quote:

How do you know for certain? Earlier on, you were claiming that they would be on the eastern front. None of these things can be certain.

quote:

How do you know for certain? Earlier on, you were claiming that they would be on the eastern front. None of these things can be certain.

harry

It is certain that the substantial resources otherwise tied down by the bomber offensive would have appeared elsewhere - on the eastern front and against the allied landings in France when they came. In any case all this obviously had to be assumed

"Why mention this? I haven't"

you seemed to be going down the road of apologising. I just think you are giving something of a hostage to fortune when you draw a line connecting Iraq and "Air Control" in the twenties, Bomber Command, and Iraq 2003. Especially when you say this:

"The bombing campaign over germany in WW2 has little to do with excuses that we were unable to bomb precisely. Area bombing and the killing of civilians was accepted well before WW2 ever started."

This simply isn't good history, and it presents a very misleading picture.

"not saying the answers are easy or obvious, but that some very careful and calculated thinking by cool heads is required."

The situation is inherently explosive and unstable - no negociated settlement is at hand

quote:

There isn't any evidence to suggest that Gov't or RAF policy, pre-war or early-war, envisaged the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Germany.

No, not a policy of the Govt. or RAF as a whole. The doctrine exists amongst some politicians (eg Churchill) and amongst some senior RAF officer (eg. Harris). We have similar struggles today with the replacement of the nuclear submarine fleet. The prime minister gets his way by appropriate appointments and allocations of budgets.

The 8th Army in north Africa was much more resilient to this type of political manipulation.

Harry

quote:

That is one view, the preferred view. It's not a view shared by everyone, nor should we expect everyone to share it. It's a tactic we used 20 years before in Iraq when the RAF gassed the Kurds and that certainly wasn't reciprocal.

Yes, that was the 1920s. But it was hardly a stance Churchill took in WW2. Attitudes had moved on. Churchill only ever considered using chemical weapons had Operation Sealion went ahead.

You can't use poor moral judgements from the past to justify those today.

quote:

Anarchy? I doubt it.

At least where Al Qaeda is concerned the tactic is to bring about civil chaos and then to enforce their Caliphate.

quote:

Most militant muslims I have heard use the term that you use above, 'reciprocal'.

Possibly in the context of sectarian violence. That in itself is not justified: it's just a cycle of violence for the sake of it.

quote:

As I said earlier, the distinctions you use are very fine distinctions but we should not assume that everyone will accept them.

The distinctions are not "fine," they are moral and encompass a large bulk of well accepted humanitarian ideas and laws - legal and religious. Lack of understanding of these is no excuse for nutjobs to commit the terrorist acts.

quote:

Why do we expect that others must always accept our justifications? Simply because we are British?

No - because they are contrary to most belief systems and international laws. Why should terrorists be exempt?

quote:

It is certain that the substantial resources otherwise tied down by the bomber offensive would have appeared elsewhere

Cottar,

Is it? Where is the data? I think all I have seen is the unsubstantiated claim by one author. How did he calculate his figures? Why do we have to accept it as true?

quote:

you seemed to be going down the road of apologising

The only comment I have made is that a policy of deliberately targetting civilians is not one with which I agree. Many others at the time didn't either.

quote:

This simply isn't good history, and it presents a very misleading picture.

Does it?

Factions in both the political and military areas, especially within the RAF, at the start of the 1920's argued for the targetting of civilians.

As secretary of state for war and air, Churchill stated:

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes."

Chamier and Harris obliged and I posted their quotes earlier as I did Baldwin's in 1932.

With Chamberlain's failure, Churchill got his chance to shape the war he wanted and, after the failure of the RAF, Harris got his chance. He was a man Churchill could rely on. Many in the military argued against this course of action.

