There was a general concensus before the war that hitting civilian centres would cause a huge loss of life and inevitably destroy the morale of the opposition. This would ultimatley lead to total collapse very quickly. This view was subscribed to by both the Allies and Germans. And initially it was true, Warsaw, Rotterdam etc all surrendered after massive indiscriminate bombing, and this was policy the Germans used in 1941 against Russia. So mass aerial bombardment was already seen "valid" tactic of war but a morally dubious one. Hence the Americans stating proudly that they would bomb only strategic targets.

The real reasons why the RAF switched to aerial bombardment was 1. payback and taking the war to Germany and 2. They weren't technologically advanced enough to hit anything that wasn't a city. 3 they suffered huge losses when attempting strategic bombing of industry etc in daytime and so had to switch to night attacks.

The whole arguement is ridiculous anyway. By 1940 aerial bombardment had become an accepted form of warfare, as much as artillery or the machine gun. It was designed to effect a military outcome and was in my opionion justified. Even Dresden which was in support of a Russian offensive that was a few miles away and was a communications centre and conduit for German reinforcments.

Exactly Tomus.

I'm getting fed up with the myth, that seems to be growing in some quarters, that the Nazis targetted essential installations and factories whilst the RAF went off to destroy cities/people.

It was pretty much tit-fot-tat once the Luftwaffe focussed on London in 1940.

quote:

Originally posted by decrypted:
I'm getting fed up with the myth, that seems to be growing in some quarters, that the Nazis targetted essential installations and factories whilst the RAF went off to destroy cities/people.

It was pretty much tit-fot-tat once the Luftwaffe focussed on London in 1940.

I said that until the Blitz the Luftwaffe targetted the war effort. I did not say there were no civilian casualties. I explained why the Blitz was ordered by Hitler and I agree thereafter the Luftwaffe raids were more indicriminate. However the scale of German bombing and the RAF/USAF bombing can be seen from the casualty figures British - 50,000, German 500,000.

The Blitz led to Harris's statement about the Germans "reaping the whirlwind". I have seen US aircrew interviewed saying that in their entire campaign they never saw a single target, just dropped their bombs, British aircrew who dropped their bombs on targets of opportunity, ie anywhere, if the main target was obscured.

There were no designated targets for Dresden, the only aim was to destroy the city, regarded as so important that it was untouched until two months before the end of the war. After Dresden even Churchill said that the terror must stop.

quote:

There were no designated targets for Dresden, the only aim was to destroy the city, regarded as so important that it was untouched until two months before the end of the war. After Dresden even Churchill said that the terror must stop.

Churchill did indeed recognise that purely terrorist tactics would not lower the morale of the German people. However, Dresden is a mixed bag. Its strategic importance is still debated.

quote:

Originally posted by decrypted:
However, Dresden is a mixed bag. Its strategic importance is still debated.

The fact that there is a debate speaks volumes.

quote:

Harry - this is turning into a nitpick by you.

Don't be so churlish. I only asked you to stick to the point.

You didn't have to answer my post. Having done so, just stick to the point.

That's all.

quote:

Hi Cottar,

I'd be wary of those sorts of figures. It creates the impression that there were 1,000,000 men specifically set aside for this task thereby preventing them from active service elsewhere.

No such body existed. Clearance was done by the civilians, the equivalent of the home guard, POWs, slave labour and german soliders returning on leave from active service were often drafted in to help too. It's hard to see how any figure could be calculated anyway as it depends so much on 'where and when'.

Hi Harry

I got the figure from Robin Neillands book "the Bomber War" - it wasn't just clearance of course it was repair, water mains, electricity supplies, gas mains; that would require a lot of labour - from Harris's Batte of the Ruhr starting in May 1943, the devastation was often on a vast scale

"If you deploy those guns and stop the russian advance, have you got enough armour to push it back? Even if you have enough armour to push it back, have you got enough fuel to go anywhere?"

Russian losses were on an appalling scale of course, how much more could they have taken, if German AT defences had been increased by say 50% say? Agree on the fuel - the Achilles heel, when the synthetic oil plants started to get knocked out.

I have got Field Erich von Manstein's "Lost Victories" - perhaps the cleverest of Hitler's commanders he took the Crimea in 1942 and won an impressive victory at Kharkov in the following year.

His thesis was that Hitler was a disaster as a commander. At Stalingrad he tied up the best of the German forces in south Russia in a WW1 battle within the city, leaving his flanks on the Don river covered by what Manstein calls "an easily destructible screen". It was an open invitation to attack and cost 20 divisions here alone. He seems to have done that time after time - trying to hold bulges drawn on river lines, such as the Dneiper. Trouble was that the lines were too thinly held and could be attacked at the top of the bulge. Hitler believed in brute force and will-power, his own. And it couldn't work. At Kursk he delayed the offensive to bite off the Russian salient far too long - so all possibility of suprise was gone, leaving a brute force battle ultimately the product of a brute force nature.

Manstein says that Hitler thought in WW1 terms - enemy dead piled up before the trenches, but the revolution in mobility, thanks to US supplied trucks, and the enormous length of the front put paid to that.

Manstein said that while Hitler was essentially a brute in these terms he, Manstein, was a fencer. Hitler had a fetish about never giving up ground won. Manstein said that in the circumstances the best thing to do was, like a fencer, go back - and with the opponent advanced and off-balance - deliver a lightening counter-stroke. He said that the staff work of German officers and the tactical ability of German troops remained higher than that of the Russians - and he hoped to exploit that.

Manstein, who at the time commanded the German southern wing, hoped - by the use of these tactics to inflict a series of defeats on advnacing soviet armies so severe as to make them give up. He saw 1943 as the crucial year - because once Anglo-American airpower was fully developed and the western allies ashore, combined with the eastern front - it would obviously be game over.

Hitler wouldn't listen. I am inclined to think that Manstein, if had got what he wanted - ie command of the army in the east without interference - could have pulled off. The reason I say that is that Hitler's command was utterly crass, the Russian losses were already horrendous and the skill of the German army exceedingly great.

History then could have been very different perhaps..

quote:

Don't be so churlish. I only asked you to stick to the point.

Harry - I did cover the points in my original posts.

As for Letts' claim about the 50,000 vs 500,000 deaths by bombing. Lest we forget that ten times the number of bombed German civilians met their deaths under a regime voted in by those who came under increasing atack as the allies approached Berlin.

It can be argued that whirlwinds were reaped. I tend to think the German people suffered some gales compared to the Tsunamic disaster European Jews (and many other groups) faced from 1933-1945.

quote:

Originally posted by decrypted:
As for Letts' claim about the 50,000 vs 500,000 deaths by bombing. Lest we forget that ten times the number of bombed German civilians met their deaths under a regime voted in by those who came under increasing atack as the allies approached Berlin.

Do you dispute the deaths by bombing? If so please let me have a source for alternative figures.

It should be remembered that the Nazis came to power in July 1932 with 37% of the vote. A further election was held in November 1932 when the vote fell to 33%. In an attempt to consolidate its position and with the ability of other parties to camapign restricted the Nazi achieved 44% of the vote in March 1933, that is 26% of the total population. Thereafter the Nazis managed to get the legislature to abandon democracy in favour of dictatorship. Therefore after March 1933 the German public had no opportunity to remove the Nazi party from power. In 1933 who could possibly have predicted what the Nazis would do and other than the likes of Daniel Goldhagen, who would believe that the Germans would approve of the destuction of European Jewry?

Your suggestion that the Germans got what they deserved is quite, quite wrong.

No - I don't dispute those figures merely how important they are in concluding the justification (or lack of) behind the war.

As for the election results: well, that's the problem with voting in a group of thugs headedby a man who was hardly quiet when it came to Liebensraum and his disgust at European Jewry. The public knew what they were getting - the domestic and foreign policy was there for all to see.

von Manstein continued to argue with Hitler about overall strategy on the Eastern Front. He advocated an elastic, mobile defense; he was quite ready to cede territory, attempting to make the Soviet forces either stretch out too thinly or to make them advance too fast so that they could be attacked on the flanks with the goal of encircling them. Hitler instead insisted on static, attritional total war. Because of these frequent disagreements, von Manstein publicly advocated that Hitler relinquish control and leave the management of the war to professionals, starting with the establishment of the position of Oberbefehlshaber Ost (Supreme Commander in the East); Hitler however rejected this idea numerous times, fearing that it would weaken his hold on power."

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

Here's some more on Manstein - in the article there is some description of his career including particularly his impressive post-Stalingrad victories. The soviet army of 1941/2 was pretty bad in many ways. Stalingrad wasn't a strategic masterpiece really - it was the result of egregious mistakes by Hitler - so crass that a breakthrough on the weak Roumanian and Italian fronts supposedly covering the German forces tied up in Stalingrad was obviously indicated. But as Manstein says the hard-hitting forces of the German 6th army and the 4th Panzer army, in part, should never have been tied up and worn down in such an attritional battle - purely because Hitler refused to retreat from the Volga. On a strategic level Hitler's division of forces whereby he expected to take Stalingrad whilst simeltaneously aiming for the Russian oilfields was very unsound. So having an East front commander with genuine authority and automny would have made an enormous difference, in contrast to the lunacy that prevailed.

