Features

The carpet-bombing of Hamburg killed 40,000 people. It also did good

9 May 2015

9:00 AM

9 May 2015

9:00 AM

In the early hours of 25 July 1943, nearly 800 RAF Halifaxes and Lancasters launched a 50-minute bombing raid on the Third Reich’s second largest city, Hamburg. The pilots used the neo-Gothic spire of St Nikolai’s church in the city’s historic heart as a landmark and killed 1,500 people.

Three nights later, just after midnight, the bombers returned. What was to follow was immeasurably worse. The RAF’s target was the city’s overcrowded working-class districts, Hammerbrook, Hamm and Borgfelde, to which many of those who had lost their homes in the previous bombardment had fled. Unusually warm weather and heavy loads of incendiaries combined to create a hurricane-like firestorm. In the face of temperatures of 800˚C, ‘every human resistance was quite useless,’ Hamburg’s chief of police later wrote. People jumped into canals and waterways, swimming or standing for hours; many were asphyxiated in bomb shelters as the fires raging in the streets devoured every trace of oxygen.

Two more overnight raids would follow, complemented by heavy American daytime bombing of Hamburg’s ports, but it was on the night of 27 July that most of Operation Gomorrah’s 40,000 victims would die. The ten-day pounding of Hamburg was, Air Chief Marshal Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris conceded, ‘incomparably more terrible’ than anything thus far visited upon Germany. Ten square miles of the city were obliterated, forcing 900,000 of its inhabitants to flee. In the aftermath, suggested a contemporary account, ‘Rats and flies were the lords of the city.’

There will be little mention of the firestorm which consumed Hamburg as Britain marks the 70th anniversary of the end of the war this week. While Operation Gomorrah was more devastating — and claimed a greater death-toll — it is the destruction of Dresden which has become, in the words of the historian Ian Kershaw, ‘the symbol of the bombing war’. In part this reflects the fact that with its ports, armament factories and shipbuilding facilities, Hamburg could easily be presented as a military target — though it was the morale of the civilian population, particularly industrial workers, that the bombing sought to sap.


Britain, as victor, claims the right to look away from the more uncomfortable aspects of some of its actions. Germans are confronted with a more acute dilemma: how, as the losers and as those responsible for so many atrocities, do they mark the terrible losses endured by their own civilian population during the war?

Those complexities are laid bare at St Nikolai’s church. The spire still soars above it, but the walls are all that remain of the magnificent nave. Beneath them, the crypt is home to the city’s museum which charts those ten fateful days. It recounts not simply the suffering of its inhabitants and what the Allies hoped to achieve, but also the stories of the RAF pilots who carried out the bombings and the lasting psychological damage some of them later endured. It also details the ‘double misery’ of the foreign forced labourers and concentration camp prisoners from nearby Neuengamme who were dragooned into recovering and burying the dead and the ‘suicide squads’ detailed to defuse unexploded devices.

But the museum also charts the rather more fraught debate about where the responsibility for the bombing should lie. Remembering the victims of Hamburg is complicated by the fact that the first commemoration of the bombing took place barely three months after it occurred. Already, the Nazi propaganda machine had attempted to turn disaster into triumph by evoking the spirit of unity and comradeship which had been forged by Hamburg’s citizens amid the ruins. Nothing symbolises that better than the cemetery in Ohlsdorf where, atop a mass grave, monumental oak panels were constructed listing the districts destroyed in the raids. No individuals are named, testament to the Nazis’ determination not to mark the victims of ‘enemy terror’ but to celebrate the ‘common destiny’ of Hamburg’s inhabitants.

The first postwar remembrance saw the city’s mayor, Max Brauer, recall the ‘death of the peaceable citizens of Guernica, Rotterdam and Coventry’ but sidestep the question of guilt and absolve the German people of blame. They, he suggested, were the first victims to be led to ‘the slaughter by an inhuman dictatorship’. Beyond that, responsibility was laid at the door of somewhat amorphous ‘demons’ and ‘violent criminals’. Forty years later, the tone of remembrance was altogether different, as one of Brauer’s successors, Henning Voscherau, publicly asked: ‘If the Allies had not had the courage and determination to answer Nazi violence with violence in order to stop the Germans running amok, would liberation, renewal, a democratic future have been possible?’ Members of one anti-fascist group went further, disrupting a commemorative service to unfurl a banner reading ‘Operation Gomorrah: there is nothing to mourn’.

With its stark images of the Nazis’ annihilation of Warsaw and its recollection of the Blitz and bombing of Coventry and Rotterdam, the city’s museum acknowledges that the ‘fuse for the firestorm was lit in Germany’. Moreover, as a plaque at the top of St Nikolai’s spire attests, while the carpet-bombing of cities during the war breached international law, the roots of the catastrophe which befell Hamburg lay in January 1933, ‘when the National Socialists with the support of large parts of the elite and the population abolished democracy’.

But some prefer a less nuanced approach. In 2003, Ole von Beust became the first mayor of the city to charge that Operation Gomorrah was ‘a breach of civilisation’ and, in an address at St Nikolai, he chose to make no mention of the historical context, nor of the Nazis’ victims both elsewhere in Europe and in Germany itself. In the same spirit, the city’s exhibition that year controversially focused solely on those who died in Operation Gomorrah.

Von Beust’s remarks reflected a wider shift at the time toward an emphasis on Germans as victims, and not simply perpetrators, of the crimes of the second world war. As graphically illustrated by Jörg Friedrich’s 2002 book Der Brand, the destruction of Germany’s cities during the war was central to this new narrative.

From this perspective, it is possible to shift seamlessly from portraying the bombing of Hamburg as not simply wicked but futile. That, I think, would be a mistake. It’s true that the bombing didn’t have the hoped-for impact on the city’s contribution to the Nazi war effort: much of its port and industrial areas were up and running again by the autumn. Nor did it, as Harris hoped, provoke the populace into a revolt that brought the war to an early conclusion. But however terrible Operation Gomorrah was, it did serve a purpose in the end. It changed the attitude of many Germans, who may hitherto have been unaffected by the war, discrediting a leadership which was unable to ‘protect’ the population. As tales of the bombing spread throughout Germany, it provoked something called the ‘November mood’ of growing antipathy to the regime. Operation Gomorrah and the devastation of German cities meant that there could be no ‘stab in the back’ myth, as there was after 1918 when it suited people to believe that Germany had not lost the war fairly, but had been betrayed by their own home front. In this sense, Germany’s modern democracy was built on the rubble of its cities.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • avi15

    To put this into perspective: horrific though the Hamburg firestorms undoubtedly were, the Nazis inflicted the equivalent on the Jewish people every two weeks throughout WWII i.e. approx 300 of them..

    • That’s right, but this sounds a bit as if you advocate mass murder as the right response to genocide. What about ethics? Why should one side be considered the “good” one when it, too, engaged in the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians?
      :-/

      • Infidelissima

        because it made them STOP!

        • dansmith17

          But the whole point is the strategic bombing did not make them stop, ground troops mainly Russian but including many other nations marching to Berlin made them STOP.

        • EHGombrich

          The bombing of cities wasn´t about the Jews though.

        • Nope, it didn’t. The bombardment of civilians didn’t help at all, that was just a cruel and useless war crime. Only the bombing of fuel refineries shortened the war. That’s a fact.

      • Hegelman

        The Germans of that age were out of their minds with racial arrogance. They needed a very bad beating to sober them, and they got it.

        They have behaved beautifully ever since.

        Concentrate on making cars and sausages.

        • tttt

          Yes, whatever we did, it stopped them from waging war again. For now..

        • EHGombrich

          But certainly it wasn´t the British that gave them the beating. It was the Russians.

        • This still sounds like the same cynical mindset to me that makes other people say “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”. That’s ugly.

      • ErostratusInMaximosMansion

        So you are alive, my friend. I fell off my chair when I saw the upvote! We miss you, ad need you your insights more than ever.

        • Thx for the nice words, buddy! Well, I needed the timeout. But it looks as if I’m back right in time for the big finale!
          🙂

          • ErostratusInMaximosMansion

            Welcome home.

          • ErostratusInMaximosMansion

            I’ve just read the IMF report; they are talking €50 bn third bailout, which wil meet real political resistance from many countries. I cannot see it passing, so the game is over; all a YES vote can do is remove Syriza before the exit, but exit is still a disaster.

            It does look very grim now.

          • Well, if Lagarde wanted to bring people up against further support fro Greece, she did a fine job. 50 billions is totally out of the question, not a snowball’s chance in hell for that. But that makes the outlook very grim, indeed.

          • JonniOZ

            Wrong again!

  • avi15

    Sorry, my figure needs to be corrected: 150 of them = 6,000,000.

  • Sean Grainger

    Bombing achieved little. The war was won by America and Russia. 60,000 young RAF airmen died because of one t**rag’s bloodlust.

    • Clive

      That is merely wrong. If you want to single out a battelefield and sacrifice winner of WW2 it was the USSR. If you want an economic winner, it was the USA.

      Accusations of bloodlust are puerile. There was a widespread belief before WW2 that area bombing could have an effect similar to nuclear weapons, destroying whole areas of civilian occupation and creating terror

      Civilian terror is what won the war against Japan with a nuclear weapon dropped on Hiroshima. I have never understood the need to drop one on Nagasaki only 4 days later. Hiroshima was as much a war crime as anything inflicted on Germany. The worst bombing of WW2 was Tokyo with a firestorm and 100,000 killed

      So the view of area bombing as a winning strategy is credible. It is stupid to retrofit the modern technology of weaponry on to it and say it was futile.

      • Frank

        Nagasaki was necessary as the Japanese gave no sign of surrendering after Hiroshima.
        You are otherwise correct. The final bombing is, I understand, what caused the Japanese to understand that the only viable option was surrender.

        • dansmith17

          The Japanese had been offering to negotiate surrender for months, hoping to use the then still neutral Russians to do the deal. We demanded unconditional surrender, in the end we accepted several conditions including the retention of the Emperor and the Imperial throne.

          We had total air superiority and the fire bombing of Tokyo several weeks before had killed 100,000 more than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined!

          We had total control at sea and Japan could not feed itself, so it was going to starve in 45-46, without surrender.

          We dropped the second bomb because it was a different design and we wanted to see the effects of the two types before ramping up production.

          Japan surrendered and we accepted a less than unconditional surrender, because Stalins Red Army went through the 300,000 strong Japanese Kwantung Army like a hot knife through butter, in less than a week.

    • Mow_the_Grass

      Adolf Hitler.

  • MK

    Futile? Not exactly.

    Ineffective compared to other options (not to mention morally revolting)? Yes.

    Read the books on the bombing war by Overy or Hastings, or the reports from the RAF or USAF. They agree that by far the most important impact was not from bombing of German civilian areas, but bombing of transport links, fuel sources, and precision bombing (mainly by the Americans) of some industrial targets.

    It’s notable when you read the post-war Allied reports, how little space they dedicate to the civilian bombing. It’s clear they considered it’s role in winning the war to be small compared to the precision bombing of various military targets, mostly in the last year and a half of the war. Overy cites the testimony of some Germans captured at the end of the war. They also identified the Allies’ precision bombing as being the most important factor.

    As for the point you make at the end. True, bombing had an impact on German morale. This wasn’t very significant, though, in a totalitarian regime like that of the Nazis. A “stab in the back” myth couldn’t probably have developed anyway, since unlike in WW1, Germany was invaded and occupied by enemy soldiers, with all the violence and displacement that entailed. The post-war Allies surveys in west German cities showed that the most popular reason Germans gave for feeling the war was lost was the military situation – a smaller proportion said bombing. And that doesn’t take into account people in eastern Germany that the survey didn’t reach.

    I don’t deny that civilian bombing of Germany had some role in winning the war, in the final analysis. But there’s two questions: 1) even if it was effective, can it ever be right to burn alive defenseless women, children, and elderly people, and destroy the physical and cultural heritage of a nation? I can’t say I think it is.

    I don’t think it’s right to think of Allied atrocities / war crimes as always being, in some way, a response or form or revenge to the Germans’, as you imply in the middle part of this article.

    We still have a problem in recognising that the Allies, too, could commit immoral and criminal acts by themselves, and condemning these crimes, without referencing the Germans’ own crimes. We should acknowledge that the leaders and soldiers of Britain, America, Russia, and other countries, should also be held up to moral standards and hold responsible for atrocities, just as much as we should hold the Germans up to independent moral standards. But, ofcourse, the winner writes the history, so Allied crimes have either been written out, or justified on often quite dubious grounds.

    Yes, the Germans had attacked a few cities, such as Rotterdam and Warsaw, and ofcourse bombed many in Britain. It was useful propaganda to portray to the public civilian bombing as a form of revenge on Germany for their own on British cities, but recall that it was not until early 1942 when the policy was adopted. Reading the original documents it’s clear Harris and Churchill genuinely thought area bombing could win the war. And it’s also clear that the deaths or injury of German civilians, and the destruction of their homes, was an deliberate intention of the British government, not a side-effect of targeted bombing as some dishonestly attempted to portray at the time.

    And 2) where there more effective uses of Allied resources? We must remember that Bomber Command took up a very significant portion of Britain’s resources – both in terms of economic production, and the men needed to run the operations. Hastings, I recall, suggests that RAF resources would have been better deployed in the Battle of the Atlantic.

    Britain is far from even acknowledging that atrocities such as Hamburg were perpetrated against the Germans. We’re even further away from admitting that, yes, it was morally wrong and militarily ineffective.

    • mohdanga

      “And 2) where there more effective uses of Allied resources? We must remember that Bomber Command took up a very significant portion of Britain’s resources – both in terms of economic production, and the men needed to run the operations.” The English abandoned almost all of their equipment at Dunkirk in 1940, the Russians were still on the side of the Nazis up until June 1941, the US not in the war until 1942 (with no troops actually in battle until Nov 1942 in Africa), the masses of troops needed to invade NW Europe weren’t ready until early 1944. What else could Britain do in the interim, accept the pounding by the Germans? The air war gave them a means, even with its high casualties, of taking the war to the Germans, something the British public would expect if they were being bombed night after night. It is very easy to sit back 70 years later from the comfort of your cushy existence and say that it was ‘immoral’, ‘a war crime’ and ‘atrocity’ to try and destroy the enemy that is trying to kill and enslave you. The Allies owe no apologies.
      As Bomber Harris said, “You have sowed the wind, now you will reap the whirlwind.”

      • Peter

        We should have dropped chocolate. Then there would have been no opprobrium from the handwringers seventy years later , and a couple of Tallboys or Grand Slams full of Smarties, Yorkies and Snickers would have caused the average German to think: “To Hell with it, I’ll not turn up to my Nazi munitions factory today, I’ll have another Smartie. But not a blue one.”
        As someone who’s loved Germany and Germans for more than half my life, the devastation wrought was terrible. The scars on her cities are perpetual.
        At least, after the surrender, the Western zone was treated with as much dignity as possible. Consider the grey, dark life in the GDR and we weren’t that evil after all.

        • tttt

          I’ve been to Council estates run by Labour – I know of what you speak.

      • dansmith17

        Part of your argument is why it happened, it is the traditional something must be done to hit back at the Germans and this is something so we must do it.

        There are 2 arguments in the strategic bombing case, the moral one is between those who say well they started it or they were worse what about the camps, and those who say 2 wrongs don’t make a right, and we hung people at Nuremburg from crimes against civilians.

        The other argument less often heard is the military one, it didn’t work and wasn’t worth the effort. Britain lost thousands of men night after night in the raids, industrial production was diverted from other more useful efforts to develop the Lancaster and then produce thousands of them.

        What if more effort had been put into defeating the U-boats, lots more frigates, thousands of 4 engine anti-submarine aircraft, and destroy the U-boat menace at least a year earlier, the flow of goods and supplies and men across the Atlantic would have been bigger and swifter, perhaps still not swift enough for d-Day to be in 1943 but at least a few months earlier in 44, and arriving with more men and more supplies, and overhead more Tactical aircraft.

        A war that ends with Montogomery in Berlin and Patton in Prague before Zhukov?

  • Damaris Tighe

    It was total war in which destroy or be destroyed applied. The Allies had learned the lesson of WW1 that only a decisive & complete defeat would ensure that Germany wouldn’t come back for a third round. That’s why they weren’t interested in negotiating a peace before the complete destruction of Germany. An existential conflict of this kind concentrates the mind wonderfully.

    Whether the flabby, ‘humanitarian’-soaked western mind of today is capable of seeing & acting as decisively is another matter …

    • Mc

      For me, it mainly comes down to using war resources most effectively. I have two problems with the Allies’ bombing of civilians. Firstly it was well known and understood at the time that bombing civilians had a negligible “return” in advancing the war, compared to bombing military and industrial targets. Therefore it was a waste of Allied airmen’s lives and aircraft to bomb civilians, resources that could’ve been used on more productive bombing raids. In other words, Allied commanders were knowingly using aircrew as cannon fodder for non-military objectives. It also meant that after the war, massive amounts of money was needlessly spent directly and indirectly by the Allies in rebuilding German civilian housing. Secondly, it’s just plain immoral to specifically target non-combatants, whoever carries out the bombing.

      • Damaris Tighe

        After the Blitz I don’t think the British war planners were in a frame of mind to consider the moral impact of their strategy. As for whether the bombing of German cities was a successful tactic, hindsight is a fine thing. But it must have made some sense at the time. The Allied commanders weren’t complete idiots – but of course, as humans they could err. It’s all too easy to elaborate on their mistakes from the comfort & safety of our armchairs.

        • Mc

          I guess I have higher, unrealistic expectations of leaders to use lives and resources sparingly, Blitz or no Blitz.

          The efficacy of bombing civilians vs military targets was often enough known at the time within days or weeks of a bombing raid, so hindsight and armchairing isn’t relevant.

          Regarding Allied commanders being idiots, in many cases they were, as evidenced by the fact that it required overwhelming Allied military resources and manpower to overcome the Nazis. Also, it wasn’t uncommon for key commanders to be sacked because they were utterly useless. When the odds were more even, the Allies had the cr@p kicked out of them – and I’m not talking as a Nazi admirer.

          • mohdanga

            “I guess I have higher, unrealistic expectations of leaders to use lives and resources sparingly, Blitz or no Blitz.” No doubt. Wonder how you would feel if German bombs were dropping on you every night.

          • Mc

            Well, hopefully I’d be a little more logical than you and the likes of Churchill. The most effective way to end enemy aerial bombings of one’s cities is to attack their military and other industrial infrastructure that enables them to bomb our cities.

          • mohdanga

            Yes, Churchill the dummy, voted man of millennium by the British at the turn of this century. How, pray tell, could the British attack German military and industrial infrastructure in Germany when they didn’t have troops in Europe (let alone Germany) until 1944 and only breached German borders in March 1945? The bombing raids by the British were used to try and destroy German infrastructure not just to try and break civilian morale.

          • Mc

            Yes, yet another straw man argument. Did I say anywhere that the Allies should not have bombed German military, industrial and infrastructure targets? I would highly recommend that you read up on how to avoid logical fallacies before you post another embarrassing comment.

          • tttt

            The Allies did not have the technology or experience to bomb military, industrial or infrastructure targets until 1944. And even then accuracy was poor at best.

          • Mc

            So why exactly did the allies expend billions on building and flying bombers and bother trying to bomb non-civilian targets pre-1944? Let me guess: because they knew that there was a good (not 100%) chance they would be able hit their target? Similar inaccuracy issues applied to every other Allied military equipment used in battle, from rifle through to artillery.

          • tttt

            Bombing was undertaken to undermine the ability of the enemy to wage war by the most suitable method available at the time.

            Hindsight is a wonderful thing but not available to the Allies at the time.

          • Mc

            You’re going in circles.

          • tttt

            Not at all, I’m responding to your statement.

          • dansmith17

            They started early in the war attacking military targets like factories or shipyards but they found that they were not very good at it. They were very inaccurate in terms of individual targets and flying day time raids they lost lots of good men for no obvious impact.

            Gradually the RAF changed to night time raids and eventually the city firestorm raids. If we can not destroy the factories we can kill the workers, if the workers homes are destroyed they will revolt and overthrow Hitler.

            Both with hindsight are wrong, no shortage of workers when an evil dictatorship has access if necessary to slave labour from the entire continent.

            Civilian revolt is no more likely when foreigner is attacking than it was in London, or Coventry.

            Part of the problem was that from mid1940-44 we are at war and have no troops in combat on European mainland, something must be done and this was something.

