to the weight of the Nazi state or "the war" and the ties made to it since the First World war. And the Nazis had risen to power because they were willing to succumb to a gamble that would grant them ultimate victory or certain death. The top leaders had always known that their cause was so radical and criminal, if they lost there was no way out. Unfortunately they had very little regard for the people who would either place them on the throne, or let their lives be ruined was it not a success.

    In 1945 each of these leaders were trying to find a way out where none could be seen. Some gasped for a political conclusion, others killed themselves, some ran and hid and the more "brave" fought it out.

    The bombings of Germany were a huge tragedy and from our point of view perhaps unnecessary. But imagine the time they lived in and had to make these decisions!

  3. #103
    Ludicus's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,564
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

    Quote Originally Posted by Realpolitik View Post
    So apparently half a million German civilians were slaughtered by Allied bombing ...I personally think these are fraudulent numbers, seeing as how they completely leveled entire cities, then firebombed the remains
    Alllow me to rephrase this: "Seeing as how they completely leveled entire cities, then firebombed the remains, the exact number of deaths is almost irrelevant"

    But imagine the time they lived
    Well, yes. The Germans would have done the same kind of atrocities.
    Last edited by Ludicus; November 19, 2013 at 05:22 PM.
    I can imagine no more comfortable frame of mind for the conduct of life than a humorous resignation.
    Somerset Maugham

  4. #104
    Hanny's Avatar Pili Posterior
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,903
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

    Right, have been preoccupied elsewhere, but now I have to set this straight.
    Ok
    This entire paragraph is completely devoid of any worth whatsoever. It is basically the deluded, masturbatory fantasy of a copy-past artist who thinks ad-hominem is an actual substitute for reason and facts. It isn't,

    Yes, its a standard number value, to be found in every book on the subject, including education text books and online assets* Its called facts, and is why every author uses these facts, as oposed to your uniformed false opinion that contradicts the facts.


    The fact that you are so..... shall we call it "bold" as to claim that every author uses the exact same numbers shows that you have no idea whatsoever how the actual statistical compilation of these things went (example? There was a serious bureaucratic dillema over whether loaded bombers that went down over their targets should be added to the "tonnage dropped" statistics!). Nevermind how the actual scholarly world has parsed, hypothesized, added, subtracted, and generally wrangled over those numbers and others like them.

    All the books use the same number, its that simple, not bold, simple.Because the Official history uses that number as the most acuarte it can generate mSee .Appendix 44 Vol IV of the UK publication," The History of the Second World War, The Strategic Air OffensiveAgainst Germany 1939-1945", Vol.1 to IV, ( HMSO London 1961)


    LISTEN for once in your life:


    1. Using sources without citation is just moronic, because you cannot verify the veracity of such a claim. IF you're attempting to do this as some sort of ironic jab at the fact that I don't have every single source I've ever read and absorbed on hand to spit out with links.... it doesn't work. It just makes you look foolish and incapable of credible debate or even discussion.

    Problem is that every book or website on the matter used the excact same numbers, ones you neither acept or understand, but disagree with but have refused to provide other numbers.
    2. If you seriously are claiming that "serious books" only spit out one set of numbers without variation, you are a dishonest Idiot. Nothing more.

    No, i am pointing out that half a dozen books and websites all use the RAF USAF numbers of tonnage dropped on missions, which excludes unexpended ordince returned to base or flow to neutral nations and held to wars end and or lost of planes shot down.
    3. I reserve giving out my sources to when I feel I am obliged to. Doing the same with you would be a waste of my time and a needless hassle, since if you have failed debating and basic research you would never even remotely appreciate it.

    You have no sources, only uniformed opinion based on nothing more than your own imagination. This was not a debate as the facts are not in dispute, your just unaware of the most basic facts.
    Last edited by Aikanár; August 25, 2014 at 05:32 PM. Reason: insulting others
    To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

  5. #105
    Aquilifer
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    350
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

    @Hanny

    This response is beyond parody, and demonstrates only that you are not interested in serious, honest discussion. Its' only claim is "That is what Every Source Says."

    The problem is that not does not every source say that, the predictability of that fact is so obvious it makes your claims that I have no sources hypocritical. And it can easily be disproved.