The Stalingrad victory did not suddenly transform the Red army, though obviously the morale effect was enormous. Although Soviet attacks were often soundly conceived at high level, with Zhukov in charge, at lower level command was wooden and inflexible - a plan knocked off balance was too easily disrupted. The Soviet system did not exactly encourage individual thinking and flexibility. Manstein said that the Soviets did not manage to replicate Stalingrad in the combination of strength and speed when he commanded in souther Russia.

So I think that it is quite possible that if the east front had been in the overall charge of someone who really knew what he was doing the German army could have forced a draw in 1943.

quote:

Originally posted by decrypted:
No - I don't dispute those figures merely how important they are in concluding the justification (or lack of) behind the war.

I never said that the figures had anything to do with the justification for war. The figures illustrate how the Western Allies fought the war - that is it was principally directed at civilians. By contrast the Axis military deaths caused by the Western Allies were about 250,000 (compare the civilian bombing deaths of 500,000) whereas the Soviets inflicted some 3 million military deaths.

quote:

As for the election results: well, that's the problem with voting in a group of thugs headedby a man who was hardly quiet when it came to Liebensraum and his disgust at European Jewry. The public knew what they were getting - the domestic and foreign policy was there for all to see.

Not quite that clear to Winston Churchill who in November 1935 said:

“We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon the world another war in which civilisation will irretrievably succumb, or whether he will go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to the Great Germanic nation.”

Other than with the benefit of hindsight, can you quote anyone who predicted the holocaust, in the form that it took, in 1933 or before? The Nazi's policies were anti semitic but then America was also deeply anti semitic at this time. In 1939 a poll found that only thirty-nine percent of Americans felt that Jews should be treated like other people. Fifty-three percent believed that "Jews are different and should be restricted" and ten percent believed that Jews should be deported.

quote:

Liebensraum

It's Lebensraum. Liebensraum means room for love.

quote:

The public knew what they were getting - the domestic and foreign policy was there for all to see.

Decrypted,

Are you aware that Hitler was voted Times Man of the Year in 1938 and was front cover feature of Time magazine Jan. 1939?

Do you know of the controversy over Simon Waldman's publication of an article published in 1938 in the british Homes & Garden magazine where Hitler is described as a 'droll raconteur' delighting 'in the society of brilliant foreigners, especially painters, singers, and musicians'.

Field Marshals Göring and von Blomberg, and Joachim von Ribbentrop are described as 'bons viveurs'.

'The Führer, I may add, has a passion for cut flowers in his home, as well as for music.'

'Even in his meatless diet Hitler is something of a gourmet -- as Sir John Simon and Mr. Anthony Eden were surprised to note when they dined with him in the Presidial Palace at Berlin.'


The H&G article was published in November 1938, after Czechoslovakia. Moreover, articles such as these and others were published by a free press, something which didn't exist in Germany.

Eden certainly wouldn't agree with your assertion. In his 1941 speach at the Mansion House he said:

"... no man or woman can by any legal means read in a newspaper, hear on the wireless, or harbour a thought of which the Führer does not approve."

and described the situation as follows:

"Hitlerism imposes servitude not only on the body but on the mind and even on the spirit."

If you want to understand peoples' attitudes of the time, read what was written at the time, not what people writing now say was written at the time.

The media group IPC pressured Simon Waldman to remove the H&G article from his website claiming copyright infringment.

quote:

Other than with the benefit of hindsight, can you quote anyone who predicted the holocaust, in the form that it took, in 1933 or before?

Lett,

Or even during the war for that matter. A series of cartoons published by the Wyman Institute demonstrates american lack of interest quite clearly. Eric Godal's from 1943 is my favourite:

http://www.wymaninstitute.org/press/2004-05-20-cartoons.pdf

best

Harry A

quote:

By 1940 aerial bombardment had become an accepted form of warfare, as much as artillery or the machine gun.

Tomus,

On 28 March 1945, prime minister Winston Churchill noted in his famous memorandum the oft quoted:

'Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing.'

Less quoted but more telling is the opening sentance:

"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing German cities simply for the sake of increasing terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed"

This infuriated head of Bomber Command Harris who claimed Churchill had ordered it. Chief of Air Staff Portal got Churchill to substitute it with something more acceptable to Harris.

But Churchill was a politician who had made his play to the anti bombing lobby and could now claim that he was merely juggling with opposing opinions. If any crimes had been committed, his was only one of having listened to the wrong lobby.