            Lots of brave fliers died thinking they were making a significant contribution to the war effort when they were killing women and children in their beds, but the truth is they were not.

            If those resources had been used another way would it have made a better contribution to ending the war? Ground troops sent to the Estern Front would have been slaughtered and made a marginal difference, husband resources to have more to deploy when D-Day came would probably have been the better strategy but would have been hard to depend to Stalin in 1943, and while we did not like Russia sitting in Berlin for the next 50 years, a fear in 1943 was a separate peace with a still powerful Germany, Russia gets Germany out of Russia but does not carry on to Berlin but stops and licks its wound when it reaches the Russian border.

          • mohdanga

            Yawn. How is my response embarrassing? Try using logic and facts yourself. Even the most advanced bombing sights used by the Allies in WWII were inaccurate so that pinpoint bombing wasn’t all that effective. Add in fighter attacks on bombing formations, flak guns, ‘coning’ by searchlight and you’ve got a recipe for bombs dropping where they shouldn’t. What happens when military targets are in civilian areas? Don’t bomb? That’s a great recipe for success.
            You can pontificate from the comfort of your home about how horrible and inhumane the Allies bombing campaign was…a little different when you’re being bombed every night by the Luftwaffe.

          • Mc

            I pointed out that you seized on a straw man argument by attacking a point I explicitly did not make.

            To help you out, I’ll make my point yet again: I said targeting civilians specifically was immoral and a waste of Allied pilots and aircraft. I also said that specifically targeting non-civilian targets (even if civilians were inadvertently killed due to inaccurate bomb technology, etc) was entirely legitimate.

          • EasyStreet

            German tactical commanders (von Rundstedt, Model, Rommel etc) were generally considered superior to their Allied counterparts. This was in part because they had had plenty of time to study and prepare new doctrines for war, and had full practice runs in Spain, Poland and France before taking on the Allies. Nevertheless there are plenty of examples of German commanders being sacked – von Rundstedt and Rommel amongst them! As with the Allies, sacking often had more to do with politics than skill.

            On the other hand, the Allied strategic commanders (Marshall, Brooke, Eisenhower) were far more competent than their German equivalents, and they were helped greatly by Hitler’s interference in strategic planning. The Allies took the perfectly rational view that the way to beat the tactically-excellent but strategically-inept Germans was by applying overwhelming resource at times and places of their choosing. That is good military leadership: sometimes attrition is the right answer.

            The principal weakness of the British army in WW2 was not its commanders, but its aversion to casualties (totally understandable given the legacy of the Somme). This bred the legendary caution of Montgomery – but when he broke his own mould by thinking he could end the war quickly on a shoestring, in defiance of Allied strategy, the result was the debacle at Arnhem. I think you’re being a bit unfair on Allied commanders such as Slim, Alexander, Eisenhower, Dowding etc who understood the Axis’s weaknesses and exploited them ruthlessly.

          • Mc

            You’ll notice I didn’t specifically mention the likes of Slim, Alexander, etc. I’m aware that Allied (and German) failure was often enough down to non-military factors, as with every war.

        • Roger Hudson

          The pop idea that Germany started city bombing is quite wrong. Britain intentionally bombed Berlin before the Blitz.

          • Hamburger

            Guernica.

          • Roger Hudson

            Guernica, the home of the Astra arms factory.

          • Hamburger

            The town was obliterated. If the criteria is that the town had a Military use then every raid, including that on Dresden, was legitimate.

          • Jambo25

            Warsaw and Rotterdam: or had you forgotten them?

          • Probably Mr Hudson has not forgotten them; but are you aware that both cities were actual battlegrounds when they got attacked by the Luftwaffe? In both cases this was close air support. In Rotterdams case the ground forces even tried to stop the air attack (and succeeded in doing so but with the first wave of bombers).

          • mohdanga

            Some German bombers dropped bombs on civilian areas in England and the English responded with bombs on Berlin to let the German people know that they were not going to be safe, regardless of what Hitler said. Again, the Germans had plans to invade England (with the same treatment meted out to the English as all the other European countries), the Battle of Britain could have gone either way….why wouldn’t the English just let the Nazis roll in?

      • Roger Hudson

        A postwar German workers house was much better than an English one, the war was a total strategic blunder for Britain. A Pyrrhic victory.

        • Frank

          A pyrrhic victory???? What are you talking about? Would you rather the whole of continental Europe spoke German?

          • Abie Vee

            They do. Ever been there?

          • EHGombrich

            No, thanks to your involvement in WW1 Europe speaks “Islam” instead now.

        • freddiethegreat

          They did get involved. They happily supplied the Nazis with weapons, iron ore, and transported heavy water for their nuclear program. Sweden can never be trusted.

      • Jules Wright

        With no guarantee of victory – and knowledge of a Nazi nuclear programme; by all and any means necessary. You’re applying the wisdom of a Monday morning captain.

        I wouldn’t call the Messerschmidt factory at Schweinfurt a non-military target. The 8th got slaughtered there. Nor the railhead nexus in Dresden feeding reinforcements to the Eastern Front. Nor Focke-Wulf and the submarine manufacture in Bremen. The list of examples, goes on. And on. And on. And on. With precision bombing embryonic, they did what they could. At great cost. Else you’d be speaking German.

        • Whats wrong about speaking German? Mine is much better than my English! Please, do you really think that in February 1945 there were any “reinforcements” to be sent to the Eastern front? Dear Jules, I fear you are watching the wrong movies! Btw: the railroads were one of the rather few things which survived the destruction of Dresden; this is, if i may add, rather common knowledge.

          • tttt

            Yes they did, but almost all the marshalling yards, buildings, equipment, stores, warehouses and other necessities of war were destroyed.
            One can get lost in minute detail – the wider picture was utter devastation of the German war machine.

        • Mc

          You’re engaging a straw man argument. If you bothered to read what I said, you’ll notice that I did not say that industrial, infrastructure and military targets should’ve been out of bounds, irrespective of inadvertent civilian deaths.

    • Roger Hudson

      Why was it a ‘world war’ and not just a nazi-soviet war? One British ‘leader’ is guilty of making the war wider.

      • Hamburger

        You seem to be ignoring the Japanese.

        • Roger Hudson

          The Japanese, angry/humiliated at the 1922 failure to renew the Anglo-Japanese alliance, another British strategic failure. If only Britain could have pointed the Japanese at Stalin’s rear rather than lose Burma and Malaya to them.

          • Hamburger

            I would interpret the causes differently. Regarding learning from history I listened to a discussion yesterday about the German Israeli relationship because this year is the 50th anniversary of the first German ambassador to Israel. Among the points raised is what one learns from history and especially the 2nd World War. We have learnt that the imperative is to avoid war at all costs. The Israelis have learnt that it is necessary to defend yourself at all costs. Two contradictory conclusions, both of which are right.

          • Mow_the_Grass

            Nachon/correct
            That is why it is IDF (Israel Defence Force)
            Not UK Army or US Army – but a ‘Defence’ Army

          • Hamburger

            You have a Ministry of Defence, not a War Ministry.

          • Mow_the_Grass

            Moshe ‘Bogey’ Ya’alon – a man i have met and admire

          • Damaris Tighe

            Nachon.

          • Damaris Tighe

            Two contradictory conclusions, yes, but both are not right. If you avoid war at all costs (which as you say is the lesson Western Europeans have learned) you become unwilling to defend yourself at all costs. One must be privileged over the other. If Israel had avoided war at all costs it would no longer exist. If your back is against the wall you must be prepared to fight.

          • Hamburger

            I struggle with the first part because I am not a pacifist, unlike many of us here. I should have perhaps written logical rather than right.

          • Damaris Tighe

            But it’s not even logical, is it? To avoid war at all costs when an aggressor is bringing war to you is a failure of cognition of reality.

          • Callipygian

            Indeed. Pacifism is a great principle as long as your enemy agrees.

          • mohdanga

            Conveniently forgetting that the oil embargo was in response to Japanese aggression in China and Manchuria which resulted in the deaths of millions. Churchill’s fault too, I bet.

      • mohdanga

        Yes, it was Churchill’s fault that the Nazis took over Austria, Czechoslovokia, Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, the Balkans, invaded the Soviet Union. Please read some history.

    • Dagenhamboy

      Bravo. Well said.

    • EHGombrich

      If the Allies hadn´t gotten involved in WW1 Europe wouldn´t be speaking Arabic today.

  • Ken

    Richard Overy’s book The Bombing War is an encyclopedic study based on many years of research in archives. It exposes the futility of the bombing campaign, which did little to damage the German war machine or undermine morale. The indiscriminate bombing of civilians was something that all the combatants initially ruled out but the odious Harris drove it through, dragging Churchill with him
    Hamburg was a war crime on a massive scale of which we should be ashamed. The erection of the ludicrous Bomber Command memorial in London – in the style of Albert Speer ironically! – was a belated, but mistaken, celebration of this slaughter. Bishop Bell got it right and in time history will endorse his views. I found this article very unpleasant in its defensive tone – and don’t forget it was Britain which first started bombing civilians in the Middle East, years before WW2.

    • Jambo25

      Actually it was Germany which first started strategic bombing with Zeppelin raids on Britain and France in WW1.

    • mohdanga

      Blah, blah, blah…again, written from the comfort of your cushy English home paid for by the blood of those who saved Britain.
      Ever thought of the resources that the Germans dedicated to fighting the bombers?? These resources could not be used elsewhere.

  • Mc

    It appears publications – like the Spectator in this instance – don’t care about the basic logic of their articles. If there is no natural logic to drive an article then a publication may as well commission any passing stranger to pen an opinion piece.

  • right1_left1

    While killing people in war upsets those of a sensitive temperament , including me, it needs to be pointed out that this was a total fight to the finish conflict.
    I find it impossible to accept the assertion that German morale was not undermined.
    During the bombing of London you will find that a certain cigar smoking leader was booed by the populace that had been bombed.

    It is more likely true that Hitler was less than moved. I have read a quote , whether apocryphal or not I do not know, that Hitler claimed he had been let down by the German people.

    if it had been left to me we would not have declared war on Germany in the first place.
    In fact I long ago came to the conclusion that ‘appeasement’ was based on the hope that Germany would attack the Soviet Union.
    They only did that after they had tied us in knots.
    Then ‘cigar smoker’ refused to consider peace overtures, with disastrous results.

    • Roger Hudson

      Hitler only said he had been ‘let down’ at the time he was cowering in his bunker.
      Your reference to ‘the cigar’ is interesting, the first time i heard my father use the ultimate swear word was fifty years ago January, A funeral was on TV and my father commented ‘a fat c*nt with a cigar’.
      Have you seen the ‘gangster’ photo, the one with the thompson submachine gun, plus cigar of course.

      • E.Blackadder

        That stupidity runs in families is well known.

  • Roger Hudson

    Robert, you are a total sh*t.
    We know that Britain started the bombing of civilian areas, in the face of a prior British-German understanding ( negotiated in Sweden) not to, using a missed bombing of the Chatham military docks as an excuse. Churchill just wanted to attack when the sensible man would have held back.
    The man who led the bombing of Beograd (Belgrade), General Lohr, was hanged in 1947, where were the RAF prosecutions and hangings?
    Today is 8th May, the day Britains can rejoice at the Bleiburg massacre, when British troops herded men , women and children over the Austria-Jugoslav border to be murdered.

    • mohdanga

      Why would the RAF be subjected to hangings? For meting out what the Germans had done to the British, for protecting the countries from being invaded by the Nazis?

    • E.Blackadder

      You are either a naïve fool who doesn’t understand that in total war all is fair, or you are a Nazi apologist who cries over the spilling of Nazi blood and is indifferent to the monstrous nature of the Nazi regime.

  • Hamburger

    There is no doubt that the bombing campaign was a failure of civilisation, however strong the provocation. It was not a war crime because the concept of a bombing campaign had not been thought through at the time. Much has been made by various commentators of the idea that it was a failure and a waste of manpower and resources. I was talking recently to a German historian of the war whose opinion, backed by statistics, is that the German resources and manpower required on the home front to combat the raids seriously weakened the armies fighting the Soviets allowing them to advance quicker towards Berlin and this shortening the war.

    • Callipygian

      Er, talking to the Germans nicely had failed.The Germans didn’t care who they maimed or killed, in what numbers anywhere or how, and in the face of that kind of savagery, our ancestors acted — as they had to.

      • Hamburger

        It was nevertheless uncivilised, however great the provocation. I am not saying it was unjustified or militarily wrong, just not the act of a civilised nation.

    • alfred5

      That’s correct ; it was a ”second front ‘ of sorts ; it also seriously demoralised Germans ..after all, how could they confince themselves that they were winning the war when there were fleets of allied aircraft zooming above them
      The allies destroyed the Luftwaffe over Germany and there were thousands of the lethal 88mm A A guns kept in Germany instead of being deployed on the Eastern front

  • Mow_the_Grass

    German cities were lucky they weren’t nuked.
    Every justification existed.

    • Abie Vee

      They weren’t nuked for the simple reason that the Germans are white (and the fact that the war was over in every practical sense before Truman was ready to try out his new toy on the Japanese).

      • Mow_the_Grass

        Had nothing to do with black/white/yellow.
        Had everything to do with saving hundreds of thousands of US lives which would have been sacrificed in taking the Japanese mainland.
        The ‘toy’ saved that.
        Technology winning out against blind fanatacism.
        Win

        • Abie Vee

          Good grief! You still buying that old propaganda? Incredible.

          Allow me:

          “Japan was already defeated… dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.” Dwight D Eisenhower (Ike), Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe; 34th President of the USA.

          “The Japanese had in fact already sued for peace. The Atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in their defeat.” Admiral Nimitz, Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Fleet.

          “The Japanese were ready to surrender… [ the atomic attacks ] were of no significant material assistance in our war against Japan.” Fleet Admiral D. Leahy, from 1942 until his retirement in 1949, he was the highest-ranking member of the U.S. military, reporting only to the President of The United States.

          I’ll take their word over yours.

          In my opinion the two bombs were dropped primarily as an experiment (to see how both types worked against human beings) and secondly as a warning to the Soviets to back off Japan and western Europe. In either case, crimes against humanity.

          • tttt

            Sued for peace? They demanded to keep Manchuria and SE Asian colonies, the Emperor system and their military. Completely unacceptable.
            They only accepted defeat after the 2nd bomb, and even then it was a 50-50 vote, carried by the emperor.

            It is true that the Japanese were beat, just as Hitler was actually beat in 1944, but neither fact was known by the Allies, who saw the war continuing for many years to come bringing millions of casualties.

            The bombs were not necessary in 20-20 hindsight – but at the time were logical..

          • Michael85

            Nimitz and Ike were wrong and war mongering arm chair generals like yourself are right?

          • tttt

            I am not war mongering, this discussion is not about mongering for war, it is about the validity of WW2 bombing.

            I merely stated historical record regarding Japanese surrender conditions towards late ’45 . If you take umbrage at this, that is your choice.

          • Abie Vee

            Historical revision at it’s worst. Japan dropped all her claims one by one with the single exception of the retention of the Emperor as Head of State. A condition to which America, eventually, agreed.

            No Japanese Emperor has ever “voted” on anything. The concept would be entirely alien to him.

            What decisively changed the views of the Japanese ruling elite was the Soviet entry into the war. It catapulted the Japanese government into taking immediate action. In the tortuous discussions from August 9 through August 14, the peace party, motivated by a profound sense of betrayal, fear of Soviet influence on occupation policy, and above all by a desperate desire to preserve the imperial house, finally staged a conspiracy to impose the “emperor’s sacred decision” on the country [to surrender], believing that under the circumstances surrendering to the United States would best assure the preservation of the imperial house and save the emperor.

            The peace party and the war party had previously been equally balanced, the atomic bomb helped to tip the balance in favour of the peace party. However, it would be more accurate to say that the Soviet entry into the war, adding to that tipped scale, then completely toppled the scale itself.

            The Kwantung Army of the Imperial Japanese Army, over 600,000 men, was destroyed by the Soviets in a little over a week in early August 1945. Japanese and American fears were identical… where would the Soviets stop?

          • tttt

            The Japanese emperor intervened when his cabinet was split 50 50.

            I call it a vote, you can call it what you like, he made the call.

            The assumption that fascists make logical decisions based on reasonable assessment of the facts and concern for the preservation of life does not bear with historical record.

          • Abie Vee

            Hirohito was asked for his opinion. And his opinion was to surrender. No vote.
            The Soviet entry into the war in Manchuria tipped the 50:50 balance between the peace and war factions in the Emperor’s favour: peace.

            What fascists would they be, the Americans? And who says anything about “logical decisions”? Only you as far as I can see. Yet another Straw Man argument..

          • tttt

            I’m not going to waste time on semantics.

            Your angry, snotty and condescending tone negates any opinion you may have – and thus ends any further discussion.

          • Abie Vee

            Um, the question then arises: why waste time telling me you’re not going to waste time. A waste of time, surely.

          • Kevin Morgan

            ‘from a purely military point of view, in their defeat.’
            ‘no significant material assistance in our war against Japan’

            But total war is not a purely military/material matter – it is physical and moral. Surveys done in Germany of civilians even before/just at the end of the war showed strong surviving support for the Nazis even as cities were crumbling and burning.

            And people, even those in senior rank, are I would say prone to justify actions or cover their own reputations after the event.

            ‘I’ll take their word over yours.’ Fair enough – although I don’t have an agenda, they may well have.

            It’s like all this revisionist approach to most history – the facts may show one thing – but if you were there at the time it was probably very different.

          • Michael85

            Your agenda is to excuse Western war crimes.

          • Kevin Morgan

            Not at all – but the question faced by the leaders of the Allies was how do we defeat ideologies? Two aggressive states and militaristic cultures that had caused – to a lesser or greater extent – the two most horrific conflicts in history (WW1 and 2) right there in their generation? I can empathize – but not necessarily agree – with a choice to effectively eradicate them by forcing unconditional surrender on the states involved.

          • Abie Vee

            You are the revisionist here, not I. Those quotes are verbatim and contemporaneous with the events they describe. Yours is the speculation of hindsight.

            I don’t care to engage in the philosophical musings of morality. We’ll be here all day, and it’s only tangential to the facts.The Japanese were in the process of trying to surrender. That is the undeniable fact of the matter*. They were beaten and they knew it. Their only concern was for the future safety of the Emperor.

            *Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, “MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed.” He continues, “When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”

            I stand by my earlier comments, unrefuted.

          • tttt

            I am not surprised he hadn’t been consulted.

            MacArthur was largely ridiculed by the US and UK administrations.

            His military record was terrible, and was regarded as a buffoon by Roosevelt, Truman and much of the top brass who longed to get rid of him, but felt unable to do so.

          • Abie Vee

            And Eisenhower, Nimitz and Leahy (, from 1942 until his retirement in 1949, he was the highest-ranking member of the U.S. military, reporting only to the President of The United States)? Buffoons all eh? You should read Leahy’s writings on the subject he has plenty to say that will confound your arguments..

          • tttt

            I didn’t say there were all buffoons, I said MacArthur was widely regarded as such – therefore it is logical he was not asked and even if asked, that his opinion would be not taken seriously.

            If you come across as snotty, condescending and rude your arguments will not be taken seriously.

          • Abie Vee

            Thank you. I shall try your bellicose, ill-informed, uncorroborated and historical revisionist approach instead.

            So, leaving the buffoon aside, what about the others? And would you like some more examples? There are many.

          • SteveParadis

            Not buffoons, but Army and Navy men, advocating for the primacy of their services against the new claims of the Air Force. The Army could have invaded; the Navy could have blockaded Japan. Both strategies would have resulted in immeasurably more Japanese civilian casualties than the continued aerial bombing campaign on cities.
            Not to mention the ongoing war in China, but then Chinese civilian casualties are usually ignored, especially by the people who inflicted them. After the Doolittle raid, the Japanese took reprisals in the areas suspected of concealing the American airmen. A quarter of a million Chinese civilians died.
            I don’t advise you making these arguments in front of Chinese people. The younger they are, the more likely they will turn away in silent contempt; the older they are, the more likely they will spit on you.

          • blandings

            “The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”

            Might, Abie, might – on reflection,

            The Japanese military machine started the war in the Pacific, Abie. A war that it pursued with unbridled savagery (Go ask the Chinese, the Koreans and allied POWs)
            The only sane response was to utterly defeat and discredit that regime in the eyes of the Japanese people. Having achieved that aim, the US military then treated the defeated survivors far better than the Japanese military ever treated anyone.
            You present yourself as an objective and compassionate observer Abie. A fearless seeker after truth in your own reckoning.
            But you’re not: You are a sanctimonious man peddling an anti-American anti-Western agenda. You are interested only in evidence that supports your view. You are unconcerned with the conflicting emotions and confused understanding of the participants, for whom any mistake could cause the deaths of thousand of their own troops.
            In short, there is no case to answer.

          • Abie Vee

            And the others? Eisenhower, Nimitz, Leahy ?

            I start from the deeply held conviction that the nuclear attack upon the civilian population of Japan was a crime against humanity. Given that, it is rather hard to be dispassionate about the Americans motives. Everything I have every read on the subject leads me to the belief that the attack was unnecessary. It is a record of fact that behind the scenes the Japanese were seeking to surrender. Before their invasion of Machuria, the Soviets had been the intermediaries.

            I have all the evidence I need to make my case. It is all in the public domain. Where is your evidence to the contrary? Mere semantic jiggling over the word “might”? You ascribe attitudes and conflicting emotions and afterthoughts to the participants which are entirely constructs of your own imagination. And I am supposed to take your musings as evidence?

            You are a fraud .

          • blandings

            “You are a fraud”
            I’m a fraud am I?
            Why is that Abie?
            Is it because I dare to disagree with a fascist goon?
            Explain what was fraudulent about my post Abie.

          • Abie Vee

            “Fascist”? That makes a change… most people call me a Commie. If I’m upsetting the Right and the Left equally then I’m obviously doing something right, if only by accident.

            You are a fraud because you entire argument rests solely upon sophist wriggling over the word “might”. A word, moreover, taken from the lips of a man you personally regard as a buffoon. In short, all you have in support is a semantic quibble and a fool as evidence: wondrous speculation of just what “might” might have meant.

            That’s fraudulent is it not?

          • blandings

            “That’s fraudulent is it not?”
            Nope. Learn the meaning of words Abie.

          • Abie Vee

            Light Humpty Dumpty, words mean what you want them to .

          • Damaris Tighe

            I would only add: the alternative to bombing was an infantry invasion of Japan with the prospect of huge losses. Any government must always put the lives of its own people first.

          • blandings

            Agreed.

          • Marcussmod

            You may be right about warning the Soviets to back off. The historian and author Antony Beevor in his WW2 book claims Stalin had plans to march to Paris. He only changed his mind due to the Americans developing the atomic bomb

          • Tom Dollard

            Abie Vee, you are right but Mow-the-Grass, like Fox news gets the most votes…so, Mow, like Fox, Bill O & Sean….have the attention of the tiny brains of, to our misfortune, the people who vote for the assholes who run the show.

        • tttt

          The nuclear bombs saved more Japanese lives than White lives, as they stopped the bombing – which killed far more than nuclear bombes ever could.

          More died in Tokyo from conventional bombing than both nuclear bombs combined.

          Technology won.

        • pearson

          Japan was trying to end the war weeks BEFORE the bomb was dropped.
          The Russians were advancing and the Japanese wanted to make peace before they had to deal with the Russians.
          The USA had no reason to drop the bombs beside the fact that they wanted to test them.
          Truth is the first casualty in war and history is written by the victors.
          Don’t believe propaganda

          • right1_left1

            My memory tells me that the Japs wanted peace on their terms. Other than protection for the Emporer I don’t know what those terms were.
            The USA wanted unconditional surrender.

            I believe even after the first bomb was dropped elements in the Japanese command wanted to continue the war.

            I think ‘dodgy geezers’ explanation of the radiation pattern is wrong.
            Everything is irradiated and ‘updrawn’ particles enter the stratosphere to spread.

            re the bomb I would have told the Japs that a weapon existed and would be used.
            Unless they had intelligence the claim would have been disbelieved so I would then have authorised use of the first bomb.
            The 2nd I have real doubts.
            That would have depended on how the Japs resisted attacks on mainland Japan.

      • D. Strange

        The only reason Germany was not nuked is that Germany had already surrendered by the time the bomb was ready for use.
        Abie, shove your anti Western bigotry.

        • Michael85

          If you don’t support Western murders you are anti Western.

        • Abie Vee

          I said: “the war was over in every practical sense…” and “[…] before Truman (that is to say, the US) was ready”. You can make the connection.

          The rest is speculation about whether the US would have nuked Germany. I contend they would not have done so. Many powerful and rich people in America are of German stock. I doubt that Truman would want to take them on.

          Then there were the associated practicalities (largely unknown in any great detail) of radio-active fall out and contaminated soil and drinking water to deal with.

          Imagine the horror if they’d nuked Berlin and the wind changed and blew from the East, covering Paris, their troops, and then London in all that poison? One of the most amusing sights during WWI must have been watching the lard-assed British High Command run away from their own first use of poisonous gas when the wind changed! “Not such a good idea Rodders.” Remember, Germany was encircled… how do you protect your allies from the collateral?

          The British had plans to wipe out Germany (Operation Vegetarian) with anthrax. Thankfully for all mankind they didn’t, though they had the capability. The consequences of a contaminated colossal dead-zone in the centre of Europe for generations to come was too much to bear.

          I’d like to think that in 1945 the Americans would have been smart enough to listen to British advice. Today they wouldn’t.

          • Dodgy Geezer

            …Imagine the horror if they’d nuked Berlin and the wind changed and blew
            from the East, covering Paris, their troops, and then London in all
            that poison? …

            The Japanese bombs were airbursts. These provide no deadly cloud of radiation falling downwind. The area under ground zero is intensely radiated (and cooked) during the fireball development, but the only associated radioactive particles created are those from the bomb material itself. These are swept up into the stratosphere, where they become part of the world’s background radiation.

            The fact that you neither knew this, nor bothered to find out, leads me to believe that all of your speculation is unfounded, completely wrong, and made up in order to scaremonger rather than to provide a cogent argument.

          • Abie Vee

            My my.. a “clean bombs” eh? Who’d-a thought.

            T he bombs dropped on Japan were detonated high up in the air so the radioactive fireball did not touch the ground. However, the U.S. didn’t do this out of consideration, rather, it just happened to be the ideal height to maximize the destruction of the structures within the (non-combatant) cities (flimsily constructed by Western standards) and prone to destruction by fire (see Tokyo fire storm).

            There’s no reason to suppose that an air-burst would have been used on (combatant) Berlin, rather than a ground burst… the city was already in ruins so the objective would not have been to destroy an already destroyed city, it would have been to kill the defenders on the ground.

          • Dodgy Geezer

            …There’s no reason to suppose that an air-burst would also have been used on Berlin rather than a ground burst…

            There is a very strong reason to suppose that an air-burst would have been used over Berlin. Because that is the way you cause maximum destruction to a city target. An air-burst distributes the over-pressure wave and the heat radiation evenly over the whole target – a ground-burst limits both the blast and the radiation due to shadowing effects.

            You would use a ground burst to attack an armoured target – a battleship, perhaps or a nuclear bunker. Attacking troops requires an air burst.

            Considerable work had been undertaken on the effect of radioactive fallout from a bomb – if you want to occupy an area as the Allies certainly wanted to with Berlin then you did not want to leave a wasteland that you can’t enter. ‘Consideration’ does not come into it.

            You neither understand the technology not want to engage with it – your mind is closed and the only thing driving you is a hatred of Americans and a desire to portray them as stupid. You may not agree with the use of nuclear weapons, but the engineers and strategists who created them and authorised their use knew what they were doing, and what the consequences would be.

            Let us hope that we are never put into such a situation where the use of nuclear weapons produces the least possible evil outcome….

          • Abie Vee

            “Hatred”? That’s a big word. Not one that I recognise. However, I stand by my statement that the nuclear bombing of Japan was unnecessary, essentially an experiment, and simultaneously a warning to the Soviets. The allegation that it shortened the war and thereby saved tens of thousands of American lives is nothing more or less than simple patriotic bluster… a smokescreen to cover what was, even by the standards of the time, a crime against humanity.

          • lewispbuckingham

            The USA could not have ‘nuked’ Germany.
            They did not have the bombs.
            The two bombs they dropped on Japan, after Germany had capitulated, were experimental prototypes, the USA had not started mass production.
            They only had two types of weapons, which the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed would be effective.
            The destruction of Nagasaki had no other military purpose.
            It wiped out an ancient peace loving human population.

          • Abie Vee

            Quite correct. As I observed earlier, the two bombs were dropped not out of necessity to shorten the war by a day or two, they were dropped primarily to test their destructive powers on human beings. A crime against humanity.

      • Jez

        Rubbish number 2.

      • War is hell. It’s the law of the jungle. Get over it.

        After 70 years of unprecedented prosperity and stability, today’s European second guessers get ready to commit civilizational suicide.

        Import 50 million Muslims. Soon Western European cities will look like Beirut. And there won’t be any aerial bombing runs to blame it on.

        War is hell. You either win or loose. And without the will to win – you will loose.

        Second guessers are losers.

    • Jez

      Rubbish

  • Infidelissima

    Thank Goodness for the carpet bombing of Germany.
    If you don’t want to be carpet bombed, don’t start WWII.

    But this is just a Jewess’ opinion.

    • right1_left1

      quote:If you don’t want to be carpet bombed, don’t start WWII.

      There is a fracture of Grand Canyon proportions between your premise and conclusion
      Those that were carpet bombed did not start WW2

      Just as Palestinian civilians do not fire rockets mostly into vacant spaces in Israel but do suffer from the response of having large areas of their living space indiscriminantly flattened.

      I see Netanyahoo has joined forces with a party that wants to build a few thousand more houses on the West Bank.
      Only the whole world sees error there so it cant be that bad can it ?

      • tttt

        OH dear God, it doesn’t take a few minutes before one of the idiot Jew obsessives to pitch in. Mention Jew and they start yapping about Israel. What if every British Black person mentioned brought mention of Zimbabwe.

        I love the little spelling change of Netanyahu, the sign of an obsessive racist who spends too much of his life on conspiracy websites – usually on the Left.
        And at the end, the odd attempt at sarcastic humour.
        This one would have been at home in Nazi Germany.

        • right1_left1

          If you think I am a defender of Nazi Germany you are wrong.
          I am implacably opposed to the presence of Islam in the UK
          BUT
          I do have a sense of justice, as do we all i suppose, and my sense tells me that Israeli treatment of Arabs is indefensible and the Ben Gurion regime’s, not a government in any sense of the word , declaration of UDI in 1948 unjust.

          Is it Jew obsessive to claim that the US media and foreign policy department of the US State department are under the control of Jews ?
          Is it Jew obsessive to note that most of the financial institutions that caused the financial collapse of 2008 were/are controlled by Jews.
          Likewise the the US Federal reserve.
          These are facts.
          You see evidence of anti semitism

          Possibly it is you who are obsessed.
          You wish to defend the indefensible on the basis of an historical atrocity which was NOT perpetrated by those suffering under Israeli occupation.

          • tttt

            Oh for Fuc’s sake.

            The ramblings of your bog standard Jew obsessed racist.

            Comes complete with Jew conspiracy theories, someone who spends a lot of time on Jew conspiracy websites talking of evil Jew plots.

            Pathetic how they’re always passionate supporters of Palestinian rights. Just be coincidence.

            70 years later, and Hitler’s favourite conspiracy is still popular among the losers of the world.

            Well, we killed millions of racists tossers like this in WW2 and we can do it again!

          • Michael85

            Just ignore his points and attack his character.

          • tttt

            Just ignore the racist ramblings of a Jew obsessed tosser who thinks Jews control the world and thinks America is a Jewish puppet.

            No thanks – we tried that in the 30’s, didn’t work then, doesn’t work now.

            If you think being a racist creep propagandising conspiracy theories loved by Her Hitler does not need attacking – then I can’t help you.

          • Michael85

            You made everything p about him, you stab strawman, weakling.

          • tttt

            Yes, well done.

            A Jew obsessed racist is a Nazi anti-Semite.

            Hitler would have been proud of you – you guys could have been palls, sharing Jew conspiracies in the bunker.

            My family proudly served our country and killed your lot in WW2 and we’ll do it again.

          • right1_left1

            There is a major difference between us
            You are a closed minded zealot with no general sense of justice. Judging from your posts you are about 15 years old. Mentally anyway.

            I have an open mind and do not subscribe to the view that my side is always.right
            I believe all of the following which shows that I do NOT judge events in simplistic black/white terms.

            The Israeli Defense Force is a well organised resourceful military machine.
            The policies they are deployed to support and the brutality they often employ are wrong.

            The Taliban are brave determined guerrilla fighters.
            Islam is a dangerous authoritarian philosophy.
            Afghanistan will likely remain a primitive relatively impoverished state.
            Same with Pakistan and most sub Saharan African nations.

            The economic advance of Israel is remarkable.
            An independent Palestine is not likely to match such progress..

            All you can do is shout Nazi anti semite and threaten violence.
            Quite pathetic.

          • right1_left1

            It would not be difficult for me to make positive posts regarding Jews if for example Music (popular and classical) and Science were being discussed.
            However we are discussing post 1939 world politics and the Middle East.

            In Palestine.the behaviour of Israel has been deplorable..
            Only the might of Jewish foreign policy dominated USA makes such behaviour right.
            You post like a bother booted member of the UAF.

            Zionist Jews stole land rightfully belonging to Palestine Arabs and have used excessive force to sustain the status quo.
            You fulminating at the mouth and calling me a Nazi will not change that.

          • Infidelissima

            If only those pesky Israelis were as peaceful as those cuddly Palestinans…LOL

          • right1_left1

            May i refer you to a speech in the House of commons re Israel’s incursion into Gaza by Gerald Kauffman
            I’ll add the address if I can.

            Here it is
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8

          • tttt

            No you may not.

            Pathetic the way Jew haters use Palestinians and a foolish Jewish politician to justify their hate.

          • right1_left1

            hehehehehehehe
            Thats all I can say really
            Larf at you.

            Try Norman Finkelstein then.

          • tttt

            Yes, it is all you can say really.

            The pathetic attempt to use a few Jews to justify anti-Semitic hate failed.

            We killed your kind in WW2, and we’ll do it again.

          • Damaris Tighe

            Norman Finkelstein, the favourite author of the antisemite trying to persuade himself & others that he isn’t.

          • pearson

            So everybody who disagrees with Israeli occupation murder and theft is an anti semite?
            Sign me up then

          • tttt

            No pearson.

            Opposing Israeli government policy is normal and your right.

            Posting anti-Semitic conspiracy because someone mentioned they were Jewish in a discussion about WW2 bombing.

            This is the sign of a pathetic Jew obsessed racist.

          • Infidelissima

            Well, I’d say that everybody who agrees that Muslims should have 58 countries – the size of entire continents, and counting – while they have a problem with Jews having 1 – the size of Wales – indeed seem to be antisemties.

          • Shorne

            ‘Anti-Zionism is the most socially acceptable pastime of the anti-Semite’

            “European Forum on Anti-Semitism
            WORKING DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM
            Working definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
            In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
            Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
            Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
            Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.”
            Well you seem to have ticked all the boxes and as usual you fail to mention HAMAS who actually fire the rockets and whose Charter, quoting Hadith Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177, calls for the death of all Jews, not just Israelis.

          • right1_left1

            It is true I have not mentioned Hamas.
            I will now.

            Hamas at one point was elected. i believe that thereafter it took steps to ensure that it would not be ‘unelected’.
            It comprises more than one ‘wing’
            One of which is a military faction devoted to armed resistance against Israel.

            On the military front Israel can and has easily dealt with them .
            My point is the responses have been brutal, grossly disproportionate and almost certainly counter productive.
            That you interpret as anti semitism.

            if you are English you will know that the IRA inflicted far more damage on mainland UK than ever Hamas has on Israel.
            Successive UK governments did not send jets to flatten the locations and anything close by to where the ‘terrorists’ operated.
            We did not send battalions of soldiers to do like wise.
            Can you see a difference there ?

          • right1_left1

            Successive US governments turned a blind eye to the funding of IRA terrorism….. until 9/11.
            This (the blind eye) was seen is conferring electoral advantage.

            oops I’ve criticised Israel and now America.
            Convincing proof I am anti American and an anti Semite.

            Those who consistently call antisemite / hate speech / homophobe / Islamophobe etc need to ‘grow up’ and try to respond with reasoned debate.
            This is more difficult if you spend your time preaching to or listening to the converted.

            This difficulty is one reason why the authorities in the UK try their best to suppress debate on immigration and its consequences.
            When ‘reasoned’ debate takes place they lose.

            It is true visceral anti semitism exists.
            It is NOT true that criticism of Israel/Zionism is visceral anti semitism.

          • Shorne

            The difference is the IRA did not want to bring about the total destruction of the UK, HAMAS wants to do precisely that to Israel can’t you see that?
            If Israel wanted to it could obliterate Gaza for example but it doesn’t. In a broadcast on the Palestinian Authority’s television channel, Ibrahim Khreisheh, the Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Council, warned that the rocket attacks on Israel constituted a “crime against humanity”. He added that while Israel warned Gazans about impending attacks, the rockets fired at Israeli civilians came with no such warning. HAMAS needs civilian deaths for propaganda purposes that’s why for example it makes no attempt to keep children away from areas of potential retaliation, watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gn4b4H1cgQ

            Muslims, in the form of ISIS, are murdering Palestinian refugees in Syria but your kind never draws attention to this, well you can’t blame any Jews for it can you.

          • right1_left1

            quote: Muslims, in the form of ISIS, are murdering Palestinian refugees in Syria but your kind never draws attention to this, well you can’t blame any Jews for it can you.

            Somewhere on this site I have posted that I think IS are murderous maniacs.
            I have also expressed my disdain for Islam
            You really must try harder.

            Do you believe God gave you title to Palestine ?
            Israel is a complex state
            .Lamentably it is using terrorist methods to sustain its presence in an area where in the 1940’s Jews were a minority.
            Probably still are when considering the region as a whole.

            I am 110% in favour of Jews having a state in which they can further their own identity interests
            The question is….WHERE ?

          • Shorne

            I’m not Jewish but my wife ,and of course my children are and I do not believe in God. As for where should the Jewish homeland be let’s take Jerusalem as an example.
            Judaism made Jerusalem a holy city over three thousand years ago and through all that time Jews remained steadfast to it. Jews pray in its direction, mention its name constantly in prayers, close the Passover service with the wistful statement “Next year in Jerusalem,”
            and recall the city in the blessing at the end of each meal. Where does Jerusalem fit in Islam and Muslim history? It is not the place to which they pray, is not once mentioned by name in prayers, and it is connected to no mundane events in Muhammad’s life. The city never served as capital of a sovereign Muslim state, and it never became a cultural or scholarly centre. Little of political import by Muslims was initiated there. One comparison makes this point most clearly: Jerusalem appears in the Jewish Bible 669 times and Zion (which usually means Jerusalem,sometimes the Land of Israel) 154 times, or
            823 times in all. The Christian Bible mentions Jerusalem 154 times and Zion 7 times. In contrast, Jerusalem and Zion appear as frequently in the Qur’an as they do in the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita, the Taoist Tao-Te Ching, the Buddhist Dhamapada and the Zoroastrian Zend Avesta—which is to say, not once. Some Muslim elements and anti-Zionists like you revel in the idea of driving the Jews out of the place they revere above anywhere else.

          • Damaris Tighe

            If I can add, Shorne, on a more secular note, if Jews cannot have a state in the province once called Palestine with all its historical connections to the Jews, where can they have one? Manchuria? Uganda?

      • Infidelissima

        rockets go out of Gaza = bombs go into Gaza

        Palestinians KNOW this, yet they broke 12 out of 12 ceasefires last summer

        They get what they ask for.

      • Allegra Az

        Those that were carpet bombed voted for Hitler and supported him enthusiastically. Same with the Palestinian Arabs, they voted for Hamas, Hamas charter is the destruction of Israel. Perhaps some people in both places wanted to put a stop to the fight, but it is immaterial, unless they act.

    • Abie Vee

      ” Thank Goodness”? For what, the slaughter of old men, women and babies? I understand your opinion, but it is born out of feelings of revenge and retribution.

      The only way to win a war is to kill your opponent’s soldiers. And that is what happened. Hitler simply ran out of fighting men (the Russians killed them faster than the German’s could replace them).

      • tttt

        He also ran out of fuel, equipment, vehicles, materials, was unable to develop effective new weapons, his transport network was decimated and his people ended up hiding and starving in cellars for 3 years when they could have been working and supporting his army.

        Had he not been forced to take away a significant proportion of his are force, manpower and weaponry to fight the bombing – it is probable that he would have won in Russia.

        Apart from that, bombing did very little.

        • Abie Vee

          (1).Fuel? Yes. But not until very late in the war, and little to do with strategic bombing and plenty to do with the Soviet victory at Stalingrad, cutting off the Nazi drive for the Caucuses. German wartime manufacturing industry remained largely unaffected since it was coal-driven. Fuel shortages only became a huge problem for the Nazis during 1944. By which time, of course, they had been in full retreat from the Soviets for a year. Fuel shortages paid no part in the destruction of Army Group Centre directly after Kursk, July 43.

          But the point needs to be asked, was the huge effort and the enormous tonnage of bombs expended on oil targets a cost-effective use of men and materials? That is my point: how much quicker could the war have been won if those efforts, heroic as they were, had been directed at the fronts?

          (2) Run out of “Vehicles, materials, new weapons”? Not at all. Germany never in fact switched wholly to a war-time economy like Russia; they were still manufacturing domestic products up to the end, and all records show that wartime military production increased vastly year on year up until they were overrun in the East in late 44.

          (3) German transport system was not decimated. Railway lines and roads are the simplest things to repair (especially with unlimited supplies of slave labour). Up until the end of 44 it was perfectly possible to travel the length and breadth of Germany by train.

          (4) His people may have been hiding and starving in cellars, or maybe not… however, his troops wen’t hiding! Far from it!.

          The question, as you distort it, is not whether bomber command “did very little”; the question is, what actually did it achieve, and wouldn’t those resources have been better employed elsewhere.?

          I’m fleeing the censors on here today, and fear I’m wasting my time. Like you, they don’t seem to like a reality check.

          But, I’ll try one last time; J. K Galbraith, reflecting on his time as an economist leading The United States Strategic Bombing Survey in 1945, explained that he and his colleagues were “shocked” to discover that the German economy had not suffered the damage “the world had been led to expect”. His team were forced to conclude that “We are beginning to see that we were encountering one of the greatest miscalculations of the war, perhaps the greatest miscalculation of the war.” Miscalculation? I think he was being tactful.

          Whatever the merits of Galbraith’s judgement, the bombing offences of WWII were all relative failures, even on their own, and your, terms.

          • tttt

            I’m perfectly able to reality check.

            Abie, your points would be interesting, but if you make insults, and take a snotty, sneering and arrogant tone – you invalidate your argument.

      • Robertus Maximus

        Not always strictly true. The two atom bombs brought the war in the Far East to a very abrupt conclusion, thereby saving countless thousands of lives by avoiding an invasion of the Japanese mainland. You can also shorten a war by sending as many civilian merchant ships to the bottom, depriving the enemy of food and raw materials, and by destroying the (civilian) workforce and infrastructure producing weaponry.

        • Abie Vee

          That’s a myth. An American myth. A myth to absolve themselves of the charge of crimes against humanity.

          The fact of the matter is that the Japanese had been seeking terms ( via the Soviet Union as intermediaries) for a while. Their only sticking point was the safety of the Emperor. The Americans demurred and spun out the negotiations until after the drop, whereupon they promptly agreed the settlement… their “experiment” over.

          As for Germany, I’m happy to repeat that the strategic bombing campaigns were a failure, even on their own terms. The German transport system was severely damaged, but road and railways and airfields are the simplest things to repair (especially when, as in Germany’s case, you have access to unlimited slave labour). During the Battle of Britain our airfields were attacked too, but not one of them was ever put out of action for more than 24 hours, not even Manston airfield in Kent which was frequently attacked and heavily bombed due to it’s forward position and the number of squadrons based there.

          You see you story sounds plausible until you investigate the facts. And the facts are that throughout WWII, despite the strategic bombing campaign, Germany’s production of military equipment increased dramatically every year, year upon year, right up until they were beginning to be over-run. And they may well have been short of food, but that didn’t stop them fighting. And morale didn’t crack, it strengthened! So by all their own terms, bomber command was a failure. A failure that, moreover, probably prolonged the war rather than shorten it.

          The Soviets understood the mechanics of war far better. They never went in for strategic bombing, like the Germans they used the airforce as an arm of the army… attacking the front, and supplies on the way to the front. They understood that the only way to win a war is to kill soldiers, not civilians; and to destroy weaponry not houses.

          • patrickirish

            You are very well informed and I agree with much of what you say. But- Stalin wanted territory, not just an end of the war, the others simply wanted to end the war. MacArthur who you quote as being against the bomb was sacked from Korea because he was contemplating nuclear weapons – he wanted a good old fashioned slaughter on the beach head in Japan, with the glory going to him rather than a bunch of scientists. The Japanese had NOT surrendered unconditionally even after Hiroshima, and there remained opposing factions with one even attempting a small coup. How many more dead American boys would you have preferred killed rather than the Japanese, who unlike the Americans simply had to say stop to end the carnage – whose son or father or brother – 1, 10, 10,000, 100,000 – because with every day lost more died. And at the time of the Hamburg bombing it was not known that the bombing was unsuccessful. If you do not want your children to die, then don’t go to war.

          • Abie Vee

            There’s an enormous fly in your ointment. While surrender talks were continuing, the Americans did not have to advance militarily “on the ground” into Japan. Japan was blockaded, running out of everything, and unable to launch any further offensive large scale operations. The Americans could have sat offshore, Okinawa or elsewhere, and carried on bombing Japanese cities with incendiaries. The construction of Japanese domestic buildings and light industry workshops made them highly vulnerable to fire. The Tokyo fire-storm of 26 May 1945 killed more people than either Nagasaki or Hiroshima (100,000 best estimates) and reduced industrial output from the city by half. Peace talks began as a direct result.

            I simply rest my case. The Japanese were ready to surrender. The Americans did not allow them to until after they had tested their two new weapons. In the grand scheme of the war in the Pacific, a few weeks more made no difference.

          • patrickirish

            OK, so indirectly you have answered my question. At that late stage in the war only about 1,000 US army men were dying a week, with no doubt many marines and air force people as well, say 2,500 a week. So you were happy for at least 7,500 more American boys to die to prevent the bombs. There is no fly in my ointment at all – I would have not hesitated to drop those bombs to save those young men, not for a second.

          • Abie Vee

            There’s an enormous fly in your ointment. While surrender talks were continuing, the Americans did not have to advance militarily “on the ground” into Japan. Japan was blockaded, running out of everything, and unable to launch any further offensive large scale operations. The Americans could easily have sat offshore, Okinawa or elsewhere, and carried on carpet-bombing Japanese cities with incendiaries. The construction of Japanese domestic buildings and light industry workshops made them highly vulnerable to fire. The Tokyo fire-storm of 26 May 1945 killed more people than either Nagasaki or Hiroshima (100,000 best estimates) and reduced industrial output from the city by half. Peace talks began as a direct result of that one raid through Soviet intermediaries. The Americans declined to enter into face to face negotiations with the Japanese at this point.

            I simply rest my case. The Japanese were ready to surrender. The Americans did not allow them to do so until after they had tested their two new weapons. In the grand scheme of the war in the Pacific, a few weeks delay made no difference. The Japanese had been bombed to the negotiating table.

          • E.Blackadder

            Have you always been more concerned about the well-being of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan than you have about the lives of Allied troops, or was that a conclusion you reached only recently?

          • E.Blackadder

            You are aware, right, that in the course of the Soviets “winning”, they lost 20 million people, had half their industrial base wiped out, and suffered economic damage that, arguably, they never truly recovered from? Of course they fought the Wehrmacht head on – they had no choice, it was right there in the heart of their country. The UK and USA had the freedom to choose which strengths to bring to bear against the Nazis. As rich, technologically advanced powers, they naturally gave a large role to Strategic Airpower; an area where they could bring capital and manufacturing dominance into the fight against the Germans without confronting the Wehrmacht directly. They were wise to do so as this allowed a capital-intensive form of warfare to be substituted for manpower – the British being especially wise in their care to avoid a repetition of the land-war slaughter that had occurred in WWI.
            But let’s call a spade a spade here. Whilst you’ve done some reading around this and are reasonably informed (clearly, Overy’s rather unimaginative survey has dominated your thinking), you’re not really concerned with the facts of the matter at all. Rather, you are more interested in asserting your precious moral conscience and displaying your boundless concern for the lives of Nazi war workers and soldiers. Your cheap, after-the-fact armchair moralising is all well and good, but hand-wringing weakness and whining is not strategic thinking and would not have been any use as counsel during the war itself.

      • Infidelissima

        cry me a river and answer my questions above, about what wars have been fought without war crimes, and in ‘proportional’ manner.
        Everything else is white noise.

        • Abie Vee

          You have lost the argument and now you seek to shift it onto somewhere else, such as moral equivalence or somesuch (I’m not really sure where you’re going).

          I fail to see the relevance. And it will be a very long discussion if we wander aimlessly off down the corridors of time looking for examples of chivalric wars, ritual wars and token conflicts, of which there too many to know where to start.

          • Infidelissima

            You fail, period.

            But thanks for playing.

      • Infidelissima

        I guess the Jews who ended up inside ovens and gas chamber, did not include ‘old men, women and babies’, ey, Nazi-apologist?

        • Abie Vee

          Good grief. The topic is not the Shoah. We were writing about strategic bombing. “Thank God” said the correspondent. ” For what” I asked, for more of the same? You got to be kiddin’ me.

          My point has been (if you can contain your faux outrage for a second or two longer) that the destruction of German cities and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of German civilians, old men, women and babies, made not one scrap of difference to the fate of the unfortunate Nazi victims (of all kinds). In fact, I contend that strategic bombing actually prolonged the slaughter.

          You people.

          • Infidelissima

            no you don’t, you are one, that’s why you cry over their deaths.
            I am not one, that’s why I could not care less.

          • Abie Vee

            Good grief. Murder is murder is murder. You have an almost bestial view of the world. I’m so sorry for you.

            No man is an island entire of itself; every man
            is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
            if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
            is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
            well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
            own were; any man’s death diminishes me,
            because I am involved in mankind.
            And therefore never send to know for whom
            the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

          • Infidelissima

            ‘murder is murder’

            errr, no it isn’t.

            If somebody breaks into your house with a weapon, and kills you: THAT is murder.
            If somebody breaks into your house with a weapon, and you shoot him first: that is DEFENCE.

            Cretin.

          • Abie Vee

            In America, South Africa and Israel, where they are more used to such things, there are indeed several degrees of homicide. In the UK , where things are a tad less violent, murder is defined by the “intention to kill”. That is to say, not by accident, not unintentionally, but purposefully. Until very recently (although I believe the Tories have been tinkering with the law) you could go to jail for several years for killing your mythical burglar… a sentence somewhat equivalent to a manslaughter. The murder of an intruder would have been called the use of “disproportionate force” in UK Law. It is a legal concept which, though ill-defined, still exists.

            Anyhow, as ever you dissemble and retreat to sophist wriggling. Dragging you back on topic once again, “Murder is murder” in the context of which I was commenting was referring to the mass and indiscriminate murder of the civilian population of a country by an invading force. Nothing to do with burglars, or Bulgars. As you well know.

            I have no wish to embark upon yet another fruitless magical mystery tour through the barely explored thicket and twisting pathways of your thought processes.

            Like the Roman Legions, I tend to avoid combat in dense forests.

          • Infidelissima

            the UK is a ‘tad less violent’

            wait until you’re infiltrated and surrounded by your beloved mussies…..oh wait, Lee Rigby, Rotherham, Rochdale, Manchester, Birmingham, Trojan Horse, Sharia patrol, 7/7, etc etc … never mind.

          • Abie Vee

            Tsk..

          • E.Blackadder

            You are a weakling and a fool – your limp-wristed pacifism can be indulged in these softer times, but insipid cowards such as yourself are of no use in times of crisis. I’m sure you enjoy being a Nazi apologist and friend of the gas chambers, but you’ll appreciate that many will take exception to your repulsive claim of moral equivalency between the Allies and the Nazis.

          • Allegra Az

            – War is Peace, good is bad, black is white. All are guilty, therefore no one is. Bla-bla- bla.

          • Allegra Az

            ….Luftwaffe bombers under the command of MajorWolfram Freiherr von Richthofen conducted the first major city attack of World War II, dropping 500 tons of high explosive bombs and 72 tons of incendiary bombs, in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units. The center of Warsaw was badly damaged. Approximately 1,150 sorties were flown by a wide variety of aircraft, including even obsolescent Junkers Ju-52/3m bombers, which dropped 13 percent of the incendiary bombs dropped on the About 25 thousands of civillians died .day.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Warsaw_in_Worl_War_II It happened in September 1939, so why to complain about what happened in 1944? It is childish.

    • Robertus Maximus

      The atrocities my father witnessed in France, Belgium and Holland – he was one of the first to arrive at Belsen and his comrade suffered years of nervous trouble after being given the job of bulldozing the bodies into pits – left a deep and abiding impression on him. His view was that one had to be utterly ruthless in destroying that evil and almost all means were acceptable.

    • Why, when your nick calls you someone believing in absolutly nothing, do you, for heaven´s sake, believe in carpet bombing?

      1) of course war crimes do happen in any conflict, commited by any side. That´s sometimes due to a lack of military discipline, sometimes to the fact, that in war some men get weapons which should better not be armed at all. Unfortunately, some men even get the authority to command which should not get this neither.

      2) war crimes differ: they may occur in “the heat of battle” as a kind of overreaction, they may on the other hand occur as cold blooded planning.

      3) You may acknowledge the difference between the “jus ad bellum” on the one hand (is a war legimitate or not) and the “jus in bello” on the other (concerning the way how to act & how to behave in war).

      4) it may sometimes be difficult to come to a conclusion whether a certain action is a war crime (sinking of the “Lusitania”, the “Wilhelm Gustloff” or the “Cap Arkona”, just three examples). But others are easy: The burning of some 40.000 civilians should not be that difficult to understand. Especially, as it was not the singular action of a somewhat eccentric Colonel Blimp but a well defined strategy.

      5) for further reading I would encourage you to have a glimpse in Len Deighton´s “Bomber”. This otherwise rather simple author gives a good account of the suffering in heaven and earth.

      6) Bomber Command spent about 50.000 men killed in action. This is about the number the UK lost during the War to all of the attacks of the Luftwaffe. By spending these men, BC killed about 500.000 German civilians. Achieving nothing in terms of strategy.

      7) English friends of us had a friend (now passed away) who took part in the attack on Dresden. Since that night he used to sleep bad. Of course as an individual he is not guilty; he obeyed to an order and may even have believed in the importance of the attack, then. Afterwards he changed his opinion, may be due to the smell of burning flesh.

  • Frank

    “but they were not futile crimes” does everyone on the left think them crimes? Have you actually heard of total war? Do you understand how close this country came to being vanquished? Perhaps you think that the V1 and V2 rockets were precision weapons that only hit military targets. No, one wrong does not justify another, but Britain had very limited means of hitting back at Germany for most of the war and anything that disrupted life and shattered the illusion that the Reich could win was justified.
    As for Ole von Beust, what about the fairly endless list of crimes against civilisation committed by Germany? One could start with the Franco-Prussian war of 1871, continue with the First World War, and conclude with the Second World War. His relativism must be very comforting to Germans, especially those whose relatives died when they fell out of the watch towers around the concentration camps, or had heart attacks selecting who should die.

    • And how peaceful the world became since 1945; almost a paradise.

    • E.Blackadder

      The left never met an enemy of Britain they didn’t like.

  • Dagenhamboy

    Why do people always point the finger at Harris? He was under orders from the Government and had he refused to comply, would have been removed from office.
    My mothers fiancé was carted off to a concentration camp and she narrowly escaped the same fate for her own family by marrying a local Nazi to care for his two children. Early on in the war every German knew of Jews that had been taken away and never returned, yet many still deny it.
    Reduced to the most basic of arguments, if you start a world war, don’t complain when destruction is visited on your own heads. You don’t win a war by being kind.
    Thankfully, modern Germans have learnt to live with their horrid past and move on. Sadly, there will always be those that seek to twist history for their own arguments.

    • mohdanga

      “You don’t win a war by being kind.” A number of people on this board seem to think that you do.

      • Avoiding war crimes would be quite sufficient.

        • Damaris Tighe

          The modern understanding of a war crime has become so wide that prosecuting even a defensive war has become the crime. I’m thinking of the screams of protest at Israel’s eventual retaliation to rockets from Gaza. The objection from many was that Israel retaliated per se, because the nature of Gaza made civilian deaths inevitable.

          They thought that the ‘moral’ thing to do was for Israel to put up with having its own civilians running in & out of shelters every day, thus demonstrating how the supposedly ‘weak’ can in fact be strong through emotional blackmail.

          • Ray Spring

            So Israel has to negotiate a two state solution. Or there will have to be a one state solution imposed. A solution was imposed on Yugoslavia, why not the same for Israel?

          • Damaris Tighe

            Yugoslavia is hardly a great example.

          • Ray Spring

            But it is a great example of an imposed solution. Israel has to adopt, soon, a two state solution. Or maybe get a solution imposed.

          • logdon

            How about a two state solution in Bradford?

          • Abie Vee

            Is that REALLY all you’ve got to say? Pathetic.

          • Ambientereal

            Right, there is no moral in war. Armies do everything to win it because it is much better to win without moral than lose with moral. You can turn moral rules upside down when you win, but you can´t turn a defeat upside down.

          • Damaris Tighe

            Yes, although I do think there are moral boundaries in war.

          • Tom Dollard

            nonsense and you know it. the eastern europeans who’ve hijacked palestine jump with joy every time a ‘firecracker’ is shot from gaza, it helps justify their theft of land & genocide which they claim to know so much about. clever murderous bastards.

          • Damaris Tighe

            It must be the most unsuccessful genocide in history then, as the Palestinian population has grown exponentially.

          • Abie Vee

            Er, that is what populations do. D’oh!

          • logdon

            Are you so thick as to not understand what genocide is?

          • Abie Vee

            What has that got to do with the carpet bombing of German Cities.?
            Are you seeking to shift the focus?

          • logdon

            I was replying to your inane comment.

          • Abie Vee

            By using the old reductio ad absurdum tactic. Or as I call it, the Vicky Pollard approach: Yeah but no but yeah but…

          • logdon

            There is no relation to my reply and your idiot assertion.

          • Abie Vee

            Yeah but no but yeah but….

          • Abie Vee

            Replying you may well have been; addressing it you were not.

          • Infidelissima

            if they are ‘firecrackers’, why continue launching them, when you know you’ll get bombs in return?

          • Damaris Tighe

            I’d love to see you & your family living under a rain of so-called ‘firecrackers’ for years. I’d love to know what you’d like your government to do then.

          • Abie Vee

            Over-simplistic.

            The border towns that the Palestinians shell are their own towns, renamed, from which they were evicted by Zionist gangsters in 1948.

          • Harry

            Jews are the enemy
            Israel is evil
            Jews control the world
            Blah blah blah

            Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

          • Abie Vee

            If you say so.

          • Harry

            Heil Hitler!

          • Abie Vee

            Fool.

          • Harry

            Blah Blah Blah
            Isarel Israel Israel
            Jews Jews Jews
            Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

          • Abie Vee

            I’m focused on Hamburg and Dresden and etc. WTF have the Jews got to do with anything?

          • Harry

            Blah Blah Blah
            Jews Israel Jews Israel

            Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

          • Anil Srikantiah

            yes , nobody cared for jews anyway at that time. if they had bombed the concentration camps , they could have saved many. both guys were busy kiliing , raping everyone. Europe had gone to the dogs at that time.

          • Abie Vee

            “shoot at anyone” was the orders given to the IDF.

            War crime plain and simple. The Jews learnt well from the Nazis.

          • Harry

            Look at the Jew hater, see the misery his spreads. His conspiracy theories and his fake concern for Palestinians.

            This is what we fought 70 years ago, and its here today at the Spectator.

          • logdon

            And off we go.

            The insanity of this post is quite appalling. You swallow the Islamo-Lefty lie and next thing your anti-Semitic fantasy becomes fact.

            No doubt in your horrid little world, Matzos are made from Christian blood.

            Thankfully it’s your fact, you own it.

          • Abie Vee

            Insanity? Islamo-leftist lie? Er, no… testimony given some of the soldiers who took part in the last onslaught.

            From the Daily Telegraphy (indeed a well-know lefty rag): A collection of testimonies published by Breaking the Silence, an NGO run by former Israeli soldiers, describes lax rules of engagement that allowed troops to open fire in built-up areas, leading to mass civilian casualties and devastating damage to homes. Troops were told to target any Palestinian as a “terrorist” and to shoot to kill.

            Israeli forces made devastating use of inaccurate missiles such as cannon and mortars, causing widespread destruction and breaching two basic principles of the law of war – distinction and proportionality – according to Michael Sfard, Breaking the Silence’s legal adviser.

            But hey, Samael, don’t let it worry you, because you don’t actually care, do you?

            I have been to Israel and experienced first hand the deep and burning hatred many Israeli’s carry in their hearts for their Palestinian cousins (half-brothers if we are to believe their own holy books). It really is that tangible.

          • logdon
          • Abie Vee

            So you seek moral equivalence between savages do you?

          • logdon

            You’re the moral equivalence man around here.

          • Abie Vee

            Am I? I am merely telling you things you don’t want to hear. Namely, that area bombing was ineffectual, and counter productive.

            I have carefully tried to steer away the discussion from questions of morality or the conclusion that it was a war crime. I understand full well that that argument gets nowhere.

            It is though, you people’s only riposte. Because you cannot defeat me on my own chosen turf.

          • Harry

            Logdon

            Trying to have an intelligent discussion with the few Jew obsessives on this site is useless.

            They just hate Jews.

            Now every Anti-Semite is a Palestinian rights campaigner.
            Just as every Nazi was a German rights campaigner.

            Trying to talk to them only encourages their Jew fetish.

            They live in a world of conspiracy and race hate, they cannot be helped.

          • logdon

            I kept the effort of reply to a minimum. And as a bait.

            Yet he still bounces back with his illiterate mental scrawl.

            Trouble is that amongst the left wing, academia, councils, broadcasters and charities, there are many who would agree with him.

            They’re like little brownshirts hiding in a thin veneer of pompous piety.

          • logdon

            Here’s a great source of fact.

            http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=14801

          • Abie Vee

            I would remind you people what the thread is here. For once, it isn’t about you; it isn’t about Jews. It is about the UK’s war of annihilation against the civilian population of Germany. I absolutely refuse to allow you to set your own specious agenda here.

            Indeed, as far as I know there were no Jews in Hamburg or Dresden by the time Bomber Command was happily blowing up children and old ladies.

            The war, indeed the world, isn’t just about you. You were not the only ones to suffer.

          • Anil Srikantiah

            germans blew up russians and killed millions , gassed anybody they felt was not of the right type. they got what they gave seriously.

          • Harry

            Heil Hitler!

            Jews are the enemy
            Fight the Jews
            Israel is evil
            Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

          • Abie Vee

            If you keep on with that, people might well begin to believe you.

          • Harry

            Heil Hitler
            Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews
            Israel Isarel Isarel
            Blah Blah Blah

          • Abie Vee

            Hahaha… go and lay down Hymie… the weather’s catching up with you.

          • Abie Vee

            You hurl schoolboy insults around as you hide behind the spurious catch-all defence of antisemitism. How pathetic you people are.

          • logdon

            All of us?

          • Abie Vee

            Indeed.

          • Harry

            Hate Jews
            Blah blah blah
            Palestinian rights
            Israel must be defeated
            Blah blah blah
            Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

          • Abie Vee

            NURSE!

          • Harry

            Israel, Jews, Israel, Jews, Israel, Jews
            Israel, Jews, Israel, Jews, Israel, Jews

            Blah blah blah Blah blah blah

        • Infidelissima

          again: name me a war that was ever fought, avoiding war crimes.

          Many thanks.

          • Harry

            There are a few losers on this site who just hate Jews, and will use any excuse to express this illness.

            Though they often pose as Human Rights campaigners for the Palestinians.

            Arguing with them is like shouting at a brick wall.

            They value their racism above all else.

          • Ray Spring

            You write complete rubbish. The Palestinians have at least as many rights as the Israelis. Which brings me to the way you try to include all Jews as Israelis. They aint. Many Jews are horrified at the actions of Israel. Who are almost imposing the Nazi ‘Final Solution’ on the Palestinians.

          • Harry

            Every Jew obsessive has become a Palestinian rights campaigner. Just as Hitler was a German rights campaigner.

            70 years later, the same old stuff repeated.

          • logdon

            The Palestinians have at least as many rights as the Israelis.

            They did and then threw it all away.

            Why?

            Because they wanted the lot.

            Read the Hamas Charter or do real facts get in the way of your drooling dreams?

    • Abie Vee

      You spread your arguments far and wide. The point is about the bombing offensive of German cities. And without fear of contradiction I can say that it made almost no contribution to ending the war. In fact a better case is made for the proposition that it actually extended the the carnage.

      To win a war you have to kill soldiers… not women and children. Waste of time and effort. Germany was never short of labour (imported from conquered countries) and military output in every category increased exponentially throughout the war almost until they were over-run. And as late as the winter of 1945 is was possible to travel the length and breadth of the country by railway. National panic did not occur, and civilian morale stiffened rather than broke.

      So even by their own limited objectives, the ambitions of Bomber Command were all relative failures.

      • Dagenhamboy

        I take your point but cannot agree. War, by its very nature, is total. Destroying infrastructure, workforce, housing, demoralising the men fighting, are all legitimate aims.
        In a simplistic nutshell, if you don’t want a good kicking, don’t start a fight.
        War isn’t clean, honourable or desirable, however if someone starts one a nation must take every step to finish it in their favour. It has been said that people get the Governments they deserve. If that’s true, then the Germans certainly got what was coming to them after decades of European aggression and posturing.

        • Abie Vee

          I beg to differ. Waging war on the civilian population is a war crime. Plain and simple. There’s no more to be said.

          There is no evidence to support the fanciful notion that the Nazi’s were demoralised , or if they were, that this alleged “demoralisation” had any effects upon their ability or stomach for the fight. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

          The workforce was not destroyed. They had surplus labour a-plenty.

          My entire argument is predicated upon the proposition that the colossal strategic bombing exercise effort was disproportionately ineffectual compared to the damage achieved. Better use could have been made of the time, money, men and above all scarce material resources.

          The only way to win a war is to kill soldiers. And this the Soviets did. The Soviets never bothered with strategic bombing, and eight out of every eleven German casualties were on the Ostfront. How much quicker would the carnage have ended if we had devoted the time and energy we spent bombing civilians (to little or no effect) on attacking the fighting men. After all, we knew exactly where they were: at the front.

          • Dagenhamboy

            That’s because Russian planes were awful and unable to do much, compared to the German counterparts.
            I’m afraid that we will never agree on this. Unfortunately, (or fortunately) living in these gentler times means that many have no idea of the realities of war and its inhumanity.
            I might surmise that the unarmed British soldiers machine-gunned by the SS, the millions of Jews taken to their deaths in cattle trucks or the Polish untermenchen worked to death in labour camps weren’t overly bothered by the bombing of German civilians, and for good reason.

          • Abie Vee

            At the outbreak of war you are broadly correct: the Soviets had a lot of old stuff. By 43 the situation was entirely reversed. However, the Soviet concept of Deep Battle (somewhat similar to Blitzkrieg but not identical) made heavy long-range bombers surplus to requirements.

            And they never went in for strategical bombing for the simple reason that it is expensive, counter productive, and it doesn’t achieve a suitable return.

            “Bothered” or not: strategic bombing didn’t do them any good. In fact, sad to say, it probably prolonged their agony.

          • Infidelissima

            I would love to hear of an example of a war fought, in the history of humanity, without ‘war crimes’.

            While you’re at it, can you please also give examples of wars in history of humanity, which have been fought ‘proportionally’, thank you.

          • Abie Vee

            Indeed I can. But, er… what is your point?

          • Infidelissima

            then why aren’t you answering?
            my point is that your ilk is too stupid to understand, that this is a non-argument: it makes 0 sense.

            If it does: answer.

          • Abie Vee

            The very concept is complete nonsense. War implies the shedding of blood the killing of people; a bloodless war is therefore an oxymoron.

            However, you could start with David and Goliath I suppose. Those kind of wars have often been fought where the representatives of the warring sides present their Champions to fight each other… the winner of the two deciding the outcome.
            In the very early days of the Samurai, battles were highly stylised and ritualised along similar lines, as was also the case among some of the Polynesian islanders. And I don’t believe there were civilian casualties at Agincourt, or indeed at El Alamein.

            I lived along the Scottish borders for a number of years, where Berwick upon Tweed was particularly proud of the fact that it was still at war with Russia (left over from the Crimean War). Not that anybody would notice.
            The 335 years War between The Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly was something similar.

            But where are we going? I told you this road would get us lost.

          • Infidelissima

            Oh dear, what a load of garbage!! David and Goliath???!!! You do understand that this is NOT A HISTORICAL WAR, right. More like a made-up legend.

            What’s next: unicorns vs Carebears?

            I tried to take you seriously, but you need medication.
            And stay away from the pc, ffs.

          • Abie Vee

            A legend? Hmmm… is that all of the Bible then, or just that bit? And aren’t legends an aural tradition handed down through the generations… some rooted in fancy, others in fact?

            I used legend to kick off your silly oxymoronic task . I note you have nothing to say about the other examples.

            But what if I were to agree with your premise that all wars include the mass rape, torture and killing of innocent people? Where does than get us? That it’s NATURAL… a primitive urge over which we have no control.. that we are incapable of rising above savagery, that we must shrug and say “I couldn’t help it, it’s in my nature.” So that makes it alright does it? No personal responsibility, “it’s in me genes guv’nor”.

            What nihilist view you have of us human beings. I know we are capable of far better. I have personally experienced such kindness, such empathy, from complete strangers as you would hardly credit.

            You do realise that WHEN YOU START SHOUTING it usually means that you’ve lost the augment.

          • Ned Costello

            Which other front were they at where the Western Allies in 1942. ’43 and into ’44 could have attacked them then?
            I’m pretty sure we were fighting them in North Africa, Sicily and Italy for example?

          • logdon

            ‘Waging war on the civilian population is a war crime.’

            I’m sure that the Fogel family would agree.

            If they were still alive, that is.

          • Abie Vee

            So, um, it isn’t a war crime?

          • logdon

            Not when it’s Palestinians doing it, seemingly. It’s Jihad.

          • Abie Vee

            So, er, it isn’t a war crime?

          • logdon

            One mans war crime is another man’s jihad.

          • Abie Vee

            And nothing to do with the indiscriminate mass murder of German civilians by the British.

      • KingJon

        This is all very well with the benefit of hindsight and viewed from the comforts of an advanced world 70 years later.

        These actions have to be viewed in context and at the time were hardly carried out for a laugh. At a time when the future was very uncertain and that struggle was playing out attempts to bring the war to an early end by such means were legitimate in my view even if they ultimately didnt have the desired effect.

        • Abie Vee

          I have to differ.

          Winston Churchill : “It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed … I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive”.

          My argument in a nutshell . That statement of his was a reflection of the doubts he held about the efficacy of the bomber offensive as the war developed. “Bomber Harris” insisted upon a campaign of terror-bombing; this is to say, the systematic destruction of German cities by area bombing rather than precision raids on specific industrial and military targets.

          And my contention is that the bomber offensives of WWII were all relative failures even on their own terms. A what can hardly be denied is that Bomber Command diverted a disproportionate amount of scarce resources away from the other services, weakening them and thereby extending the duration of the conflict rather than shortening it.

          This is not the luxury of hindsight. I can’t see how these conclusions could not have been made at the time. Churchill’s remarks suggest that they were. Heroic young men gave their lives to fight the air war, Bomber Command had a 50% casualty rate among aircrew. But it is empty patriotic bluster to pretend that no doubts have ever been raised about the results of their courage. Those doubts existed at the time and will always exist.

        • albert pike

          “At a time when the future was very uncertain and that struggle was playing out attempts to bring the war to an early end…….”

          As could have happened in 1917, in 1943 the Allies didn’t want either war brought to an early end.There was a very good possibility that German generals were willing to turn against Hitler. However, the Allies declared that nothing but unconditional surrender, and the fact that German officers would be treated war criminals and tried, ensured Germany had no alternative but to fight to the end.

    • Abie Vee

      Removed from office? What makes you say that? As the war dragged on, Bomber Harris carved out his own personal fiefdom. Churchill would have removed, but he was unwilling to face the public outcry.

      As regards this tripe: ” if you start a world war, don’t complain when destruction is visited on your own heads.” They, the Germans, didn’t complain. They took it on the chin.

      • albert pike

        This is the man who came up with the idea of terror bombing

        http://www.historynet.com/lord-cherwell-churchills-confidence-man.htm

      • Dagenhamboy

        Funny, my mother was on the receiving end of Allied bombs but never had a bad word for Harris. Oh, the stories I could tell you about the Nazis and the war, but somehow after reading your posts on this subject, I think your mind is closed on the subject. Never mind, revisionists are nothing new.

        • Abie Vee

          In the manner of all people on the losing end of a discussion, you are simply trying to re-shift the subject onto other safer grounds. I too could tell you about atrocities (from all sides). But that is not the topic here.

          The topic is the area bombing of German cities and it’s impact upon the course of the war. If you or your mother have anything to say which refutes my assertion that area bombing by the Allies was an unnecessary diversion of huge amounts of scarce resources to Bomber Command which denuded the other services of weaponry, and actually prolonged the duration of the war, please let me know.

          One Lancaster bomber, for example, cost £40,000 to make. It used 5,000 tons of aluminium in its construction and took an amount of workplace time equivalent to the manufacture of 40 vehicles, and enough labour to built 1.5 miles of motorway today. Its radio and radar used enough material for the production of 1 million radio sets, and it cost £13,000 to arm. The crews cost around £10,000 per man in training costs. Adding up everything from manufacturing to sortie cost we can get a ball-park figure of £100,000 for each plane. That would have been the equivalent of an entire squadron of Spitfires.

          As I have gone to great lengths to detail on this thread, these views of mine were also held my many people at the time. Churchill held deep reservations himself as the war wore on. Put simply, it was entirely the wrong target, and the massive tonnage of bobs dropped (wasted) on civilian targets would have been far better employed elsewhere.

  • Dan O’Connor

    70 years ago , they told the people of the West that they may have to die to prevent the Nazis from taking over their lands.
    Today, 70 years later , they tell the people of the West that they may have to die out to prevent the Nazis from taking over their lands.

    Those who rule in the goverment, media, and academia and all of the West’s institutions today North America , Australia and Europe today are cultural / demographic terror bombers , who will cause immense suffering and pain for our people for centuries to come.

    Do you really think that those allied soldiers who fought and died in WW1 and WW2 were fighting for multiculturalism and diversity and so that their great grandchildren would be dispossessed minorities in their own homelands ?

  • Abie Vee

    It did some good, you say? And all you can come up with is that it spread antipathy to the regime. Maybe it did, but there’s little evidence of that. And so what? Poor return for tens of thousands of civilian deaths. Poor return for the loss of 50,000 aircrew!

    J.K. Galbraith, reflecting on his time as an economist preparing the United States Strategic Bombing Survey in 1945 wrote how he and his colleagues was shocked to discover that the German economy had not suffered the damage the world had been lead to believe. His team were forced to conclude that strategic bombing made no contribution to the war; “We are beginning to see that we were encountering one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest, miscalculations of the war.” he wrote.

    “Miscalculations”? I think he was being diplomatic there. And whatever the merits of his judgement, the strategic bombing offensives of WWII were all relative failures even on their own terms, and may very well have extended the duration of the war thereby extending the carnage rather than shortening it.

    Long-range heavy bombers are a huge drain on scarce resources which skewer and distort the war effort. The German’s never even bothered to construct long range heavy bombers, preferring instead to insist that nearly all their aircraft were fighter bombers, which were used in conjunction with ground force attacks as flying artillery: Blitzkrieg!

    Neither was the Luftwaffe split into individual units like bomber command, fighter commend, coastal command and etc. All was subordinated to the army. In fact, one could go even further, they never went in for strategic bombing campaigns at all. Their bombing attacks on Britain were not random affairs, they were specifically targeted at the war industry, the London and Liverpool docks for instance, and the Coventry car-plants and engineering works, largely turned over to war production. Such collateral damage as occurred could not be avoided due to the proximity of the workers dwellings to the targets and the inaccuracy of bombing in the early days of war. At times both the RAF and the Luftwaffe missed entire cities, harmlessly bombing the open countryside.Hitler himself was hardly enthused by the campaign (it was never tried again) and he carried no great expectations that the British would lose simply lose heart and sue for peace.

    As regards to the unmentionable question, “was it a war crime”? I’ll leave you with this: Churchill to Stalin, Moscow 12/08/1942.

    “[…] as regards the civilian population, we looked upon it as a military target. We sough no mercy and we would show no mercy. If need be we hoped to shatter nearly every dwelling in almost every German city.”

    A war crime, even by the standards of the time.

    • Kevin Morgan

      Interestingly though the Germans made a massive scientific and material investment in V weapons – for what purpose? Strategic ‘terror’ bombing. Some modern studies estimate Germany could have built 50,000 more fighter aircraft rather than pour wasted resources into the V projects – not a good choice.

      • Abie Vee

        I’m presuming the ultimate aim of the V2 would be to carry Germany’s nuclear bomb. The V1? No idea. I think the German’s called it a revenge weapon. Should I point out that neither weapon had any impact upon the ability or the will to continue fighting.

        Which has been my argument all day: the same would hold true of our long range heavy bombers and the huge resources each one of them consumed. For what? By diverting so much of the war effort, they prolonged the war!

        • Kevin Morgan

          Little late with this probably, although the thread is still going don’t know if you’re watching it.

          I agree with your argument to some extent, but there are other approaches. If the allied bombing effort made Germany commit many men and guns to AA batteries and fighter squadrons over Germany that meant a large number of guns/men/planes that weren’t helping stop the Soviets, or other allies in the West. And if as I think is correct the V weapons were in part a response to the bombers, this was again a massive expenditure of resources that could have been used to build more fighters etc. So it can be argued that the bombing efforts did make an almost inadvertent contribution by forcing Germany’s responses to combat them and diverting efforts away from the fronts – possibly in fact speeding up the war rather than prolonging it. I do think quantifying this is probably nigh on impossible though.

          • Abie Vee

            Er, “IF”…but it din’t. In Germany and in the UK the people who manned AA batteries were not combat troops; they were cadets, public schoolboys and the like. Indeed, in Russia they were very often women.

            AA batteries were, incidentally, completely and utterly useless. Their sole purpose was to reassure the populous that the government were doing something.

            And your speculations about what the Germans may have been “forced” to do are wholly speculative. Never during the entire war did the Germans produce long-range heavy bombers. It just didn’t fit into the logic of Blitzkrieg. And in Russia too, it didn’t fit with their system of “Deep battle”.

            Wars are won by killing soldiers. Not babies.

          • Kevin Morgan

            You really are very sure of yourself when there are many contradictions in your points. Speculation – I don’t think so.

            You say yourself they were compelled to deploy AA batteries for popular reassurance – so did bombing have an effect? Someone obviously felt it did then – and that is what mattered – even if we know now that the impact was questionable.

            ‘Radar’ and technology research and investment? What about the squadrons of fighters used over Germany – the pilots – and development of jets? Why were they built? All this effort to combat the bombers and overwhelming allied air power.

            Useless or not Germany deployed many guns to shoot at the aircraft. They could have been employed shooting flat trajectory shells into Soviet and Western armour. Every gun Germany put in a flak battery was one less potentially killing allies. They were useless? Great, even better for the allies that the Germans wasted artillery tubes, shells and manufacturing effort shooting at the pointless planes (and therefore ending the war quicker?)

            Was AA useless? It may not hit much but having personally spoken to Wellington and Lancaster bomber veterans they certainly were afraid of it – again just hitting allied planes doesn’t measure the whole effect. Seen film of planes with wings blown off from flak?

            What planes were one of the key factors in finally rendering the U boats irrelevant in Battle of the Atlantic? Liberators, funnily enough a long range bomber.

            We try to judge WW2 from our perspectives – ‘killing soldiers wins wars’ – but in a total ‘world’ war of annihilation and survival, of which there is no real other modern example, destroying the enemy’s will to resist and its evil ideology ‘totally’ probably seemed the only way to do it, with all means at their disposal.

          • Abie Vee

            Good grief. Of course the bombing had an effect. It killed people. Civilians. What didn’t have an effect was the AAA batteries. The same goes for this country. AA had little or no effect upon the Luftwaffe. MOD analysis after the war suggested that it took in excess of 10,000 shells to get one hit! A German study in 1942 produced a figure of 3,300 shells for each plane brought down.

            The point, which you refuse to acknowledge, is this: that the colssal effort that went into killing civilians (with no measurable impact upon the Germans capacity to wage war) would have been far better utilsed if directed at the precision bombing of factories, supply lines and best of all at the enemy troops.

            At no time were the Germans ever short of the 88mm anti aircraft guns… possibly the best gun ever deployed throughout the war. By 1942 the had over 15,000 deployed in a defensive arc along the Rhine, up to 20 km deep in places, and by 1943 they had so many that they were fitting them to Panzer IV chassis’ as mobile guns and to Tiger tanks. Neither were they at any time short of labour… they had an unending supply of slave-labour from the East.

            And every year of the war, military output increased year upon year despite the area bombing of cities.

            And of course you twist my words to suit yourself. I am not making the case against long-range heavy bombers (though the Germans never developed one, nor saw the use for them, and the Russian’s were not enthused either) . The Nazi concept of Blitkrieg required that all their planes were essentially dive bombers, and the Soviet theory of Deep Battle was similar.

            My point, and I’ll keep repeating until the message sinks in, is that this mighty firepower was used in the wrong place at the wrong time against the wrong targets. So… it isn’t the airpower that matters, it’s aquestion of how you use it!

            And, by the way, nobody lost the will. That was specious speculative nonsense carried over from WWI. Just as in the Battle of Britain, the will was strengthened by adversity. Hitler was perfectly convinced that the British will to fight could not be broken by bombing alone. He was right. Bomber Command was wrong.

            The war stopped when Germany ran out of soldiers. Not before.

          • Abie Vee

            Perhaps you’d care to give us an example of a war in which the people’s will to resist played a part in their defeat? The capability to resist is one thing… will to do so is another matter. And such evidence as there is suggests that targeting civilians is a complete waste of resources with counterproductive effects on the population’s determination to resist.

            A more comprehensive reply has mysteriously vanished.

  • Hegelman

    The Germans of that age were out of their minds with racial
    arrogance. They needed a very bad beating to sober them, and they got
    it.

    They have behaved beautifully ever since.

    Let them concentrate on making cars and sausages.

    • tttt

      Well said.

      We will always have to fight them, even on this site.

  • Michael85

    Allied war crimes = good.
    German war crimes = bad.

    And thus the logic of the murder happy patriot.

    • FactsWillOut

      Bombing Hamburg wasn’t a crime.

      • Michael85

        Neither was baedeker then.

        • FactsWillOut

          Correct. Total war is what it is. If two belligerents are at war, the side that tries to “minimize civilian casualties” will eventually most likely lose.

  • paulthorgan

    “From this perspective, it is possible to shift seamlessly from
    portraying the bombing of Hamburg as not simply wicked but futile.”

    The raid had a massive effect. Hamburg was Germany’s second city. It was devastated. The German leadership did not believe such a thing was possible. The war was brought home to them. The ‘master-race’ were shocked that such a thing could happen. It was an aerial Stalingrad. Speer stated that six more raids like that would have won the war. Berlin was evacuated of non-essential civilians as a consequence. People were sworn to secrecy about the impact of the raid.

  • Ray Spring

    I am concerned about the amount of comments deleted in the comments section of this article. Debate should be able to be forthright and honest. Excessive deletions may delete debate.

    • E.Blackadder

      Indeed. Especially since the most ardent Nazi apologists are being allowed to run free with their pernicious lies.

  • Abie Vee

    Look at that photo. That could have been taken down The Isle of Dogs.

    “Why do they never tell us that you are poor devils just like us, that your mothers are just as anxious as ours, and that we have the same fear of death, the same dying and the same agony.”

    • E.Blackadder

      Jesus, did you ever meet an enemy of Britain you didn’t like?
      Your love for the soldiers and arms workers of Nazi Germany is touching. Shame you don’t have the same tender concern for the lives of Allied troops.

  • Infidelissima

    Fascinating how the same people defending the old Nazis, are also defending the new Nazis here!
    Hitler was not chummy with the ‘Palestinian’ Grand Mufti of Jerusalem for nothing, folks.

    Too stupid to acknowledge the parallels, but priceless amusement for the rest of us.

    • albert pike

      “Hitler was not chummy with the ‘Palestinian’ Grand Mufti of Jerusalem for nothing, folks.”

      One Hitler ignored him

      two, he was given his position as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem by the British.

      three, he was rejected by Palestinians who did not believe he had had a good enough Islamic education.

      Four: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32941.htm

      Five, even if what you claim is true, why, considering of Britain’s breaking of McMahon Hussein agreement should the Palestinians have sided with Britain, an ally of Stalin?

      • Infidelissima

        One, NURSE!

        Two, guess what defending Nazis makes you, Pikey..?

        • albert pike

          “Two, guess what defending Nazis makes you, Pikey..?”

          I didn’t know I had defended Nazis, but given it is a waste of time discussing anything with you:

          I give in.

          Rudolf Katzner?
          A Mossad agent?

  • Copyright101

    The pilots used the neo-Gothic spire of St Nikolai’s church in the city’s historic heart as a landmark

    Sounds like pure fiction to me. This was a night time raid so obviously they couldnt see the spire. The assorted radio navigation/guidance devices available to the RAF at the time certainly weren’t going to do that either, given that they were based on beams and signals beamed from the UK. The airborne RADAR of time was only good enough to map the ground terrain and thus find the target that way, it couldnt pick out details like a church spire.

    • IainRMuir

      Glad somebody has pointed that out.

      Some people watch too many movies.

    • Abie Vee

      Presumably the first wave of incendiaries would have lit up the city centre.

  • FactsWillOut

    “We must face the horrors we inflicted on Germany’s cities in the later years of the war. But they were not futile crimes”

    Bombing Hamburg wasn’t a crime, neither was Dresden, or Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

    Total war is what it is.

    • albert pike

      “Total war is what it is.”

      Are you saying war is not a crime.
      I suppose it is good for business, so we should look favourably on it.

      The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary, (Japan had been trying surrender for months but Roosevelt ignored all approaches by the Japanese), that would make them a crime.

      • FactsWillOut

        Look up the word “unconditional” some day.

        • albert pike

          It means the victor has the right to do whatever what ever it chooses.Not unlike the winner of a democratic election.

          Your point?

          • FactsWillOut

            Get back to me when I can carry a .32, legally.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Don’t wage a genocide if you can’t tolerate being incinerated yourself. If up the chimney was good enough for us, it’s good enough for you.

    • albert pike

      “Don’t wage a genocide if you can’t tolerate being incinerated yourself.”

      What’s that an Aboriginal proverb?

      • Infidelissima

        I think it might be a muslim one.

        • albert pike

          Don’t flatter yourself You are incapable of thought

          • Infidelissima

            …says the inbred mutant.

          • albert pike

            If there is something you don’t agree with, you should state what it is; rather than reverting to personal insults.

  • passerby1969

    My grandfather died in a bombing in WW2. My understanding is that it might even have been Allied bombers that killed him. Yet, my father and my Oma never spoke poorly of the the Allies or held it against them. The Allies liberated Holland, and for this they are grateful. Now compare those feelings of my family to those felt by Afghannis or other Muslims who were liberated. Big difference.

    • albert pike

      “The Allies liberated Hollands”

      If Britain hadn’t escalated the war Germany may not have had to invade Holland.

      Britain’s entry into the war forced Germany to occupy North Sea and Channel ports to ensure movement of shipping. In WWI Britain had blockaded these ports during the war, and for 6 months after it finished, the result was massive starvation in Europe and millions of deaths.

  • ezrapoundshop

    Coincidently I just watched this on youtube. Hellstorm documentary.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMCOKNCwHmQ

    • albert pike

      Should give MacGuffin pleasure.

  • MacGuffin

    One thinks of the nazis being boiled to death in the canals of Hamburg and one chuckles contentedly.

    • Foxy Loxy

      Yes, all those toddlers being burned to death must give you a real thrill.

      What’s the matter? On-line grooming of young children going a bit slow for you at the moment?

      • MacGuffin

        How many toddlers survived their first few days at Auschwitz, I wonder?

        As for grooming, those little bastards can comb their own hair!

        • Foxy Loxy

          Yes, because all those German toddlers were clearly herding millions of Jews into concentration camps.

          Now, get back to your grooming!

  • cromwell

    The deaths of 40,000 mostly non nazi civilian, mostly women and children did not do anyone any good, just further and those here exulting in the deaths shows how such acts still brutalise. FYI Hamburg pre the Nazis coming to power was the most anti nazi city in Germany and centre of an anti nazi underground in the war.

  • albert pike

    “Britain, as victor, claims the right to look away from the more uncomfortable aspects of some of its actions”

    Like the bombing of French citizens in Northern France prior to D day, or the starving of to death of 6 million Indians, or the handing over of much of Eastern Europe, including Poland, whose integrity was the reason for going to war in the first fking place, to Stalin.

  • Thank you RAF and the USAAF.

  • Cobbett

    The deliberate targeting of civilians is not only cowardly and despicable…it’s also considered a war crime(although you’d never guess it from the Anglo-American viewpoint)
    Either recognise Allied misdeeds or forget Germany’s.

    • pobinr

      Civilians all working for the reich
      Tactical bombing was not possible in those days. Area bombing was the only option. These raids saved hundreds of millions of lives that would have been lost if we’d not defeated the Nazis

  • Closedshop

    There was also many benefits in London being bombed from a regeneration point of view.

    Even in our own life times, Manchester town centre benefited from redevelopment after the IRA let rip.

  • logdon

    ‘If the Allies had not had the courage and determination to answer Nazi violence with violence in order to stop the Germans running amok, would liberation, renewal, a democratic future have been possible?’

    Looks to me like we’re facing a similar problem all over again.

    Where is our courage and determination now?

    Then there was no dishonest equivocation of, ‘the vast majority of Hamburg’s population are really peace loving and not real Nazi’s at all’.

    As part of the nation and of the supremacist mindset which supported the ideology of the Nazi creed, mass punishment was deemed a suitable response and we eventually won.

    When appeasement rather than winning becomes the dominant modus operandi we are destined to loose.

    In other words, ‘Let’s talk about this’, didn’t get Theo Van Gogh very far.

    I’m sure Sun Tzu would have something to say along those lines.

  • FactsWillOut

    Carpet bomb Gaza. There are too many of those Islamic savages in the world anyway.

  • rtcdmc

    In the context of the strategic bombing campaign itself, the goal was to create as much collateral damage as possible. This would complicate Germany’s war effort. At this point, assessing the impact is a philosophical exercise, not an actual military analysis. Isolating individual “crimes against humanity” during WW2 is like giving out speeding tickets at LeMans or Daytona.

    From an historical vantage point, the victors and the losers now look back with regret about the immoral acts that were committed during the war. Nations and individuals do things in war that are not done in normal course. When one’s security is threatened by an existential struggle, one will do all within one’s power to survive. That is why war should be avoided. But given man’s history, we will see more.

  • gwhh

    War is CRIME. So there no such thing as a crime in war!!!

  • Vendetta

    I would argue that those anti-fascist protestors would just as well be called fascist protestors. Calling the burning alive of 40,000 people “nothing to mourn” puts these people in the same camp as Holocaust deniers.

  • Hamburger

    Von Best was correct, it was a failure of civilisation. He failed to add that it was a also provoked by a failure of civilisation.
    One further point is that the factory and dwellings were not separated in Hamburg. People lived, and still in part do live, cheek by jowl with factories. .

  • Mike

    Before reminding us of the dreadful bombing of Coventry look up the bombing of Hull. Rarely mentioned but much worse than any other city, London included. It was the citizens of Hamburg and all the other German cities who put the Nazis in power, we can bomb you but bombing us is a crime? Well done Butch Harris and the heroes of the RAF.

    • Copyright101

      Apart from the teeny weeny problem of the RAF being the first to start mass bombing of cities and not the Germans.

      • Mr B J Mann

        What?

        The RAF were mass bombing cities before September 1939 during which Warsaw suffered around 25,800 civilian deaths, 40 percent of its buildings damaged and 10 percent of them destroyed?!

        Of course in their defence that pales into insignificance when compared to the 85% of the city destroyed by………

        The end of the war!

        Or perhaps you were thinking of the RAF’s infamous Condor Legion that wiped out Guernica?!

        • Copyright101

          1) The bombing of Warsaw in 1939 was in the context of a ground battle going on at the same time. The total civilian deaths must also been seen that context.

          2) Guernica was not wiped off the map, it still exists today! That raid was also part of the ground campaign and I read a while back that civilian deaths have been greatly inflated. (Wiki cites a possible figure of 153 civilian deaths)

          So its arguable that neither attacks were terror raids per se, designed purely to target non-combatants. They were what we term collateral damage these days. Terror bombing was not originally part of German doctrine, though later in the war they did switch to such tactics. eg Baedeker raids, V1 and V2 attacks. But this was after hundreds of RAF terror bombings.

          Sadly it was the RAF that had terror bombing as part of its strategy from very early on. High altitude mass bombing at night, with the technology available early in the war was never going to be accurate against pin point targets. (Daylight mass bombing was little better).

          In fact the ineffective nature of the heavy bomber was itself used as an excuse for indiscriminate bombing!

          For myself I think the real smoking guns of of British and US strategy are the emergence of the Mosquito and P-51D in 1941-42. Aircraft that could fly over most of Europe and outrun/outfight German fighters and thus could have carried out accurate, low-level, attacks of specific targets while minimising civilian casualties. And did that happen? No.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Balderdaesh!

            1) So how did they manage to damage and destroy half of the city and kill tens of thousands of civilians in a couple of weeks as mere “collateral damage” in a ground campaign, especially as you go on to claim that: “The total civilian deaths must also been seen that context. 2) Guernica was not wiped off the map, it still exists today! That raid was also part of the ground campaign and I read a while back that civilian deaths have been greatly inflated. (Wiki cites a possible figure of 153 civilian deaths).

            2) So what’s your excuse for the other 25,650 civilian deaths?!

            And all the incendiaries dropped on civillian targets?!?!

            Or even on military ones if you insist?!?!?!

            Or for destroying most of the rest of the city after it was captured?!?!?!

            I suppose that was purely collateral damage accidentally resulting from merely attacking military targets?!?!?!?!!!!!

            Or far all the shootings of civillians?!?!?!?!

            And the H0locaust?!?!?!?!!!!!!

            More unintended “collateral damagel?!?!?!!!!!!!

            You’ll be telling us next that when they routinely shot fifty civillian grandparents, mothers and children for every German soldier wounded in the Balkans and a hundred for every one killed it had nothing to do with terror:

            It was “just” collateral damage?!?!?!?!!!!!!

          • Copyright101

            The argument appears to be that the Germans started terror bombing and we were thus forced to retaliate but even if the bombing of Warsaw was purely a terror attack then it wasnt a policy they routinely followed.

            The German airforce was largely geared towards short range support of the ground troops. Whereas the RAF had planned for heavy bomber operations from before the war and saw itself as pursuing its own grand strategy distinct from the ground war.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Perhaps you missed it but Warsaw wasn’t the only Polish city flattened, one having *NO* military purpose, just target practice!

            And the British only switched from attacking (as a policy) targets at sea, and then (as a policy) rural military targets, to bombing cities after the Rotterdam Blitz.

            And i’d never realised that the Blitz on London (or Coventry, or Hull, or……) “was largely geared towards short range support of the ground troops”!

            As for the RAFs pre war plans: I think you’ll find the bombers were supposed to be a deterrent that was hoped never to be used, like the nuclear one, not for bombing civilians!

            And the fact that the Germans had planned a quick Blitzkreig, rather than a war of attrition, doesn’t alter the fact that they started the war, started flattening cities, and started dropping incendiaties!

          • Copyright101

            They may have started a war on Poland but we declared war on Germany. So who started the war?

          • Mr B J Mann

            They did.

            Britain declared they were coming to Poland’s aid in the war Germany started.

            Not qite the same thing is it?!

            Especially as they didn’t kick off th war by destroying Berlin and a few more German cities.

            At least one of which had absolutely no military or strategic targets!!!

          • Copyright101

            Why was Germany unjustified in declaring war on Poland right next door (and occupying German territory) while we were justified in declaring war while being more remote?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Because Britain was a Polish ally who had guaranteed their safety whereas Germany was the expansive, colonising, dictatorial aggressor.

            And if you check your European history you’ll find that Poland was once the superpower that stretched from the Arctic circle to the Black Sea and that had given Prussia to the Teutonic Knights for services rendered but had more recently been overrun and carved up by German states, Russia and Austria on a number of occasions as they became the superpowers.

            So how was Germany (or the USSR) occupying “their” territory?!

          • herrlichkeit

            The moment these two made it clear they were nazi’s you should have sacked the argument. You can’t argue with someone like that.

          • NIBB

            So why exactly did England only declared war on Germany and not to the Soviet Union when both invaded Poland? Answer: Silence.

            That fact alone and documents found where France and Englang made a secret pact to declare war before the war even started is something which nobody can’t deny. History is based on facts not fairy tales. There are documents, speeches and recordings as well plenty of historical evidence. Not to mention how England refused not once but at least 5 peace offerings shows who the aggressor was.

            Some Internet scholars here also seem to ignore that the RAF had 4 engine bombers before the war even started which only purposes was to flatten cities. Only an idiot would deny today that it was the RAF that started terror bombings against civilians since even high British officials warned and where against it. The nazis committed many crimes but terror bombing was not one of them comparing the hundred thousand tons of bombs dropped by Germany over the whole war vs the 2 millions tons dropped on Germany alone is just being plain evil. There was not one single German city not bombed, from Berlin to Hamburg to Dresden to Hannover they had to be rebuild them from scratch.

            The population of Germany was reduced in over 20+ millions. Less than 3 million where military combats so how exactly do you think the rest died? They where mostly civilians and killed by bombing raids. Unless you pretend to reduce to fake numbers and actually think all died fighting in the front. Numbers don’t lie and millions of Germans were exterminated. That was a crime and you can’t blame that on Hitler unless you actually agree all of them had to die since we’re Germans that choose him which would show the war was not Hitler but on Germany as it was the population that was attacked by allies and not German soldiers.

            The ally bombing numbers and casualties is something most governments today not only try to forget but constantly fake and reduce numbers because it was a huge war crime and we know it does sound good in text books when the good guys, those that won the war also committed atrocities. War is not Hollywood. There are no winning sides. The Soviet Union union exterminated many more millions after the war and you hardly see any movies about that. Nazis films and books just sell better.

            History is written by winners. But even historian on the ally side never tried to minize or deny the carpet and terror bombings because you can’t. Just visit any German city museum to see the devastating before and after maps. Don’t believe the Internet when there is plenty of evidence you can see for yourself in pictures and even articles in the press from that time. Not propaganda but historial evidence.

            It’s rather impressive that some people here try to justify the mass murder of civilians by trying to shift blame on the victims. It seems the hate towards Germans and Germany is still strong based on the comments I read here. Didn’t we learn anything from the past? It seems not.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Eh?

            Hasn’t that already been covered?!

            Germany terror bombed Guernica for practice.

            Germany, literally, flattened Warsaw (what you see now is a modern reconstruction).

            And several other Polish towns and villages, many with absolutely no military value, one, literally, for target practice, using the clearly identified hospital as the aiming mark!!!!!!

            And dropped incendiaries on civilian targets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            In fact, as I posted half a dozen posts above in this sub thread:

            Perhaps you missed it but Warsaw wasn’t the only Polish city
            flattened, one of them having *NO* military purpose, just target
            practice!

            And the British only switched from attacking (as a policy) targets at sea, and then (as a policy) rural military targets, to bombing cities after the Rotterdam Blitz.

            And I’d never realised that the Blitz on London (or Coventry, or Hull, or……) “was largely geared towards short range support of the ground troops”!

            As for the RAF’s pre war plans: I think you’ll find the bombers were
            supposed to be a deterrent that was hoped never to be used, like the nuclear one, not for bombing civilians!

            And the fact that the Germans had planned a quick Blitzkreig, rather than a war of attrition, doesn’t alter the fact that they started the war, started flattening cities, and started dropping incendiaries!

            If you’re going to “contribute” please have the courtesy of reading what I wrote before “replying”!

            Oh, and as for the missing 20 million, how many were sent to the extermination camps?!

            Or did a runner from them to Argentina?!?!

            And how do the deaths stack up against what the Germans did in far smaller countries like Poland.

            Or Serbia, which I believe lost the greatest proportion of its population.

            Including civilians killed in extermination camps.

            And in routine, not exemplary, retaliatory executions of women, children and the old:

            Fifty executed for every German wounded!

            And a hundred executed for every German killed!!!

          • NIBB

            I see, you justify the killing of million of persons because the German army (not the Germany population) bombed some cities first. That is your logic here? When you say things like target practicing it clearly shows your ignorance and just plain hate on the subject.

            First, I fail to see how Warsaw or Guernica belong to England. So why exactly did England bomb German cities when not a single bomb was dropped on England? No answer. Just like you completely decided to ignore and not reply why they didn’t declare war on the Soviet Union. Again no answer, even when before you said it was a question of honor and they had to defend Poland, a total lie because the Soviet Union invaded Poland basically hours after Germany did, yet neither France, neither England declared war on them.

            You are basically saying that it was ok to bomb all German cities because the Germans bombed a few first on military operations? Germany invading Poland was a regional thing, just like when the US invaded Mexico, or recently Russia Crimea. Was it wrong? Probably but this still has nothing to do with with starting a world war. And it surely had nothing to do with England which was the main aggressor in WW2. This is also why you seem to have ignored the peace offerings which where declined. Someone that wants peace does not decline them.

            You are worse than Nazis ever where. Justifying the killing of people regardless of what they do is what sick individuals do. And you don’t hide your crimes by finger pointing what others did. The terror bombing happen, and it was a war crime, regardless of all the atrocities the German army committed, that does not change history and does not erase the allied crimes, in particular the terror bombing, or the Russian gulags, or the mass raping of women and children which was the play game for soviet troops.

            You CANNOT change history or try to deny what happen. So regardless of how you try to divert the attention to something else with your copied text mostly from communist/left sites, you seem to fail to realize this article is not about any of the things you mention but the bombing of Hamburg. I’m sure you probably hate the press as well for posting something like this online and if it was up for you would probably have it taking down, so then maybe it never happen !!!

            Nothing of what you posted (mostly propaganda and not based on historical facts) denies this or justifies it. Unless its ok for you to kill millions or civilians just because they deserve it.

          • Mr B J Mann

            What, exactly, are you on, mate?!

            Where have I justified anything?!

            I’m merely pointing out that there was a war on. “Germany” bombed Spain, Poland, the Low Countries, France, the UK.

            YOUR “logic” seems to be that the “Germans” were justified in the killing of millions of Spanish, Polish, Dutch, Belgian, French, English, etc, etc, persons because the British army (not the British population) bombed some cities SECOND!!!

            What is your logic here?!?!?!?!

            As for when YOU say “when I say things like target practicing it clearly shows my ignorance and just plain hate on the subject”:

            You are obviously deranged!!!

            I was simply stating a fact:

            A German squadron couldn’t bomb its intended target so it decided to use a random place with a nice big Red Cross on its hospital for target practice!

            The rest of your diatribe is equally insane ranting.

            “Soviet Union invaded Poland basically hours after Germany did”?!?!?!

            Yeah: basically 400 hours!

            Instead of asking me stupid questions why don’t you ask yourself some relevant ones:

            How do you justify the German Army, Air Force, Navy, SS, Gestapo, Police, Prison Officers, Civilian Staff, Factory Owners and their German Workers, etc, etc, etc, killing of million of persons across Europe, North Africa, out into the Atlantic, because NO foreign forces bombed ANY German cities first?!

            So why exactly did Germany bomb Spanish, Polish, Dutch. English, and so many other nations’ cities when not a single bomb was dropped on Germany?!

            No answer?!

            You are basically saying that it was ok to for Germans to bomb all those cities because no one bombed the Germans first, or carried out any other military operations against them?

            And if Germany invading Poland was a regional thing, that’s just
            like England and France bombing Germany, a little Western European matter? Nothing to do with with starting a world war.

            However, despite you having problems with that, you seem to think that England and France should have bombed a far eastern European/Asian Empire and start a World War?!?!?!

            Now go back to whatever was rotting your brain and messing up your mind!

          • logdon

            Occupying German territory?

            I take it you’re talking of the Danzig corridor? For your information, Warsaw is nowhere near it.

          • Lawrence James.

            Because Britain and France had guaranteed the integrity of Poland. This was a matter of honour and it was now obvious that Hitler would use force to extend his power in Europe.He gambled and ultimately lost, thank heaven. Your over-simplification distorts to the point of absurdity.

          • Copyright101

            He gambled and ultimately lost, thank heaven

            Why? Is there anything you can point to in this day and age and say “Yes, it’s good the Germans lost”

          • Lawrence James.

            Yes: a mass of people are alive who Hitler wanted dead. Now go and polish your jackboots.

          • PAUL H

            Britain’s ‘Polish guarantee’ was a cynical ploy to provide the excuse to attack Germany, perfidious Albion never intended to honor it and knew they had no feasible way to help Poland.
            The Soviet invasion and occupation of Poland was ignored, Churchill finalized the betrayal of Poland, General Sikorski and the Polish officers at Katyn and the Polish Government in London; to the Soviets

            February 1939 Poland develops military guidelines for operations against Germany.
            Hitler’s War – What The Historians Neglect To Mention

            March 4th 1939. Polish Main Staff begin planning for ‘Operation West’ a full month before Hitler orders German staff to plan an attack on Poland.
            The allies have already placed their bets on the outcome; France and England guaranteeing Warsaw should the Danzig Corridor question develop militarily.
            German compromise delivered to London is rebuffed and reveals Churchill’s opinion of where Britain’s best interests lay; “What we want is for the German economy to be completely smashed”
            Hitler’s War – What The Historians Neglect To Mention

            In March 1939 a British guarantee to Poland was given by Mr. Chamberlain on the strength of a false report to the effect that a 48-hour ultimatum had been delivered by Germany to the Poles. This report subsequently turned out to be quite untrue. The guarantee had been given, however, and the decision of peace or war was now no longer in British hands. Jewry had the ball at its feet. Can we doubt but that Poland was encouraged to ignore the German note of March which set forth eminently reasonable suggestions for a peaceful solution of the problem of the Corridor? ~ Archibald. Ramsay
            http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Archibald.Maule.Ramsay/The.Nameless.War.pdf

            Between March and September; The masonic government of Poland began an extensive persecution of Germans living there, the Polish authorities interned more than 50 000 Germans, many of whom died in the Polish
            concentration camps. The Polish marshal Edward Rudz Smigly announced in the summer of 1939: “Poland wants a war against Germany.”

            Thousands of Germans were massacred by the Poles following agitation by the government. Of these, 12 857 could later be identified (“Die Polnischen Greueltaten an den Volksdeutschen in Polen”, “Polish Atrocities against Ethnic Germans in Poland”, Berlin, 1940).

            This was confirmed by the East German historian Theodor Bierschenk in 1954, on the basis of Polish documents. According to the social democratic writer Otto Heike of Lodz, there were at least 15 000 victims. Germany was the only country to protest, the documents to prove this still remain. The freemasons understood that Germany would not accept this indefinitely, but would have to act. Hitler intended eventually to act in order to put a stop to the terror and the killings.
            http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/architects-of-deception-part-xvii.html

          • Lawrence James.

            Were you listening to the Horst Wessel song when you wrote this ? Or intoxicated by the outpourings off D Irvine ?

          • Lawrence James.

            The references to ‘British Jewry’ and the neo-Nazi Ramsay identify who you are and is confirmed by your citing one of Goebbel’s’ lackeys.

          • PAUL H

            Archibald Ramsay sought peace and spoke the truth; that you say makes him a ‘neo-Nazi’ somehow. He correctly identifies the warmongers as Jewry – as in the City of London / New York financiers and their puppets. It is revealing that you can only use ad hominem’s to attack the references and not the points that they raised

          • Lawrence James.

            You haven’t mentioned the Freemasons, Illuminati and the Protocols: perhaps they in reserve. Ad homininem arguments are pertinent here because a cankered source will yield cankered history:I am astonished that Irving has not yet appeared, but I expect he will.

          • Mr B J Mann

            March 4th 1939. Polish Main Staff begin planning for ‘Operation West’ a full month before Hitler orders German staff to plan an attack on Poland.’

            Ahhhhhhhh:

            So you’re saying the Narsties didn’t start planning to build up massive Panzer Divisions, an enormous land army, including SS and Einsatgruppen, not to mention, was it, FOUR air forces, plus it’s Navy, including the U-Boats, all illegally, until April 1939?!?!?!!!!

            You must be madder than you think we are!!!!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            And while the Germans had proper, in the modern (German) sense, “Concentration Camps” long before September 1939, I think you are getting confused imagining any were in Poland before then!

          • NIBB

            They had guaranteed the integrity of Poland? Lies.

            They never declared war on the Soviet Union which invaded Poland 3 days later. Actually, neither France or England defended Poland in the whole war, not once. Poland suffered because of it. And it’s a plain lie they declared war on Germany to defend Poland when the Soviet Union also invaded it, they where also the aggressor but they decided to becomes allies with them instead. How convenient.

          • PAUL H

            who started the war? World history is the world’s court. ~ Friedrich
            Schiller

            1939 opens with FDR calling for an unprecedented peacetime allocation of $2 billion for ‘national defense’; the houses accepted an armament program of more than one billion dollars. Congressman Fish calling Roosevelt “the number one warmonger in America”. U.S. Navy already working on plans for “an offensive war of long duration” that would destroy the military and disrupt the economic life of Japan.

            The Polish diplomatic papers confirm Fish’s view, America pressured Britain to present Poland a ‘blank check, and Britain cynically encouraged Polish hostility knowing all along there was no feasible means of fulfilling it, and the check would bounce.

            Hitler’s Dazing negotiations were frustrated by Poland’s threats to completely annex Danzig, Poland’s partial mobilization, calling up 750,000 reservists and deployment of part of its army to the East Prussian border; Poland’s invasion of Czechoslovakia, Poland’s repeated violation of German borders.

            When Hitler took over Czechoslovakia; Bank of England released £6 million of Czechoslovakian gold to Hitler. Prior-advocates for cooperation with Germany flip the script 180 degrees; Milner group called for a ‘Grand Alliance’ of Poland, Rumania, France, and Britain, against Germany. Arch appeasers Lord Lothian and Lord Astor, abruptly began making speeches saying War with Germany. Chamberlain ended Britain’s policy of cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing Hitler.

            British government formally pledged itself to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.

            3rd April 1939, Hitler reacted, ordered the Wehrmacht to prepare an attack on Poland that could begin on 1st September 1939, while still making negotiations

            On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, [Roosevelt’s ambassador] Bullitt called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy in Paris and told him: “War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after Britain and France enter it.”

            Vatican and Germany wanted to sit down and hold peace talks with the Allies, but the warmongers of the UK flatly refused.

            Reportedly a Polish declaration of war on Germany at 0.00 hours on September 1st 1939; 21 cross-border raids on the night of August 31 by Polish irregulars; depredations, abuses, robberies, rapes and the murders of more than 5,000 German-speaking citizens in Poland, and inflated Gleiwitz casualty reports all provoked Hitler to retaliate. “Since 5:45 this morning we are shooting back!”

            Still Hitler put-off the attack on Poland three times, recording each time in the War Diary of the Wehrmacht: “I need more time to negotiate.”
            And even after winning Hitler offered to restore Poland and never annexed it
            Germans seized about 100,000 square miles of Germany occupied by Poland under the repudiated Versailles Treaty, while the British in 1939 seized 218,259 square miles in other parts of the earth

            On the evening of September 1st 1939, British and French Ambassadors handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs two notes demanding that Germany withdraw troops from Poland.

            September 2nd 1939, Mussolini proposed an armistice and conference to settle the German-Polish conflict.

            German and French Governments replied in the affirmative whilst the British Government refused to accept it, and thus England wrecked the initiative

            “… the British were almost solely responsible for the outbreak of both the German-Polish and the European Wars in early September, 1939. Lord Halifax, the British Foreign Minister, and Sir Howard Kennard, the British Ambassador in Warsaw, were even more responsible for the European War
            of 1939 than Sazonov, Izvolski, and Poincare were for that of 1914.
            Chamberlain’s speech before Parliament on the night of September 2, 1939, was as mendacious a misrepresentation of the German position as had been Sir Edward Grey’s address to Parliament on August 3, 1914.”
            http://www.germanvictims.com/2013/08/05/revisionism-since-15th-century

            On September 3rd, at 9 a.m., British Ambassador delivered a note repeating their demand for a withdrawal of the German troops within a two hour limit, in the event of a refusal, declaring a war with Germany after this time limit

            Thus a state of war existed between Britain and Germany from 11 a. m. on September 3rd 1939

            In Britain’s case the declaration of war was constitutionally illegal. as it should have been ratified by parliament

          • Mr B J Mann

            “germanvictims.com”?

            “Victims”?!?!?!?!!!!!!

            Yes, terrible the way those Jews stole all their poison gas, poor Germans!

            I suppose the Yanks forced them to build, was it, three state of the art airforces and all those Panzer Divisions?!

            I suppose it was Polish irregulars that bombed Guernica in a secret deal with the Brits?!?!?!!

            And all those SS and Eisatzgruppen were really Polish irregulars wearing outfits stolen from a German touring company that just happened to be showing a production about a dystopian future no German could possibly wish for?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!

            And as I’ve said before:

            People should check out the original size and borders of Poland (which elected it’s kings and had 20% democracy when in England only had 5% with the vote).

            Most if not all the supposed “German” areas of Poland (and Austrian, Czek, Russian….) in the 20th Century were actually parts of historic Poland when “Germany” was just a collection of individual princedoms and less, until germany, Russia and Austria came into the ascendancy and started invading, carving up and colonising Poland.

            And what about the German plans to yet again carve up the country, kill or drive out the Poles (as well as three million Polish Jews, they also killed three million Polish Christians and atheists, with a bit of help from their mates in victimhood, the Russians!).

            “germanvictims.com”?!?!?!!!!!

            Now I’ve heard everything:

            Especially vis a vis the Poles!!!!!!!!!

          • PAUL H

            ^ that is not an argument that changes any single fact in my post concerning the outbreak of WWII.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Facts?!

            Like Navies actually planning for every eventuality?!?!

            I suppose you prefer the modern way.

            Invade a country and then decide how to do it afterwards?!?!!!

            As for Danzig, and “Germans seized about 100,000 square miles of Germany occupied by Poland under the repudiated Versailles Treaty”: the original Polish Western border was pretty much as it is now. and much further West than it was in 1939. Gdansk was part of historic Poland (going back a Millenium). Prussia was given to the Teutonic Knights by Poland for services rendered, though I think it still retained some control over it. Danzig was annexed to Prussia during one of the partitions of Poland. It was historically originally basically Polish, although latterly the majority of residents were German, who oppressed the substantial Polish minority between the wars, especially the Jews.

            You are Paul Hitler and I claim my £5!

          • PAUL H

            There is no evidence that Germany had naval plans to invade Japan, UK or USA

            If we follow your line of reason the Germans only took Poland from the original Mongol occupiers, or maybe liberated a Poland enslaved to the post 1492 autonomous Talmudic government

            “Unfortunately, the exigencies of power politics after every cyclical war have been such that it was invariably deemed expedient to sacrifice some small nations for the general good, and a typical example is cited by Ford Madox Hueffer in “When Blood is Their Argument,” published in London in 1915: “I think the time has come when we may say that the one crime that this country (Britain) has committed against civilization was its senseless opposition to Napoleon. It was, to me, extraordinarily odd to hear the British Prime Minister the other day talk of the Campaign of 1815 as a war of Freedom. For, if you come to think of it, by the treaty after that war, Great Britain, the Holy Alliance and Metternich … affirmed upon Poland the triple yoke of Austria, Russia and Prussia …” There is a similar indictment [[84]] by some British author of note on practically every war of the Balance of Power fought by Britain. – The Empire Of “The City” by Edwin C. Knuth

            ‘Between WWI and WWII ‘peaceful Poland’ had waged war 6 times against its neighbors Russia, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia and Lithuania

            On 14th January, 1940, The Sunday Times gave prominence to a
            letter from an anonymous correspondent, who demanded to know why we were not using our air power “to increase the effect of the blockade.”
            “Scrutator,” in the same issue, commented on this letter as follows:
            “Such an extension of the offensive would inevitably develop into
            competitive frightfulness. It might be forced on us in reprisals for enemy
            action, and we must be in a position to make reprisals if necessary. But the
            bombing of industrial towns, with its unavoidable loss of life among the
            civilian population — that is what it would come to — would be inconsistent
            with the spirit, if not the actual words of the pledges given from both sides
            at the beginning of the war.” The above quotation is taken from a book
            entitled Bombing Vindicated, which was published in 1944 by Mr. J. M. Spaight, C.B., C.B.E., who was the principal assistant secretary at the Air Ministry during the war.

            As its title suggests, this book is an attempt to justify the indiscriminate use of bombers against the civil population. In it Mr. Spaight boasts that this form of bombing “saved civilisation”: and reveals the startling fact that it was Britain that started this ruthless form of war on the very evening of the day on which Mr. Churchill became Prime Minister, May 11th, 1940. On page 64 of his book, Mr. Spaight gives a further piece of information, which renders this sudden change of British policy all the more astonishing; for he states that a declaration was made by the British and French Governments on 2nd September, 1939, that “Only strictly military
            objectives in the narrowest sense of the word would be bombarded.” This
            declaration, of course, was made in the days of Mr Chamberlain’s Premiership; and no single fact perhaps could demarcate and differentiate more clearly the difference in the character and behaviour between Mr. Chamberlain and Mr.Churchill
            http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Archibald.Maule.Ramsay/The.Nameless.War.pdf

            On the 27th January, 1940, thirteen days after the letter in The Sunday Times already quoted, The Daily Mail endorsed editorially the views which had been expressed in that issue by “Scrutator”; and it devoted a leading article, writes Mr. Spaight, to combating the suggestion of Mr. Amery and others that we should start the bombing of Germany. Sir Duff Cooper had written on the previous day in the same paper that “there would appear to exist a kind of unwritten truce between the two belligerents, according to the tacit terms of which they do not bomb one another.” In view of the declaration by Britain and France of September 2nd, 1939, that they would “only bomb military objectives in the narrowest sense of the word,” Sir Duff Cooper’s verbiage about “a kind of unwritten truce,” seems to me gravely obscurantist, if honest. Inside the House of Commons, the pro-Jewish war mongers were now becoming more and more intransigent; and more and more set on sabotaging the chances of turning the “phoney war” into a negotiated peace. This in spite of the fact that Britain had nothing to gain by further and total war, and everything to lose. The Jews, of course, had everything to lose by a peace which left the German goldfree money system and Jew-free Government intact, and nothing to gain. It seemed clearer to me every day that this struggle over the question of civilian bombing was the crux of the whole matter; and that by this method of warfare alone could the Jews and their allies cut the Gordian knot of
            stalemate leading to peace; and 45 probably later on to a joint attack on
            Jewish Bolshevism in Russia
            http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Archibald.Maule.Ramsay/The.Nameless.War.pdf

            Accordingly, on 15th February, 1940, I put down the following question to the Prime Minister: Captain Ramsay asked the Prime Minister: “Whether he will assure the House that H.M. Government will not assent to the suggestions made to them, to abandon those principles which led them to
            denounce the bombing of civilian populations in Spain and elsewhere, and embark upon such a policy themselves?” Mr Chamberlain himself replied in
            outspoken terms: “I am unaware of the suggestions to which my honourable and gallant friend refers. The policy of H.M. Government in this matter was fully stated by myself in answer to a question by the honourable Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr Dalton) on 14th September last. In the course of that answer I said that whatever be the length to which others may go, H.M. Government will never resort to the deliberate attack on women and children, and other civilians, for purposes of mere terrorism. I have nothing to add to that answer.” Both this question and the reply were evidently distasteful in the extreme to the war mongers, so I resolved to carry the matter a stage further.
            http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Archibald.Maule.Ramsay/The.Nameless.War.pdf

            [Churchill] The man who would tear up the British pledge of September 2nd, 1939, and start bombing the civilians of Germany was the man for the war mongers who now ruled the roost. And so civilian bombing [by England] started on the evening that the architect of the Norwegian fiasco became Prime Minister, viz., May 11th, 1940.
            http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Archibald.Maule.Ramsay/The.Nameless.War.pdf

            THE MOST UNCIVILIZED FORM OF WARFARE
            The eminent British war historian and strategist, Captain Sir Basil Liddell Hart declared that through this strategy, victory had been achieved “through practicing the most uncivilized means of warfare that the world had known since the Mongol invasions.” – The Evolution of Warfare. Baber & Faber, 1946, p.75.

