Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

[NRohirrim]

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.

It's not true. UK had strategic bombers even in the early part of II world war (I mean late 1939 and early 1940). And also France had some.

[Éorl]

The question is, if you say they only did it after Germany has bombed cities, what was the motivation?

Was it to break the will to continue the war - a strategem that not only failed, but also is very questionable when consideing that the allied populace's resolve to fight it out was strengthened by the german bombings?

Or was it revenge, like in: You bombed us with your bombers that were not build for strategic bombings, so we 'll show you how it is done right and how you really level all major cities in your country and kill thousands of civilians.

And mind you, I'm not a nazi or a sympathizer with those dumbheads (quite the contrary), before that lame accusation is vomitted into the forums again.

[Turtler]

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.

And most crucially were not willing to go the whole nine yards. The British absolutely COULD bomb German soil and return home successfully and safely before the B-17, that's why we see the big bomber offensives of '40-42. It's just that until the Blitz they were by and large not committed to flattening the Reich and its' satellites/allies.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

It's not true. UK had strategic bombers even in the early part of II world war (I mean late 1939 and early 1940). And also France had some.

Offcourse they had some, i wrote nothing otherwise, but in this time the RAF alone had enough to do with defending england against the Luftwaffe.

And most crucially were not willing to go the whole nine yards. The British absolutely COULD bomb German soil and return home successfully and safely before the B-17, that's why we see the big bomber offensives of '40-42. It's just that until the Blitz they were by and large not committed to flattening the Reich and its' satellites/allies.

But the first time after the battle of england. We don't talk here about 10 planes attacking a north german habour and fly away. We are talkering about hundrets of airplaines and the RAF hadn't the Ressources to defend England and attack german soil around 1940 til 1941. The german Luftwaffe saw what AA could do and normal bombers had their problems with fully intakt German AA at this time. After 1941 when the Luftwaffe had huge looses over England and another large part was transfered to the new Eastern Front, the chances were better. But still the huge Raids became possible because they god the B-17 Bombers.

[Turtler]

But the first time after the battle of england. We don't talk here about 10 planes attacking a north german habour and fly away. We are talkering about hundrets of airplaines and the RAF hadn't the Ressources to defend England and attack german soil around 1940 til 1941. The german Luftwaffe saw what AA could do and normal bombers had their problems with fully intakt German AA at this time. After 1941 when the Luftwaffe had huge looses over England and another large part was transfered to the new Eastern Front, the chances were better. But still the huge Raids became possible because they god the B-17 Bombers.

Actually, not really. The B-17s in British service were close to statistical nonentities. They weren't minor, but the first delivery was only 20 strong and they lost a good number of them more or less off the bat. The first major-major raids were generally made using newly mass produced British bombers rather than LL B-17s.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Actually, not really. The B-17s in British service were close to statistical nonentities. They weren't minor, but the first delivery was only 20 strong and they lost a good number of them more or less off the bat. The first major-major raids were generally made using newly mass produced British bombers rather than LL B-17s.

Okey i am really not an expert on military vehicle and plains but it looked like they were more advanced than the plains they had 1940. What i was talking about were the huge raid they did after the americans came in the game.

Because some facts are mixed here in generally i would recommend the wiki article which include both sides, for an overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...g_World_War_II

Interesting is this quote with Boog as reference: "Despite the British attacks on German cities, the Luftwaffe did not begin to attack military and economic targets in the UK mainland until 6 weeks after the campaign in France had been concluded."

The attacks on german cities were very limited and not really successfull, still they are the beginning. For me personally it has no value who started these horrible methods.

[Turtler]

Okey i am really not an expert on military vehicle and plains but it looked like they were more advanced than the plains they had 1940. What i was talking about were the huge raid they did after the americans came in the game.

Because some facts are mixed here in generally i would recommend the wiki article which include both sides, for an overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...g_World_War_II

Interesting is this quote with Boog as reference: "Despite the British attacks on German cities, the Luftwaffe did not begin to attack military and economic targets in the UK mainland until 6 weeks after the campaign in France had been concluded."

The attacks on german cities were very limited and not really successfull, still they are the beginning. For me personally it has no value who started these horrible methods.

No, I can believe you are not an expert because the "plains" the British had in 1940 and after were the same they had had for thousands of years. For future reference we're talking about *planEs.*

And truth be told I wouldn't really hold that overview as very reliable at all. It contains some interesting tidbits but it is not *that* useful or intensive.