    Here is what you claimed every book had.

    Humble, Richard (1975). War In The Air 1939-1945

    1939 31
    1940 13,033
    1941 31,504
    1942 45,561
    1944 525,518

    RAF & USAAF Bomb Tonnages on Germany 1939–45 [159][clarification needed]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...939.E2.80.9345
    Year RAF Bomber
    Command (tons) US 8th Air
    Force (tons)
    1939 31 —
    1940 13,033 —
    1941 31,504 —
    1942 45,561 1,561
    1943 157,457 44,165
    1944 525,518 389,119
    1945 191,540 188,573
    Total 964,644 623,418

    Only here is what Kinder and Hilgemann say on The Penguin Atlas of World History

    Total Tonnage Dropped on Germany by the Allies in WWII.
    1940: 10,000~
    1941: 30,000~
    1942: 40,000~
    1943: 120,000~
    1944: 650,000~
    1945: 500,000~

    I do not pretend to know if those figures are accurate (and personally I doubt it). But it is enough to prove something even more important.

    The figures "every book and website has".... aren't had by every book or website. Period. If you can't even predict that, you are not experienced with sources and do not have much if anything to contribute.

  6. #106
    Hanny's Avatar Pili Posterior
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,903
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    @Hanny

    This response is beyond parody, and demonstrates only that you are not interested in serious, honest discussion. Its' only claim is "That is what Every Source Says."
    There is no debate, there is only your opinion that runs against the facts.

    Originally Posted by KEA
    As a matter of fact, most bombs were dropped on Germany in the last month of 1944 and the few month the war went in 1945.
    Originally Posted by Turtler
    A: Most historians would disagree.

    Every Historians figures show KEA to have been acuarate and you to be wrong.

    The problem is that not does not every source say that, the predictability of that fact is so obvious it makes your claims that I have no sources hypocritical. And it can easily be disproved.
    Ok, i suppose your maths is different from how everyone else uses math to answer a math question then. You seem unable to grasp your wrong and why you are wrong, you have been asked repetidly for a source to support your asertion and refused to do so.

    Here is what you claimed every book had.

    Humble, Richard (1975). War In The Air 1939-1945

    1939 31
    1940 13,033
    1941 31,504
    1942 45,561
    1944 525,518

    RAF & USAAF Bomb Tonnages on Germany 1939–45 [159][clarification needed]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...939.E2.80.9345
    Year RAF Bomber
    Command (tons) US 8th Air
    Force (tons)
    1939 31 —
    1940 13,033 —
    1941 31,504 —
    1942 45,561 1,561
    1943 157,457 44,165
    1944 525,518 389,119
    1945 191,540 188,573
    Total 964,644 623,418

    Only here is what Kinder and Hilgemann say on The Penguin Atlas of World History

    Total Tonnage Dropped on Germany by the Allies in WWII.
    1940: 10,000~
    1941: 30,000~
    1942: 40,000~
    1943: 120,000~
    1944: 650,000~
    1945: 500,000~

    I do not pretend to know if those figures are accurate (and personally I doubt it). But it is enough to prove something even more important.

    The figures "every book and website has".... aren't had by every book or website. Period. If you can't even predict that, you are not experienced with sources and do not have much if anything to contribute.
    Except every book i citied, and you citied no one, shows KEA to have been correct and your still bleating on that the world is wrong and you are right.

    As for sources, you have none and i have provided the following 3 plus websites, all of which agree with Kea statement of fact, just as does R Overy in How the allies won, J Kegan in a Atlas of ww2 and every author is the whole wide world, why?, because they can count and simply cannot.

    RAF Official History.
    Penguin Atlas of World History Vol 2
    Humble, Richard (1975). War In The Air 1939-1945
    Last edited by Hanny; August 26, 2014 at 05:16 AM.
    To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

  7. #107
    Aquilifer
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    350
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

    @Hanny

    What part of

    "This forum is for the pursuit of honourable discussion and the fostering of academic debate. All members are welcome but they will be held to a higher standard of civility."

    Do you not understand or comprehend?