We see similar tussles over doctrines today, especially now with the replacement of the nuclear submarine fleet. The outcome shapes not the war tomorrow, but the war in 10/20 years time. We had a fine nuclear arsenal in 1982 but were wholly unprepared for the Falklands. As Max Hastings explains, the submariners were the cream of the military. Submarines deliver the nuclear missiles, they get the budgets. The trouble was, it was everyone else in the military that fought the war.

quote:

The situation is inherently explosive and unstable - no negociated settlement is at hand

I'm not talking about a negotiated settlement. I'm talking about the wisdom of targetting the daily life of the lebanese, the airport etc. The lebanese are simply turning to hezbollah for support. Just target hezbollah, or Syria if they are supporting hezbollah.

quote:

Churchill only ever considered using chemical weapons had Operation Sealion went ahead.

decrypted,

Why do you make such a statement. He proposed the use of gas in July 1944.

quote:

Possibly in the context of sectarian violence.

It's not just sectarian violence in the middle east. Violence against westerners in retaliation is stated by those holding british passports.

Rather than go through the rest point by point, I'll quote Peter Ustinov:

"War is the terrorism of the rich. Terrorism is the war of the poor."

If humanitarian ideas and international law is as widely accepted as you claim, why is there so much terrorism?

I believe that the west on the whole is a force for good. But, I don't make the mistake that everyone else follows our line of thought or, that it is unfair of them if they don't.

quote:

He proposed the use of gas in July 1944.

And his military staff rebutted him and - and he accepted. No chemical weapons were used.

quote:

It's not just sectarian violence in the middle east. Violence against westerners in retaliation is stated by those holding british passports.

You mean like the brutal killing of Margaret Hussein?

It's true there have been attacks on westerners - but it's not justified by "reciprocal" warfare. Civilians are never targetted in modern wars.

quote:

If humanitarian ideas and international law is as widely accepted as you claim, why is there so much terrorism?

Because there exists a strong religious extremism in some poorer parts of the world that acts as a mental disease; which not only inflames those men but can rub off on vulnerable minds of religious people in the west.

And it doesn't help, either, when apologists make false equivalencies between modern soldiers trying to take out Islamists (who use human shields) and the Islamists themselves who simply kill for the glory of death and martyrdom.

quote:

And his military staff rebutted him and - and he accepted. No chemical weapons were used.

decrypted,

I already said that. In the same position of the post that you cut and pasted from, along with the date July 1944. Did you miss it?

quote:

but it's not justified by "reciprocal" warfare. Civilians are never targetted in modern wars.

No, it's not justified. But, reciprocal is how those terrorists from yorkshire saw it. Revenge for innocent civilians killed in Iraq. At least, that's what they said.

Are you denying that some muslims, not necessarily terrorists, just civilians who want to live in peace, are incensed by what they see as unnecessary deaths at the hands of the western military?

quote:

And it doesn't help, either, when apologists...

What a tale! You've no business accusing me of being an apologist. I think the British do a far better job than the Americans in Iraq under very difficult circumstances and with far less resources. But you can't even understand a single sentance I write sometimes and see the difference between 'largely' and 'entirely' as nit picking. You are the one who has stated that it is OK to kill innocent civilians. You are the one who said 'rightly so'. Lack of comprehension, lack of accuracy, tendency to invent when it suits, tendency towards projection. It's just rant and dogma.

quote:

But, reciprocal is how those terrorists from yorkshire saw it. Revenge for innocent civilians killed in Iraq. At least, that's what they said

Yes. But that's an issue of how the media conduct themselves, how we are apathetic to counter false claims and how we may inadvertantly accept false analogies. It makes the extremist's job easier if we accept their reasoning (which I suspect you don't.)

Just because some men are fed and believe something doesn't mean it is.

quote:

You are the one who has stated that it is OK to kill innocent civilians. You are the one who said 'rightly so'. Lack of comprehension, lack of accuracy, tendency to invent when it suits, tendency towards projection. It's just rant and dogma.

Well - looks like all those arguments have just flown over your head.

I didn't say it was okay to target civilians. I accept modern rules of counduct - as did those in WW2. The area bombing directives were designed to take out industrial workers - or at least scare them away from working. It didn't work. Industrial workers were considered part of the German war machine.

And it was partly because we were fighting for the survival of democracies and a free world, partly to reciprocate (in the early years - why should they get away with it if it means we are at a disadvantage?)that we had to bomb those cities. Interestingly the conventions of the time said if they were defended they were legit targets.

quote:

It makes the extremist's job easier if we accept their reasoning (which I suspect you don't.)

Just because some men are fed and believe something doesn't mean it is.

And I never claimed it was true and I believe I wrote 'no, it is not justified.' Your slurs are churlish.

Yes you did. You seemed to back track but then, on the issue of the civilian target areas in Hamburg, you confirmed it again:

quote:

You can't hit the workers if you just aim for the shipyards.

quote:

Well - looks like all those arguments have just flown over your head.

Projection. Your failure to supply a cogent argument is not my fault.

quote:

Even Pforzheim was justified for its instrument manufacture.

Invention. Pforzheim was known for its jewellery. As an objective, it was classed as a 'target of opportunity', no industry was specified. If I am wrong, please tell me the names of the manufacturers who were the target and what instruments were made there.

quote:

Interestingly the conventions of the time said if they were defended they were legit targets.

Pure invention. Not a smattering of truth in it.

And don't forget. Dresden was an undefended city.

Where do you read the stuff that you write about? Do you make it up all on your own?

Harry:

This debate is becoming a mess because its not being argued cogently on either sides.

I'll summarise why I believe the area bombardment of WW2 by allies was justified:

1. Legally it was permiited under the Hague conventions
2. Morally it was correct to reciprocate the attack on cities due to the industrial might of Germany and the fact that we were trying to overthrow a totalitarian regime bent on racial cleansing, persecution, and the enemy of liberty.


Dresden was "defended" - to suppose otherwise is a lie. There were nearby AA defences.

quote:

Why were individual bombers from the luftwaffe able to hit single targets by flying under the radar in broad daylight and yet we decided we couldn't do it?

We could do it with the Tirpitz and the Mohne and Eder dams, all accurately targetted, but it required vision and training.

It is difficult to accept, harry, that you have a grasp of the technical possibilities of the time. The reason why Lancasters circa 1942 could not do this lies in the range invoved - and the deadly efficacy of German light flak particularly.

What extra vision and training would you have recommended to reduce the losses on the Augsburg raid?

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/augsburg.html

Production at the MAN diesel works resumed in due course because the bombs damaged the structure of the works, but, critically, did not destroy the machine tools. In any case diesel engines for U-boats were made elsewhere in addition. When oboe Mosquito's marked Krupp's and many bombs fell on the works, production loss was again temporary.

Obviously you cannot conduct a form of warfare, as in Augsburg, where over 50% of the attacking force is lost in a single operation.

You mention the Dams Raid but again, 617 lost 8 out of 19 aircraft - and the results were hardly decisive.

Harris remarked of these raids that where VC's were awarded, they were by definition something that could only be done rarely - because the cost was not to be accepted.

2 Group RAF had been slaughtered flying Blenheims in 1940/1.

On the Tirpitz it was not destroyed at low-level in any case - but by "Tallboy" bombs dropped from about 20000 feet, these bombs were simply not available before late on 1944. Targets such as U-boat pens had such a thickness of reinforced concrete that conventional bombs were simply ineffective

And don't forget. Dresden was an undefended city.

?[/QUOTE]

In what way was Dresden an'undefended city'?

It was protected by the German air defence network of fighters, anti-aircraft guns all co-irdinated by radar. The day after the RAF bombing raid, when the Americans attacked the city, there was a dogfight over the city involving US escort fighters and the Luftwaffe.

There were many industrial targets within Dresden including 110 factories and industrial enterprises that were legitimate military targets including a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabric Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); the great Zeiss Ikon A.G., Germany’s most important optical goods manufactory; and, among others, factories engaged in the production of electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch and Sterzel A.G.), gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke), and electric gauges (Gebruder Bassler).

Finally when compared to many other actions in the war the 25,000 deaths at Dresden is minor and many more allied soldiers than that were still to die in the Battle of Berlin. Germany was not completely finished in February 1945.

For info see the below link prepared by the US airforce.

https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/dresden.htm

"Is it? Where is the data? I think all I have seen is the unsubstantiated claim by one author. How did he calculate his figures? Why do we have to accept it as true?"

This is from an addition I made to wikipedia - the 3 authors used are Max Hastings, Robin Neillands and Dennis Richards


"Having dealt with the negative side of the case it is now time to put the positive. The greatest contribution to winning the war made by Bomber Command was in the diversion of German resources into defending the homeland, this was very considerable indeed. By January 1943 some 1,000 Luftwaffe night fighters were committed to the defence of the Reich - mostly twin engined Me 110 and Ju 88. Most critically, by September 1943, 8876 of the deadly, dual purpose 88mm guns were also defending the homeland with a further 25,000 light flak guns - 20/37mm. The 88mm gun was the best artillery piece of the war, an effective AA weapon, it was a deadly destroyer of tanks and lethal against advancing infantry. These weapons would have done much to augment German anti-tank defences on the Russian front.

To man these weapons the flak regiments in Germany required some 900,000 fit men, and a further 1 million were deployed in clearing up and repairing the vast bomb damage caused by the RAF attacks. To put this into perspective Irwin Rommel's army defending Normandy in 1944 comprised 500,000 men, and it's resistance caused the Western Allies grave problems.

This diversion to defensive purposes of German arms and manpower was an enormous contribution made by RAF Bomber Command to winning the war. By 1944 the bombing offensive was costing Germany 30% of all artillery production, 20% of heavy shells, 33% of the output of the optical industry for sights and aiming devices and 50% of the country's electro-technical output which had to be diverted to the anti-aircraft role.

In Spandau prison shortly after the war's end Speer was unequivocal about the effect of this: "the real importance of the air war was that it opened a second front long before the invasion of Europe. That front was the skies over Germany...The unpredictbility of the attacks made the front gigantic...Defence against air attacks required the production of thousands of anti aircraft guns, the stockpiling of tremendous quantities of ammunition all over the country, and holding in readiness hundreds of thousands of soldiers...As far as I can judge from the accounts I have read, this was the greatest lost battle on the German side"."

quote:

The doctrine exists amongst some politicians (eg Churchill)

You should read Hasting's book, harry. In 1917 Churchill wrote a highly perceptive paper rejecting arguments that bombing civilian areas would break their morale and will to continue the war.

He was often at pains to reject the wilder flights of fancy of senior RAF men. Hasting's described what he wrote as a brilliant commentary on the reality of war

Churchill went for strategic bombing because he could see no other way to proceed in the desperate circumstances which Britain faced.

quote:

It is difficult to accept, harry, that you have a grasp of the technical possibilities of the time.

Cottar,

I'm not failing to grasp anything. That we were not good at it is not my point. My question is, why were we not good at it?

My hypothesis is that the doctrine was that area bombing was the way to go and that tactics and techniques, including sights, and levels of training required to make precision bombing effective were dismissed as they detracted from the doctrine.

Regardless of the effectiveness of the Mohne and Eder dams, it does show that tactics could be developed. Same with the Tirpitz. It matters not that it wasn't low level or that the bomb wasn't developed until 1944. We are discussing the ability to hit a target and, as you say, from 20,000 ft.

So why could the germans hit a single target, with a single bomber, in broad daylight, in 1941 by flying under the radar and we could not?

I maintain that it was because we weren't thinking along the lines of developing that sort of ability.

We were able to develop the necessary when the targets of the dams or the Tirpitz were identified, pretty quickly. Why didn't we do the same for other types of bombing?

Perhaps you have evidence from strategic bombing campaigns waged only a decade or so after WW2 to prove how easily it was to increase precision?

quote:

Regardless of the effectiveness of the Mohne and Eder dams, it does show that tactics could be developed.