Also the Boog reference isn't THAT interesting if you parse out what the Luftwaffe was doing at the time: conducting massive, intensive campaigns over the West to aid the Wehrmacht which culminated in humongous terror strikes like the ones that devastated Rotterdam. The Germans weren't avoiding Britain out of benevolence, they just had more important and immediate targets to send their limited aircraft numbers after while the British were by definition facing only one enemy and thus had future targets.

Yes, the stuff they had later was more advanced than they had in 1940, however it wasn't that dramatically different either. The main turner was the increased amount of *British* bomber planes and advanced types, particularly the introduction of the Avro Lancaster (which was as old as 1939 but only came into service late in 1940). the B-17 was pretty much a nonentity at this point in time, and the British raids well predated the American entrance into the war, as shown by the repeated batterings Mannheim took.

And for me personally it has immense value over who the HELL started committing INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED WAR CRIMES particularly since it's worth parsing out what happened. The Japanese and Italians probably got the ball rolling in China and the African colonies, but the Germans had started it or a cruel parody of it as early as WWI. And true to form the Axis and Soviets were the ones that truly started terror bombing as a major strategy even without the usual caveats I'd attach for the Chinese (who simply didn't have strat bombers period).

As for saying they were of little value, I'd highly dispute that. If we really want to prevent it happening in the future, it's important we be the ones to show the truth. And the truth was that while strategic bombing- especially by the West- was very hit and miss (literally) initially, it soon morphed into a very devastating and effective weapon. In particular in Japan it all but helped smash the national economy to a standstill, and while Europe and North Korea were far less convincing they did rip up a great deal of resources and infrastructure, and forced the enemy to redeploy often valuable forces to defend (including the lion's share of those 88s).

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

It just doesn't matter for me who started because both sides did this criminal methods and i am really sick of the guilt question in things both sides did. Axis did it when they were able to and Allies as well. The Attack on London and England was a crime in my eyes and it should be admited, the same way Dresden and Hamburg, and the atomic bombings should be considered a war crime.

[Wulfburk]

Well imo it matters who started it, the war was quite an even one, specially after France fell, and to ask Churchill not to use the bombers (the bombing campaign was in fact mostly british until 1944 or so) meanwhile the germans were bombing london cause it wasnt cool and not "fair" is nonsence.

Obviously the death of civilians is a crime, but to handicap yourself in an even war while your enemy is doing everything it can is just plain stupid.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Well imo it matters who started it, the war was quite an even one, specially after France fell, and to ask Churchill not to use the bombers (the bombing campaign was in fact mostly british until 1944 or so) meanwhile the germans were bombing london cause it wasnt cool and not "fair" is nonsence.

Obviously the death of civilians is a crime, but to handicap yourself in an even war while your enemy is doing everything it can is just plain stupid.

Yeah i just hate the white and black view.

[Turtler]

It just doesn't matter for me who started because both sides did this criminal methods and i am really sick of the guilt question in things both sides did. Axis did it when they were able to and Allies as well. The Attack on London and England was a crime in my eyes and it should be admited, the same way Dresden and Hamburg, and the atomic bombings should be considered a war crime.

Yes, of COURSE the use of such carpet bombardment has been recognized as at least a "very nasty thing to do" since at least the gratuitous French bombardment of Brussels in 1695 ( which was as gratuitous and stupid as you can be, on top of being horrendously brutal) and by the time the 20th century rolled around it was also recognized as a war crime. And rightfully so. Unfortunately, there's a reason why just about every single nation that actually accepted its' definition as a war crime and the accords of Geneva etc. al. also added the caveat about "tactical necessity." And they did it for a VERY. GOOD. REASON. On top of that, you're forgetting the underlying method of enforcement for war crimes. Retaliation. A power that does not adhere to international law cannot expect to be and generally is not protected by it.

To strike willingly and first is by itself a moral and humanitarian crime precisely because it escalates the conflict in nightmarish and *usually NEEDLESSLY* costly ways, and as a result any nation- like Imperial Germany in WWI when it deployed poison gas- that willfully violates it loses any and all expectations of protection under those laws and any expectation that the aggrieved power(s) and faction(s) will be punished for retaliating to a reasonable degree.

Is that nightmarish, bloody, cynical, and frankly ugly? Of course. But that's more or less ho matters fall out and while international law has doubtless moved beyond and has clarified matters beyond that, ultimately when you get down to it that is what the idealistic, hope for civilized conflict lies upon: Marquess of Queensbury Rules Only. If you use kicks, your opponent gets to use kicks. If you try to jab a shard of glass into their eye, then....god help you. Because in breaking the covenants you are putting yourself (and your nation/regime) at the mercy of the...well, mercies of your enemies.


Put it simply, if things were closer to an ideal world it would've been nice to see WWII be fought out with no dirty tricks, no use of carpet bombing, or unrestricted Submarine warfare, or violations of neutrality, or what have you. However, in an EVEN MORE IDEAL WORLD WWII would HAVE NEVER HAD TO BE FOUGHT. Or did you forget that the levying of war on another League of Nation member was in and of itself a war crime while waxing poetic about all of the above being war crimes.

Simply put, our enemies (and our "lovely" allies and future enemies the Soviets and Chinese) made a *habit* of systematically conducting war crimes for their own benefit, as shown by their decision to conduct widespread terror bombing like the attacks on Warsaw, the use of genocide, and arbitrary and willful aggression from day one of the conflict. By mobilizing the entire national and societal resources they had at their disposal and being willing to do what most others would not, they managed to win numerous battles and might well have won the war (maybe). In order to stop them, it would become obviously necessary to counterattack against them, and since they had made the national infrastructure an active co-conspirator in their atrocities and had already opened the Pandora's Box of targetting them, it because necessary and excusable to visit devastation upon them in order to weaken and defeat them.

This is one of the most basic principles of warfare, dating back all the way at *least* to the fall of Babylon to the Persians: Do Not Initiate What You Are Not Willing To Receive In Kind. This is not something *anyone* should be even remotely proud of, but it is something they should recognize as being worth a lot more than simplistic hand-wringing.

No matter what anyone thinks, International Law IS NOT MEANT TO BE A SUICIDE PACT to be abused by those who do not adhere to its' tenants at the expense of those who do. In doing so, the Japanese, Italians, Germans, and Soviets ultimately visited their fates upon their own regimes, but upon the millions of innocent people who shared their nationalities. to treat the bombings of Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Hamburg, Dresden, and Nagasaki the same is merely to disregard the very reasons and logic that underwrote and sustained the existence of International Law. When you treat all crimes, all perpetrators, and all fatal shootings the same you are not strengthening the law or bringing peace, you are UNDERMINING both.

Does this mean they were not crimes, or that several perpetrators *cough The USSR COUGH* got away far lighter than they should have? Of course not. However, that doesn't mean that some discretion and tact is necessary.

Yeah i just hate the white and black view.

Oh the IRONY. You have done nothing BUT portray a Black and White view.

I am sorry. The joint Allied commanders of the Far East were under no moral or legal obligation to subject hundreds of thousands of their own servicepeople and millions of Japanese to prolonged, horrifying, and unnecessary deaths in order to satisfy your apparent (and immature) opinions on the *right* way people should suffer and die in war and the even more immature desires of the Japanese regime to consign themselves and their nation to death out of some disingenuous form of "honor." International law has its' blindspots and is not the end all to be all of moral law. Please pick up the White Courtesy Phone.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Oh the IRONY. You have done nothing BUT portray a Black and White view.

Actually i did not portray everything in black and white. Black and White is the view that one side is evil and the other is good. I said that both sides had their cruel crimes in relation to the bombings. As someone who loves history i saw the results of WW2 every day. It might be considered unimportant, but there is a reason why we have so less old and medieval buildings in Germany. Every time i search an old building i have to read: Destroyed in WW2.

I know the theme is very emotional and many people like to blame germany for everything from WW2 to the Economic Crisis in the EU. I can live with that and after i gave my opinion, no matter who like it, i find it plausible, and will now leave this thread.

Have a nice day.

[Turtler]

Actually i did not portray everything in black and white.

Repeating oneself changes the truth value of jack squat.

Black and White is the view that one side is evil and the other is good.

Let's see here: genocidal, totalitarian regimes that *started* both the wars and the low, low standards that they were fought at versus largely sober and restrained democratic republics (even if they were Imperial ones). Welp, seems really morally murky to me!

Let's be blunt, here: the Black and White insanity you have is not related to nations, but to acts, and strategies. You would like to believe that absolutely everything is as clearcut as what's written and kept at Geneva, and you do not want to admit that as the situation stood, the truth was not as easy or saccharine. You also do not want to acknowledge the fact that reciprocity is a *FEATURE* of international law, not a bug. As such, the innocent act does not work.

I said that both sides had their cruel crimes in relation to the bombings.

No; if you only said that we would be in agreement. But when you start to abuse international law and basic morality to conflate Dresden with Hiroshima with the firebombing of Shanghai in '37, THEN we have issues.

As someone who loves history i saw the results of WW2 every day. It might be considered unimportant, but there is a reason why we have so less old and medieval buildings in Germany. Every time i search an old building i have to read: Destroyed in WW2.

Well then, you must be an EXCEPTIONALLY poor searcher, because believe it or not far from the majority of medieval German buildings were destroyed in WWII. Secondly, you are naive if you believe TEH EMOTIONAL TRAUMA of such frustration will somehow wash away the numerous, great moral insults and piss-poor logic made on this thread. They will not. And I find it a bit distasteful that you're seeking to hide behind the ruins of peoples' lives and history in a vain attempt to defend the indefensible positions you have erected.

I know the theme is very emotional and many people like to blame germany for everything from WW2 to the Economic Crisis in the EU.

Oh Wonderful. He's now going one step above Blood Libel by rhetorically conflating WWII with the Great Recession. Fun Fact, Mate: YES Germany WAS responsible (at least in the driver's seat) for WWII. Like it was responsible for WWI. Like it was responsible for the advent of strategic terror bombing on civilian targets. The hateful, paranoid ramblings of various people about the Great Recession should not be stuck together with those iron clad facts.

After all, what does it say about the person who would conflate the two charges (one deranged, one absolutely sober)?

I can live with that and after i gave my opinion, no matter who like it, i find it plausible, and will now leave this thread.

Translation: intellectual, historical, and MORAL cowardice is alright, and in keeping with that fine tradition I unwisely stuck my head into a thread populated by actual HISTORIANS and said my bit, and when people inevitably came along to slap me about the ears for getting the essentialist facts dead wrong, I am going to avoid learning from them and instead retreat with my malformed tail between my legs in order to claim some sort of perverse martyrdom rather than actually *learning* like I should.

I am sorry, but history DOES NOT rest on what you find "plausible." I know that might shock you, but someone needs to. And if you are so disingenuous that you will not learn, there is no excuse.

[Vanoi]

Sorry but this is also to easy. Before the German Bombings in England the RAF wasn't ablte to attack German Soil effectivly.

The RAF was able to bomb Germany before 1942 without America's help. And they did.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

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.

The British were bombing Germany with Sterlings, Blenheims, and Wellingtons from 1939. They had no shortage in the bombing department. The Sterling was bigger than anything the Germans had, the Blenheim was about the same size as the Dornier Do 17, and the Wellington was comparable to the Heinkel He 111. Even when the Lancaster (bomb load second only to the B-29) entered service, these earlier designs except the Blenheim were considered adequate.

[Darkhorse]

IIRC The Blenheim was pretty fast if nothing else, it made a good night fighter.

Also, I seem to remember reading somewhere that American bomber crews never loaded a full payload, the figures that seem to stick is a frequently carried load of 2000lbs, when max capacity was 8000lbs on usual missions, or about 5000lbs for longer range flights. Now, compare this to the Lancaster, which was normally loaded with at least 14000lbs of payload, and over a longer range. If I remember correctly, and American bombers were indeed lightly loaded, then a British Mosquito fighter bomber was statistically more suitable than the B-17 in all but range carrying 4000lbs, 1500 miles, at 11000 metres, much faster!

Therein lies the danger of statistics and technological determinism!