    The endless, Baseless, and uninspired parroting of "Every Historians figures show KEA to have been acuarate and you to be wrong" just gives us every reason to believe *you don't know anything about what "every historian's figures" say. The fact that you Spat Out *two different sets of figures* when you first broached the idea just underlines that.

    You're not only refusing to admit that, but continue to claim that all the figures given by historians are the same and how there "is no debate" in spite of how laughably easy it is to prove otherwise. That's not a worthwhile use of anybody's time, that's just rear covering.

    You've even claimed I *haven't cited anyone* when I very obviously Have in the previous post.
    Which is a deliberate lie and libel.
    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    Only here is what Kinder and Hilgemann say on The Penguin Atlas of World History

    Total Tonnage Dropped on Germany by the Allies in WWII.
    1940: 10,000~
    1941: 30,000~
    1942: 40,000~
    1943: 120,000~
    1944: 650,000~
    1945: 500,000~
    That is derailing this thread and insulting the intelligence of anybody who dares read those posts. So please start adhering to the rules of this forum by either ceasing to reply or making your replies worthwhile, or I am going to start reporting you.

  8. #108
    Hanny's Avatar Pili Posterior
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,903
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    @Hanny
    What part of
    "This forum is for the pursuit of honourable discussion and the fostering of academic debate. All members are welcome but they will be held to a higher standard of civility."

    Do you not understand or comprehend?
    None.
    Which part of your statement do you not understand?
    Originally Posted by KEA
    As a matter of fact, most bombs were dropped on Germany in the last month of 1944 and the few month the war went in 1945.
    Turtler: Most historians would disagree.
    when your given 5 authors who state they agree with Kea, you cite one of them back who agres with Kea.

    Still waiting for any author who disagrees, as per your claim.


    The endless, Baseless, and uninspired parroting of "Every Historians figures show KEA to have been acuarate and you to be wrong" just gives us every reason to believe *you don't know anything about what "every historian's figures" say.
    Endless and correct. No what yoiu have to grasp is that KEa was correct and you are, and were wrong.All you have to do is look at any authors work to see that Kea is correct and you are wrong. Still waiting for any author who disagrees, as per your claim.

    It is a fact that every author citied agrees that Kea was correct and you have yet to cite anyone who agrees with you.

    The fact that you Spat Out *two different sets of figures* when you first broached the idea just underlines that.
    I used several authors, using different methodology, long tons to short tonns, including incendury excluding incendury, and there is no combinataion of any data sets that will not show that Kea statement was correct, none. All agree that KEA statement was correct and you have yet to cite any author that agrees with your statement.Still waiting for any author who disagrees, as per your claim.


    You're not only refusing to admit that, but continue to claim that all the figures given by historians are the same and how there "is no debate" in spite of how laughably easy it is to prove otherwise. That's not a worthwhile use of anybody's time, that's just rear covering.

    Fact free, i posted 3 authors data sets that all show Kea statement to be correct, and you to be incorrect, you still have yet to cite any author that supports your claim

    There is no debate, Kea statmennt is supported by the data from every authors work. It is a well known fact of Strategic bombing.

    You've even claimed I *haven't cited anyone* when I very obviously Have in the previous post.
    Which is a deliberate lie and libel.

    I posted those numbers, from Vol 2 of the Penguin Atlas in post 89 of this thread, it shows you to be making a false claim and instead supports and confirms KEa statement to be correct. Citing my source and claiming that it supports you is a lie.


    No libel, no lie, from myself you have used a source i used to show you to be wrong and claim it means the opoisite, because you cant count. Kea stated that 44 45 saw the majority of tonnage dropped, Penguin Atlas is one authors book that confims that to be acuarte, you claimed otherwise.


    That is derailing this thread and insulting the intelligence of anybody who dares read those posts. So please start adhering to the rules of this forum by either ceasing to reply or making your replies worthwhile, or I am going to start reporting you.

    Do whatever you consdider best, im sure mods wait to consider worthwhile replies from worthless ones with a wry smile.

    You could even cite a source that supports your claim, that would be a novel approach for you, since you used the source i already entered that shows you to be wrong before you used it to show, well that Kea was correct and that you are wrong.

    Now revisit your opening para in your lost post and see your post for what they are are.
    Last edited by Hanny; August 26, 2014 at 02:11 PM.
    To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •