Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

[TheDarkKnight]

.... Which is why it was not a strategy conceived or pursued until the Axis powers did it first, demonstrating that the bets were off. The Allies were steadfast as a whole in their refusal to use chemical weapons, but you can bet your ass they would have been merciless in their use IF and only if the Germans had done it first. And I hadn't even thought it'd be necessary to point out that the whole reason The Manhattan Project was started was because the Allies were afraid the Germans were on track to developing an atomic bomb and wanted to beat them to it.

The Axis powers set the standard of destruction and brutality in the war, both in Europe and in the Pacific. The Allies, especially Russia, simply obliged them and managed to do it better.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

It's a shame that so many civilians and even soldiers who were merely doing their duties died due to such bombing, but it's not like the Allied Powers received similar civilian targeting themselves...(well, other than the U.S.)

[motiv-8]

The only reason the US escaped that treatment is remoteness. The Japanese and the Germans would have absolutely loved to have inflicted damage on North America proper but lacked the capability, thus why the Germans contented themselves with destroying American shipping, sometimes even in sight of the coast or in harbors, a couple times shelling coastal areas from their submarines, while the Japanese made really odd attempts using weather balloons they knew would be carried by the jet stream over America. Sure, the losses inflicted by these attempts pale in comparison by a huge margin but the desire was absolutely there, long before Doolittle made his run on Tokyo or the strategic bombing initiative got underway.

[NRohirrim]

It's a shame that so many civilians and even soldiers who were merely doing their duties died due to such bombing

Yeah, sure. And Hitler conquered Europe all by himself. For example my grandma was chasing to kill for fun twice by german soldiers. And my grandfather, young boy just walking through the street, was almost hit by the machine gun series from an german airplane. And my other grandfather was treated like slave by some Germans. Few other family members of mine were send to german nazi camps, where they died (they were professors, polish patriots and inventors). And it's just top of an iceberg. So I think many Germans (together with Austrians) were doing more than just duties and they were okay with that.

[TheDarkKnight]

Yeah, sure. And Hitler conquered Europe all by himself. For example my grandma was chasing to kill for fun twice by german soldiers. And my grandfather, young boy just walking through the street, was almost hit by the machine gun series from an german airplane. And my other grandfather was treated like slave by some Germans. Few other family members of mine were send to german nazi camps, where they died (they were professors, polish patriots and inventors). And it's just top of an iceberg. So I think many Germans (together with Austrians) were doing more than just duties and they were okay with that.

If you'll notice, I did not say "German" once in that. I was referring to all the civilians and soldiers that were on the wrong side of that war. But believe me, there were many people that did not believe in the Nazi's to the degree that is often portrayed. A great majority? Hardly. But you can't simply discount millions who hated the Nazi's just as much as the Allies did.


And motiv, I'm aware of how lucky America was. Separated by two vast oceans from both warzones, America was quite safe.

[NRohirrim]

And where were those Germans hating nazis? I don't think they were in big numbers.

[motiv-8]

Sorry Chris, I guess that's one of those times where it seems like it was being implied that you were ignorant of the facts but really I was just sharing into for the thread in general.

[TheDarkKnight]

Oh no I didn't take it that way at all. Don't worry about it.


And NRohirrim, many of them passively resisted against the regime, while others, as many know, resisted quite openly. Of course, the most well known act led to the deaths of 5,000 Germans, many of whom only had passing knowledge of the plot or were only remotely linked to the conspirators. Some didn't do anything, of course, because they didn't have the means of organizing, or feared for the lives of their loved ones.

Many people joined the Nazi Party because they honestly believed Hitler was the man who could save them from the horrible conditions Germany had been suffering under post World War I. Some obviously joined because they believed in Hitler's racial beliefs, but not all felt the same.

Anyway, this is all besides the point. I'm not criticizing the use of total war on the Axis in the slightest. There were unfortunate casualties, but in the end the Axis powers brought it on themselves because of their ridiculous leaders' quests for dominance. Their people paid the price. At least it can be said that the Allies for the most part didn't enjoy bringing such destruction on their enemies...The same cannot be said for the higher ups of the Axis leadership, for the most part.

[Hakomar]

Why is this even in the College of History? The OP simply posts an image of some flattened cities and says I do not believe that the given account of German civilian casualties is accurate. I'm afraid a photo isn't good enough to base your suspicions around; it only gives an indication of one city during one snapshot of time in the whole war, and certainly can't be weighted to be substantial enough to question the accepted numbers. You say you believe the numbers are fraudulent and 'apparently' only half a million died, yet fail to provide an adequate source to back your hypothesis. This belongs in the VV surely?

[TheDarkKnight]

I honestly didn't even realize that this was in the College of History. I only clicked on it when it was shown on the main page. You're probably right, though.

[Turtler]

.... Which is why it was not a strategy conceived or pursued until the Axis powers did it first, demonstrating that the bets were off. The Allies were steadfast as a whole in their refusal to use chemical weapons, but you can bet your ass they would have been merciless in their use IF and only if the Germans had done it first. And I hadn't even thought it'd be necessary to point out that the whole reason The Manhattan Project was started was because the Allies were afraid the Germans were on track to developing an atomic bomb and wanted to beat them to it.

The Axis powers set the standard of destruction and brutality in the war, both in Europe and in the Pacific. The Allies, especially Russia, simply obliged them and managed to do it better.

Point of order: Russia was the exception to the rule in that they helped set the standard along with the Axis. In particular during their brushfire conflicts leading up to their formal entry into the war via invasion in '41.

China had it a bit similar due to the warlordism but they simply couldn't really start until after the Japanese had (if only because the Japanese REALLLY did not waste any time).

[motiv-8]

You're right, and I should point out Katyn as a huge exception.

[NRohirrim]

@Gen.Chris
What U call anti-nazi opposition were simply some officers, who in 44' saw that German III Reich can not win the war (and they were trying to gain power and make peace, before unconditional capitulation would come), but before that time almost everyone of them had served nice to Hitler and had been making sieg heil everyday.

[Éorl]

.... Which is why it was not a strategy conceived or pursued until the Axis powers did it first, demonstrating that the bets were off. The Allies were steadfast as a whole in their refusal to use chemical weapons, but you can bet your ass they would have been merciless in their use IF and only if the Germans had done it first. And I hadn't even thought it'd be necessary to point out that the whole reason The Manhattan Project was started was because the Allies were afraid the Germans were on track to developing an atomic bomb and wanted to beat them to it.

The Axis powers set the standard of destruction and brutality in the war, both in Europe and in the Pacific. The Allies, especially Russia, simply obliged them and managed to do it better.

It's a simple world you live in.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

the Axis war machine which was able to increase rates of production throughout the war.

True, economic growth took place throughout the war, but surely it was lowered a bit by the bombing? I can't see how bombing doesn't destroy economic activity.

And where were those Germans hating nazis? I don't think they were in big numbers.

The vast majorty of people in any time are political sheep who don't understand politics at all. They don't have to be actively against the Nazis to not be Nazis.

[NRohirrim]

The vast majorty of people in any time are political sheep who don't understand politics at all. They don't have to be actively against the Nazis to not be Nazis.

But they were pro-nazi, if they voted for nazi government, and NSDAP won in the democratic way, so German people mostly wanted them.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

But they were pro-nazi, if they voted for nazi government, and NSDAP won in the democratic way, so German people mostly wanted them.

That is simply to easy. After 1933 where the NSDAP got everywhere results between 40-50% which was enough to rule, there were no real elections after that. They got 1933 these results because several other parties were forbitten like the SPD. So think about other totally system and their 99% results. Do you think the complete population is behind these results? I doubt it.

To understand why many people liked the Idea of Nationsocialism you have to consider in to the minds and the mentality of the people and the historical context of the last decade after WW1. But i think for many it is just easier to say all Germans are Nazis.

.... Which is why it was not a strategy conceived or pursued until the Axis powers did it first, demonstrating that the bets were off. The Allies were steadfast as a whole in their refusal to use chemical weapons, but you can bet your ass they would have been merciless in their use IF and only if the Germans had done it first. And I hadn't even thought it'd be necessary to point out that the whole reason The Manhattan Project was started was because the Allies were afraid the Germans were on track to developing an atomic bomb and wanted to beat them to it.

The Axis powers set the standard of destruction and brutality in the war, both in Europe and in the Pacific. The Allies, especially Russia, simply obliged them and managed to do it better.

Sorry but this is also to easy. Before the German Bombings in England the RAF wasn't ablte to attack German Soil effectivly. After the occupation of France only a few attacks on the coast. The allied bombings became possible after the Americans brought their B17 Bombers to England around 1942! Before that and the huge looses over England, the German Air Fleet and the AA Force of Germany was to powerfull for them. They didn't push this strategy out before, because they wasn't able to do that, not because they beleaved more in ethics. All statements of Churchill would stand against this crude thesis.

[boofhead]

I think the OP may be taking the piss out of Holocaust deniers and Holocaust minimizers.

Or am I reading too far into this?

[Ummagumma]

I think the OP may be taking the piss out of Holocaust deniers and Holocaust minimizers.

Or am I reading too far into this?

There is a habit of people making threads to push an agenda, or to troll similar threads, but benefit of the doubt time. It is a fair question about some horrific events.
It is a fine line between a war crime, and an expedient act of war. Many consider the Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden and similar bombings (Nagasaki and Hiroshima also) to have been a war crime, but the victors write the history, and those involved are now passed.
There does seem to be a consensus of the amount of casualties, though as always there are a few that think it was higher or lower by factors. It is probably better to follow the acknowledged figures, unless or until someone finds something conclusive enough to say otherwise.

[motiv-8]

Sorry but this is also to easy. Before the German Bombings in England the RAF wasn't ablte to attack German Soil effectivly. After the occupation of France only a few attacks on the coast. The allied bombings became possible after the Americans brought their B17 Bombers to England around 1942! Before that and the huge looses over England, the German Air Fleet and the AA Force of Germany was to powerfull for them. They didn't push this strategy out before, because they wasn't able to do that, not because they beleaved more in ethics. All statements of Churchill would stand against this crude thesis.

The comment about Churchill is the believable part of your post, because it's well-known that Churchill was willing to to almost everything, but he was not the guy who got to singularly shape Allied policy, not by a long shot. Many times, not just in the Second World War, were his more destructive fancies overridden.

But lets see some evidence that strategic bombing was even a popular concept among the Allies before the war started, cause what I've read has indicated that it didn't gain currency with Allied thinking until the Blitz gave them a qualified demonstration. The French didn't even bother even trying to develop strategic bombers after a really brief shorter attempt in the early 20s. Think about the internal logic of your post for a minute. If the British wanted to mass-bomb the Germans fe the get-go, why were they so utterly unprepared to do it that they had to wait for American hardware, when it wasn't even a guaranteed thing that the Americans would be involved in another European war?

Let's get some real thinking going, cause so far I've been criticized by two posters for a single post, one which is a terrible attempt at trolling and the other simply wasn't thinking things through. We can do better.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

The comment about Churchill is the believable part of your post, because it's well-known that Churchill was willing to to almost everything, but he was not the guy who got to singularly shape Allied policy, not by a long shot. Many times, not just in the Second World War, were his more destructive fancies overridden.

But lets see some evidence that strategic bombing was even a popular concept among the Allies before the war started, cause what I've read has indicated that it didn't gain currency with Allied thinking until the Blitz gave them a qualified demonstration. The French didn't even bother even trying to develop strategic bombers after a really brief shorter attempt in the early 20s. Think about the internal logic of your post for a minute. If the British wanted to mass-bomb the Germans fe the get-go, why were they so utterly unprepared to do it that they had to wait for American hardware, when it wasn't even a guaranteed thing that the Americans would be involved in another European war?

Let's get some real thinking going, cause so far I've been criticized by two posters for a single post, one which is a terrible attempt at trolling and the other simply wasn't thinking things through. We can do better.

Offcourse the British had bombers but they couldn't used them after the occupation of France because none of them was able to fly to german soil and return safly. The B-17 could do that and because the Germans hadn't something like that the hole comparison has no value. So the british wasn't unprepared, they were just not up to date in this matter.