It does raise a couple of good points though. The key to American involvement in the strategic bombing campaign was not the survivability, payload, etc of the aircraft themselves as both British and American bombers were leagues ahead of the majority of German designs in the strategic role. American bombers carried larger armaments because of when they flew, typically during daylight. Aircraft such as the B-17 still suffered heavy losses, and were hopelessly useless in the Pacific, and in all honesty, were probably more valuable in non bombing roles, the B-24 was far superior. The main benefit of the influx of American aircraft and crews gave the Allies the ability to bomb day in and night out, larger raids at any given time, and splitting casualties between 2 nations and 2 air forces. As with the British, and perhaps more so with the Americans, it was the only real way they could intervene in Europe ahead of 1943/4. Combining bombing offensives was always going to produce better yield. It is always worth remembering that strategic bombing is really 3 campaigns, 2 of which, the destruction of industry, and the oil campaign, were successful.

(Somewhat ironic that the bomber that was arguably more useful in other roles is the famous bomber design, and the more useful bomber is arguably best remembered as a non bombing aircraft )

Keep in mind the fact that the Luftwaffe was pretty much a tactical extension of the ground forces, even at bomber level, so something like the B-17 or even the Wellington or Invader were going to be at the very least equal to German designs used in the strategic role. Which basically means an allied 1000 bomber raid carried more bombs.

1000 Heinkel 111 = roughly 4.4m lbs of bombs. 1000 Lancaster = roughly 14m lbs of bombs, carried almost twice as far, and better protected. It's going to be more devastating with little extra effort.

One last quick point, American bomb-sights became very accurate before the end of the war, gave those daylight raids some extra punch.

[Garbarsardar]

The OP wrote about WW2. The food situation in Germany itself was not great, but also not bad enough for thousend of hungerdeaths like in WW1. For my self i don't know why it is so important if there were a few more thousends death. The cruel thing is that they were civilians and killed by purpose, not by5 accident and thats the final crime.

You need to take into account the gradual decline in the immune system that underfeeding causes and combine it with the erosion of sanitary precautions (and infrastructure) that war brings. I would guess that direct deaths by hunger are relatively few but indirect ones are significant.

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

The last fair election in Germany had the Nazi party win a 33.09% of the vote. If you wish to argue about the will of the German electorate, this is obviously not the way.

[TheDarkKnight]

The last fair election in Germany had the Nazi party win a 33.09% of the vote. If you wish to argue about the will of the German electorate, this is obviously not the way.

Huh. I meant to bring this up myself. No matter, I knew someone else would eventually.


That's one of the problems with the multiparty system (as in more than 2 parties). It means there are far more losers than winners. Of course it gives people more choices, but it also leads to the above.

And in the end, most of the people that voted for the Nazi's had no idea how bad it would get, nor did they wish to vote for the Communists or other parties.

[Turtler]

Huh. I meant to bring this up myself. No matter, I knew someone else would eventually.


That's one of the problems with the multiparty system (as in more than 2 parties). It means there are far more losers than winners. Of course it gives people more choices, but it also leads to the above.

And in the end, most of the people that voted for the Nazi's had no idea how bad it would get, nor did they wish to vote for the Communists or other parties.

This is getting a bit off topic, but I think if you really want to understand the downfall of the German Republic and what happened after, don't look at Hitler and the Nazis. Look at everybody else there.

Of the top three parties, maaayyybe half were *not* dedicated to the complete death of German democracy (namely the Social Democrats, the Centers, and the Bavarian Centers). And by this point in time the Centers were already being compromised by their alliances with the radical right as shown by Hugenburg.

It's incredibly hard to form a stable, true democratic republic when it's really only defended by a fraction of the political spectrum (namely the center, especially the center left). In particular, most might not have had an idea how bad it was going to get, but they should have been able to guess, given that they had endorsed authoritarian (if not totalitarian) radical and militant politics long ago, and just about everybody of age to vote at the time had lived through and passively abetted the atrocities of the Bismarckian Reich, particularly in WWI.

It wasn't pre-ordained, and the German people were hardly plotting the Final Solution at this point, but Hitler didn't come out of a vacuum.

[Garbarsardar]

It wasn't pre-ordained, and the German people were hardly plotting the Final Solution at this point, but Hitler didn't come out of a vacuum.

Absolutely. However you need to look much further than the confines of Germany to explain the rise of such ideologies and practices. Galton was not a product of German culture, neither was Kellog. They preceded Hitler and he co-opted their ideas. Authoritarian regimes with homicidal practiceswas not a German trend either: even if we don't want to go back at Robespierre, just think of Mussolini, De Rivera, Cabecadas, Franco, Metaxas. There were actually few countries that did not toy with the prospect of an authoritarian regime, actually.