It was, even during time of war, far from being universally accepted. When the decision was made in 1942 to switch from precision to area bombing, the Bombing Restriction Committee was established. As Vera Brittain wrote:

"[do] we want the government to continue to carry out, through its Bomber Command, a policy of murder and massacre in our name."

Whilst others on this list have argued along the lines of escalation, retaliation or raising the spectre of nazism and the holocaust as justification, it seems to me that this debate should start in 1932 when the British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin argued that killing women and children by mass bombing was essential to national survival.

best

Harry A

quote:

So I think that it is quite possible that if the east front had been in the overall charge of someone who really knew what he was doing the German army could have forced a draw in 1943.

Hi Cottar,

I've enjoyed reading your posts and yes, the germans had some highly effective generals, Mannstein amongst them. But they weren't infallable. Mannstein's plan to invade the Caucuses was vetoed for the simple reason that they didn't have enough fuel to get there, something he had miscalculated. There may have been even more competent generals. Mannstein, from memory, was acceptable to Hitler because he wasn't of the Prussian Officer class who Hitler distrusted. Not without good reason, they seemed to view him as a jumped up little austrian.

Essentially, what you are saying is that if Hitler had been willing to place more trust in the judgement of his generals rather than his own judgement, things may have been very different.

But the whole cult around Hitler was that of a man with vision who with a supreme act of unbending will could move mountains. Hence the Nazi interest in Nietsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra.

Hitler was advised not to invade Russia, but he still ordered it and, when the german army reached the terminus tram station of Moscow, he was advised not to change strategy, but he did. The subsequent victory of Kiev appeared to confirm that Hitler was right all along.

Nazi germany wasn't like a boardroom where, at this point, the board may ask the Chariman to step down and hand control to those who could develop new policies and strategies. Also, Stalin was more ruthless than Hitler, especially with his own men and his own civilian population. Other than knowing what did happen, it's hard to see in what direction events could have gone if this or that decision had or had not been taken.

best

Harry A

quote:

The subsequent victory of Kiev appeared to confirm that Hitler was right all along.

Cottar,

Sorry, I meant the Crimea. Kiev had of course already fallen.

quote:

Originally posted by Lett328:
[QUOTE]

I never said that the figures had anything to do with the justification for war. The figures illustrate how the Western Allies fought the war - that is it was principally directed at civilians.

This is a lie. Most of the air raids were strategic, impressing upon the Nazis a great responsibility to keep AA guns and manpower back from thje East. Only a few raids in the latter stages of the war could be deemed "civilian only" rather than strategic. Regretful as they are they make up a minority of the civilian deaths over the entire course of war.

quote:

By contrast the Axis military deaths caused by the Western Allies were about 250,000 (compare the civilian bombing deaths of 500,000) whereas the Soviets inflicted some 3 million military deaths.

That in itself is not a moral argument against the war: just because the western allies faced fewer military divisions compared to the Soviet Union (and therefore our front was air bombardment - strategic bombing) is not an issue.

quote:

Not quite that clear to Winston Churchill who in November 1935 said:

“We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon the world another war in which civilisation will irretrievably succumb, or whether he will go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to the Great Germanic nation.”

This in itself is not proof that Hitler didn't spell out his ambitions and his hatred of Jews. Nor is it proof that the German people were unaware of his ambitions. It merely shows Churchill being diplomatic in a particular magazine article.

quote:

Other than with the benefit of hindsight, can you quote anyone who predicted the holocaust, in the form that it took, in 1933 or before? The Nazi's policies were anti semitic but then America was also deeply anti semitic at this time. In 1939 a poll found that only thirty-nine percent of Americans felt that Jews should be treated like other people. Fifty-three percent believed that "Jews are different and should be restricted" and ten percent believed that Jews should be deported.

There's a difference between underlying anti-semitism and state sanctioned policies. Kristallnacht made the world sit up. America complained. The German people were whipped into an orgy of reprisals.

This is not a sign of a people waking up to something terrible that they've voted in, it's a sign of a people knowingly indulging in the extra powers they've been granted to commit crimes against humanity.

Your point about the holocaust is another sleight-of-hand. Of course it wasn't implemented until the 1940s, this doesn't mean the growing hatred and intolerance towards Jews wasn't part of the 1930s Nazi system. It was there for all to see.

The fact remains: long before a drop of blood was spilt in WW2 the people of Germany willingly took part in acts of barbarism. They willingly voted in a party that admitted to wanting to do these things. They were not, as you are attempting to show, doing things against their will.

quote:

Originally posted by Harry Amphlett:

quote:

Liebensraum

It's Lebensraum. Liebensraum means room for love.

Actually it's more "dear love" - I was going to change the spelling but this forum has a habit of denying editing.