What it shows is that the losses on this kind of operation were murderous - this was particularly so because German light flak at low level was deadly. The dams were actually not particularly well defended, because the Germans had not thought that they could be breached.

You haven't suggested how the Augsburg raid could have been done better tactically - apparently the Lancasters crossed the coast at 50 feet to avoid radar as you suggested. So how could it have been done without having 7 out of 12 Lancasters shot down?

These kind of losses made these operations quite unsustainable on a regular basis.

"Same with the Tirpitz. It matters not that it wasn't low level or that the bomb wasn't developed until 1944. We are discussing the ability to hit a target and, as you say, from 20,000 ft."

If it doesn't matter whether it was low level then why have you been suggesting flying under radar? Tirpitz was hit on the coast of Norway, and did not require deep penetration into enemy territory. Of course it matters that the weapon used to destroy it was not developed till 1944.

"So why could the germans hit a single target, with a single bomber, in broad daylight, in 1941 by flying under the radar and we could not?"

Well we could - but how many would come back is the issue. It is nonsensical to think that this would sustainable or decisive.

"We were able to develop the necessary when the targets of the dams or the Tirpitz were identified, pretty quickly. Why didn't we do the same for other types of bombing?"

Because of the types of aircraft available - their vulnerability to fighter attack and flak at low level - their weak defensive armament, the lack of fighter cover - the efficiency of German defences amongst other things. You are asking for the moon.

quote:

In what way was Dresden an'undefended city'?

Sunnyblink,

I'm suprised that you have never heard Dresden described as such, an undefended city.

It was undefended because most of the anti aircraft guns had been redeployed elsewhere. A single nightfighter did take off at 21.55 when the first wave of the RAF was detected. It took 30 mins to reach attack height.

However, the RAF started bombing at 22.13 and finished by 22.21. The single nightfighter arrived after the bombing.

If you want to claim that a single night fighter and a few AA guns constitutes a defence, please do so, but I am far from convinced. RAF losses for the two raids were 5 or 6 aircraft. I don't that is the result of heavy AA defence.

quote:

There were many industrial targets within Dresden

Every city was bombed many times. When we talk about the bombing of Dresden, we are referring to the 13th/14th Feb, not the october raid of 1944 and not the raids conducted in Jan, March or April 1945.

The targets for the 13th/14th were the city and the marshalling yards, not the industrial area. The civilian deaths of course were mainly in the city which had been flooded by refugees from the east. Note, the target was the city centre where the population lived and the marshalling yardrs. The industrial sector was not targetted until April 1945.

quote:

Finally when compared to many other actions in the war the 25,000 deaths at Dresden is minor and many more allied soldiers than that were still to die in the Battle of Berlin.

I rarely comment of figures but 25,000 is the lowest I have ever heard. The commerorative plaque to Dresden in Coventry gives 32,000. In 1995, the BBC in it's lead up to the anniversary of the bombing kept revising its figures nightly, from 45,000, to 55,000, then to 65,000 and finally they settled on 75,000. The Times Atlas gives the figure at 125,000 and british anti bombing campaigners claimed 200,000. It's unwise to compare say, the lowest figure here with, for instance the highest figure or a military battle elsewhere. You need a reference book which compiles all the figures which sing from the same hymnsheet as it were to get a relative comparison.

NB. I hope you are not claiming that the allies, ie the british and americans fought in the battle to take berlin city where most of the casualties were.

harry

you are giving here a picture of aysmmetrical warfare(as per Iraq) - which has some validity for late 1944 and 1945 as far as Bomber Command was concerned, though German nightfighters could still spring the odd suprise.

However this is most certainly not the case earlier in 1944 when the German nightfighter force had pretty well shot Bomber Command to a standstill - eg. 72 aircraft lost in Berlin raid of 24/25 March. And a staggering 95 during the Nuremburg raid of 30/31 March.

I would not have said that a prerequisite of such operations was having to sustain heavy losses in order to carry them out.