            “It was absolutely contrary to international law.” – Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

            “The British Government would never resort to the deliberate attack on women and children for the purposes of mere terrorism.” – Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain before he was ousted as Prime Minister.

            Winston Churchill’s enthusiasm for the deliberate destruction of civilian populations could be traced back to his comment: “The air opened paths along which death and terror could be carried far behind the lines of the actual enemy; to women, children, the aged, the sick, who in earlier struggles would perforce have been left untouched.” – Winston Churchill, The Great War. Vol. 3 P1602.

            The German chancellor, on the other hand, was repelled by the mere thought of targeting civilians. “The construction of bombing airplanes
            would soon be abandoned as superfluous and ineffective if bombing as such were branded as an illegal barbarity. If, through the Red Cross Convention, it definitely turned out possible to prevent the killing of a defenseless wounded man or prisoner, then it ought to be equally possible, by analogous convention, and finally to stop the bombing of equally defenseless civil populations.” – German Chancellor Adolf Hitler.
            http://justice4germans.com/2015/05/31/a-most-uncivilized-means-of-warfare-genocidal-british-bombing-policy-during-world-war-ii/

            SLAYING IN THE NAME OF THE LORD
            “I am in full agreement (of terror bombing). I am all for the bombing of working class areas in German cities. I am a Cromwellian – I believe in ‘slaying in the name of the Lord!” – Sir. Archibald Sinclair, British RAF Secretary for Air.
            http://justice4germans.com/2015/05/31/a-most-uncivilized-means-of-warfare-genocidal-british-bombing-policy-during-world-war-ii/

            WOMEN AND CHILDREN TO BE SLAIN AS A PRIORITY
            “They (the British Air Chiefs) argued that the desired result, of reducing German industrial production, would be more readily achieved if the homes of the workers in the factories were destroyed; if the workers were kept busy arranging for the burial of their wives and children, output might reasonably be expected to fall.” – Advance to Barbarism, F. J. P Veale; Distinguished British Jurist.
            http://justice4germans.com/2015/05/31/a-most-uncivilized-means-of-warfare-genocidal-british-bombing-policy-during-world-war-ii/

            Advance to Barbarism. Veale, F. J. P. Discusses the Allied responsibility for mass saturation bombing.

            “The Prime Minister [Winston Churchill] had been asked if the bombing of Germany ought not really to focus on military targets rather than civilian ones. In the words of the French source, Churchill’s reply was, ‘D’abord le plaisir, après le travail’ (Pleasure before work), and thus the bombs were directed at the residential quarters instead.” ~ Quoted in: Hamburger
            Abendblatt, 21. September 1963. (Scriptorium comments: International law
            prohibits intentional, deliberate attacks on civilians. Churchill thus willingly made himself a mass murderer, and exposed the bomber personnel of his
            RAF to the same charges. But an international military tribunal à la Nuremberg has yet to concern itself with this crime against humanity, since after all the victims were only Germans.) ~ Wilhelm Backhaus

            THE MOST UNCIVILIZED FORM OF WARFARE
            The first breach of international law: “This raid on the night of May 11 1940, although in itself trivial, was an epoch-marking event since it was the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilized warfare that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy combatant forces. Their flight marked the end of an epoch which had lasted for two and one-half centuries.” – F.J. P Veale, Advance to Barbarism, p.172.

            “We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland.” – J. M. Spaight, CB. CBE. Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry.

            “Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of
            propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic
            bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11 1940, the publicity it deserves.” – Bombing Vindicated. J.M. Spaight, CB. CBE. Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry.

            “Retaliation was certain if we carried the war into Germany… there was a reasonable possibility that our capital and industrial centers would not have been attacked if we had continued to refrain from attacking those of Germany.” – J. M. Spaight, CB. CBE. Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry.

            “The primary purpose of these raids was to goad the Germans into undertaking reprisal raids of a similar character on Britain. Such raids
            would arouse intense indignation in Britain against Germany and so create a war psychosis without which it would be impossible to carry on a modern war.” – Dennis Richards, the Royal Air Force 1939 – 1945. The Fight
            at Odds. H. M Stationery Office.
            http://justice4germans.com/2015/05/31/a-most-uncivilized-means-of-warfare-genocidal-british-bombing-policy-during-world-war-ii/

            May 15th 1940-RAF Bomber Command began a strategic air offensive against targets inside Germany by attacking industrial installations in the Ruhr.

            May 15/16: In the 1st large-scale World War II strategic bombing[9]:53 and the 1st attack on the German “backcountry”, just 24 of 96 dispatched bombers found theRuhr Area power stations and refineries.[10]
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_operations_during_the_Battle_of_Europe

            THE MOST UNCIVILIZED FORM OF WARFARE
            As early as 1953 H. M Stationery Office published the first volume of a work, The Royal Air Force, 1939 – 1945, The Fight at Odds. P.122 described as ‘officially commissioned and based throughout on official
            documents which had been read and approved by the Air Ministry Historical
            Branch. Its author, Dennis Richards, reveals that: “If the Royal Air Force
            raided the Ruhr, destroying oil plants with its most accurately placed bombs
            and urban property with those that went astray, the outcry for retaliation
            against Britain might prove too strong for the German generals to resist. Indeed, Hitler himself would probably lead the clamor. The attack on the Ruhr was therefore an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London.”
            http://justice4germans.com/2015/05/31/a-most-uncivilized-means-of-warfare-genocidal-british-bombing-policy-during-world-war-ii/

            Churchill knew from code-breaking, he knew from reading the German air force signals, which were broken on May 26, 1940, that Hitler had given orders that no British town was to be bombed. London was completely
            embargoed. The German air force was allowed to bomb ports and harbors and dockyards, but not towns as such.

            July 20th 1940. Churchill is desperate to stop the German peace offer becoming generally known. With provocation in mind, the same day Churchill sends for bomber Command’s Charles Portal asking; what is the earliest day a savage attack on Berlin could be launched.
            Churchill’s War ~ David Irving.

            August 4th 1940. Charles DeGaulle finds Churchill shaking his fist at the sky asking; “why won’t you come” – meaning why would the Germans not begin bombing Britain.
            Churchill’s War ~ David Irving.

            August 24th 1940. A single stick of bombs from a stray German bomber drops within London proper, causes little damage, but provides the
            pretext for Churchill to order retaliation bombing of Berlin by 100 aircraft. Churchill’s War ~ David Irving.

            Hitler, as we know, carried on until September 1940 without bombing any English towns. The embargo stayed in force, we can see it in the German archives now, and we know from the code-breaking of the German signals,
            that Churchill was reading Hitler’s orders to the German air force: not on any account to bomb these towns. So there was no way that we could drag in the Americans that way unless we could provoke Hitler to do it. Which was why, on August 25, 1940, Churchill gave the order to the British air force to go and bomb Berlin. Although the chief of the bomber command and the chief of staff of the British air force warned him that if we bombed Hitler, he may very well lift the embargo on British towns. And Churchill
            just twinkled. Because that was what he wanted — of course.

            August 25 1940: First RAF raid on Berlin
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_operations_during_the_Battle_of_Europe

            August 25, 1940, At 9:15 that morning Churchill personally telephoned the bomber commander, himself, to order the bombing of Berlin — one hundred bombers to go and bomb Berlin. They went out and bombed Berlin that night, and Hitler still didn’t move. Then Churchill ordered another raid on Berlin, and so it went on for the next seven or ten days until finally, on September 4th, Hitler lost his patience and made that famous speech in the Sport Palace in Berlin in which he said: “This madman has bombed Berlin now seven times. If he bombs Berlin now once more, then I shall not only just attack their towns, I shall wipe them out!” (“Ich werde ihre Städte ausradieren! ” ) A very famous speech. Of course German schoolchildren are told about the Hitler speech, but not told about what went first. They’re not told how Churchill set out deliberately to provoke the bombing of his own capital. And on the following day Churchill ordered Berlin bombed again. And now of course the Germans started bombing the docks in London, the East End of London, finally the city of London and the West
            End on November 6 and 7, 1940. In September 1940, 7,000 Londoners were killed in the bombing as the result of Churchill’s deliberate provocation. Still the Americans didn’t come in. Kennedy was still the ambassador. Churchill moved heaven and earth to have him dismissed and recalled to the United States.
            http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p261_Irving.html

            Every time he was told that German bombers were enroute, and even though he initiated the policy of bombing civilians, a policy Hitler abhorred, Churchill fled London.
            “A Straight Look at the Second World War,” THE BARNES REVIEW for January/February 2012.

            THE MOST UNCIVILIZED FORM OF WARFARE
            “Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly three months after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets. Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones.” – J. M Spaight. CB. CBE. Bombing Vindicated, p.47. Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry.
            http://justice4germans.com/2015/05/31/a-most-uncivilized-means-of-warfare-genocidal-british-bombing-policy-during-world-war-ii/

            September 4th 1940, after seven British raids on Berlin, an exasperated Hitler orders contact made with British ambassador in Sweden with a repeat offer of peace. After being rebuffed, Hitler asks Hess to establish a dialogue with his contacts in Scotland
            The same day Hitler makes a speech declaring; if that drunken poltroon Churchill attacks again than British cities would be eradicated.
            This is exactly what Churchill wants, and the same afternoon Churchill orders an air raid for the following night.
            Churchill’s War ~ David Irving.

            September 6th 1940, Churchill’s much sought after blitz begins: East end of London attacked by 1000 German bombers in the afternoon, repeating the attack that night. 1000 Londoners are killed. Churchill was generally able to use Ultra intercepts to ensure he was not in London when it was bombed
            Churchill’s War ~ David Irving.

            September 7 1940: The Blitz bombing of Britain began with 57 nights of air raids
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_operations_during_the_Battle_of_Europe

            The Blitz Between 7 September 1940 and 21 May 1941 there were major aerial raids (attacks in which more than 100 tons of high explosives were
            dropped) on 16 British cities. Over a period of 267 days (almost 37 weeks), London was attacked 71 times, Birmingham, Liverpool and Plymouth eight times, Bristol six, Glasgow five, Southampton four,Portsmouth and Hull three, and there was also at least one large raid on another eight cities.[1] This was a result of a rapid escalation starting on 24 August 1940, when
            night bombers aiming for RAF airfields drifted off course and accidentally destroyed several London homes, killing civilians, combined with the UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s immediate response of bombing Berlin on the following night.

            Starting on 7 September 1940, London was bombed by the Luftwaffe for 57 consecutive nights.[7] More than one million London houses were destroyed or damaged, and more than 40,000 civilians were killed, almost half of them in London.[4] Ports and industrial centres outside London were also heavily attacked.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz

            “Strictly speaking, the Germans were right to call the attack on London a reprisal.” ~ Baron Patrick Maynard Stuart Blackett (1897-1974), British physicist and Nobel laureate Quoted in: National Zeitung, No. 44, October 23, 1992, p. 9, 10, 11.

            THE TRUTH HIDDEN FROM THE BRITISH PUBLIC
            “It is one of the greatest triumphs of modern emotional engineering that, in spite of the plain facts of the case which could never be disguised or even materially distorted, the British public, throughout the Blitz Period (1940 – 1941), remained convinced that the entire responsibility for their sufferings it was undergoing rested on the German leaders.”
            “Too high praise cannot, therefore, be lavished on the British emotional engineers for the infinite skill with which the public mind was conditioned prior to and during a period of unparalleled strain.” – Advance to Barbarism, P. 168. Mitre Press, London. F. J. P Veale, British Jurist.
            http://justice4germans.com/2015/05/31/a-most-uncivilized-means-of-warfare-genocidal-british-bombing-policy-during-world-war-ii/

          • Mr B J Mann

            “the Germans only took Poland from the original Mongol occupiers, or maybe liberated a Poland enslaved to the post 1492 autonomous Talmudic government”?!?!?!!!!!!!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Do you even bother to read what you cut and paste, Adolf, never mind what you are replying to.

            You are basically carpet bombing yourself in the foot.

            As already pointed out, and as your post confirms, Britain originally had a blanket ban on bombing non military targets, in fact it originally had a ban on military land targets in case of accidental civilian casualties.

            It was only after Germany’s flattening of Polish cities, INCLUDING ONES WITH NO STRATECIC VALUE OR TACTICAL RELEVANCE, that the policy changed, and was intensified after the Rotterdam Blitz and the Blitzes on British towns and citiesn

            You really are a Narsty piece of work!

          • PAUL H

            My copy paste sourced quotes indisputably reveal that British air raids on civilians were cynically designed to provoke a similar response from Germany

            The first breach of international law: “This raid on the night of May 11 1940, although in itself trivial, was an epoch-marking event since it was the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilized warfare that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy combatant forces. Their flight marked the end of an epoch which had lasted for two and one-half centuries.” – F.J. P Veale, Advance to Barbarism, p.172.

            Three days after the allied air raid referenced above, on May 14 1940, Germany launched tactical bombers to attack a military target in Rotterdam
            The group signal plane had unfortunately retracted its aerial and did not receive the recall that was sent.

            They did no know that the target in Rotterdam had already surrendered.

            Official inquiries put it down to ‘one of the misfortunes of war’

            A war that that the historical evidence shows Hitler tried hard to avert at every step, but a war that Roosevelt and Churchill and their financial backers long sought for and achieved.

            Your mock indignation, over the the few deaths and limited damage to parts of Warsaw, caused by German tactical bomber raids targeting military facilities in close proximity to civilian structures in a city, is designed to focus on the German patsy and obfuscate the real atrocities of Poland:

            That FDR and Churchill and their financial backers cynically used Poland to provoke war with Germany.

            That Churchill’s ally Stalin also invaded East Poland, annexed it and the Baltic republics, attacked Finland, and deported to concentration camp-Gulags in Russia between one and two million Poles, Stalin also murdered in cold blood some 15,000 Polish officers and intelligentsia at Katyn

            The allied response to the Katyn massacre was to simply ignore it, later oppose ant investigation, and get rid of General Sikorski for raising the matter.

            WWII’s most cruel tyrant Stalin, nevertheless sometimes told the truth when it suited his purposes
            “It was not Germany that attacked France and Britain, it was France and Britain that attacked Germany and they are responsible for the war.” ~ Pravda of 29th November 1939

            Having provoked the 1943 Warsaw ghetto rising, the allies virtually stood down while the Germans naturally suppressed that insurrection according to the laws of war; and destroyed the leadership of a free Poland for them.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You really should try reading your posts before hitting send.

            Or do you find them indigestible drivel too?!

            I’ve already sown how you are wrong.

            And have even been cqrpet-bombing yourself in the foot!

          • PAUL H

            I hadn’t noticed you effectively refuting one point raised, for you the ability to recite 70-year old wartime atrocity propaganda is all that matters

          • Mr B J Mann

            Yes, you haven’t noticed:

            Not even when I’ve demonstrated when your own posts have undermined your own argument!

            Stop wasting my time troll!!!

            X<——-

          • Mr B J Mann

            Also you assert that Britain started non military bombing on the day the prime minister changed.

            Even if the new PM came in with the new policy in mind, it is highly unlikely government policy could be put in place, never mind be carried out, within hours of him taking office.

            Do you have any proof, rather than assertions of opinion?!

            Meanwhile Holland was first bombed on the 10th May, the day before th change of PM, and Rotterdam Blitzed on the 14th, both activities that must have been planned for some time (unlike reactive strikes)!

          • Mr B J Mann

            “The first breach of international law: “This raid on the night of May 11 1940, although in itself trivial, was an epoch-marking event since it was the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilized warfare that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy combatant forces.”

            Apart from the fact there was no international law on the subject, just a gentlemen’s agreement not to do so unless the Germans started it, which they did in Poland, including Blitzing a place with absolutely no military presence or strategic value:

            That trivial British bombing was not even in retaliation for the epoch-marking German bombing events in Poland, which were the real first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilized warfare that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy combatant forces.”

            The first breach of international law, well, actually the umpteenth by your hero H I t l e r, was the bombing of NEUTRAL Holland the day BEFORE: “This raid on the night of May 11 1940, although in itself trivial”, that was yet another “epoch-marking event” by your beloved Blitzing Narsties “since it was” yet ANOTHER “deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilized warfare that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy combatant forces” by the Narsties you are an apologist for.

            And any subsequent non trivial events on the part of the British followed not just Guernica, not even Poland and Warsaw, nor even the initial bombing of Holland, but the Blitz on Rotterdam!

            You really are as mad as a hatter!!!!!!!!

          • PAUL H

            The targeting of civilians was/is contrary to the The Hague Convention on Land Warfare (“Convention relating to the Laws and Customs of War on Land”) which regulated the relations between belligerents and established the standard of behavior of the combatants at war.

            It’s clearly understood that civilian casualties must be minimized in achieving military goals.

            The allied terror bombing of civilians inverted that precept

            The record shows Hitler was opposed to terror air raids on civilians, while Churchill was very much for it, Churchill even authorized 250,000 anthrax bombs be prepared to ‘drench Europe’

            The primary targets of the German raids on Warsaw were military barracks and defended positions.
            The civilian population were not deliberately targeted.
            Germany at that time had precious few bombs or ammunition to waste
            The full German assault lasted only two days, the peripheral damage and casualties were minimal when compared with countless allied raids on Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example

            Rotterdam was attacked by Germany on the 14th May, three days AFTER the allied raids on the 11th May designed to ‘invite’ German raids on Britain.

            The military target in Rotterdam had already surrendered and was bombed in error.

            Holland officially surrendered the next day on the 15th May

            The same night, of the 15th May the allies were already in position to begin large-scale strategic bombing of industrial / civilian concentrations in the Ruhr.

            I don’t dispute the allies likely used Rotterdam as propaganda to justify their long yearned for terror bombing of German civilians; as a noble ‘reprisal’ for Rotterdam

            Guernica, Warsaw and Rotterdam are all dismissed as examples of German terror bombing in any way comparable with the most egregious examples of allied terror bombing

            Three German tactical bombers attacked Guernica killing ninety seven people

            The air raid on Caën on the afternoon of D-day killed 2,500 people, including families bringing children for first communion in the city’s famous twin-spired cathedral. Peasants and villagers were machine-gunned and strafed.

            July 19 1943: The first Allied World War II bombing of Rome drops 800 tons of bombs on Littoro and Clampino airports, causing immense damage and 2000 deaths[19]:110
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_operations_during_the_Battle_of_Europe

            When huge fleets of nearly 800 RAF Halifax’s and Lancaster’s, plus USAAF heavy bombers destroyed Hamburg with 2,326 tons of bombs including phosphorus. Killing 40,000 in just one raid, with 75,000 killed over the three day operation

            By the summer of 1944 Britain had 26,000 tons of mustard-gas and six thousand tons of phosgene already filled into bombs or in bulk storage,
            ‘enough,’ as he was briefed, ‘to cover Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne, Essen,
            Frankfurt, and Cassel put together.’[126] But enraged by Hitler’s ‘indiscriminate’ use of the V–1 flying bombs, in a late-night Defence Committee session on July 6, 1944 Churchill had ordered his chiefs of staff, in an inebriated outburst, to prepare to ‘drench’ the six selected German cities with poison-gas attacks in violation of all treaties and conventions to the contrary (he dismissed these treaties as ‘silly conventions of the mind,’ and as a matter of changing morality, ‘simply a question of fashion changing as she does between long and short skirts for women’).[127] In
            a rare display of steadfastness, his chiefs of staff finally overruled him.
            NUREMBERG THE LAST BATTLE ~ David Irving

            “The Allied air raid on Dresden on Feb. 13-14 killed 300,000 persons,” reported Stars & Stripes, May 5, 1945
            http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Dresden/deathroll/

          • Mr B J Mann

            Don’t you understand that you are spouting drivel?!

            Hitler accidentally managed to kill 30,000 civilians and flattern half of Warsaw while not targetting civillians in his campaign to cheer them up with bombs.

            He also targetted towns with absolutely no military significance whatsoever.

            And then, after Poland’s surrender, he flattened most of the rest of Warsaw, and upped the civilian death toll to SIX MILLION!!!!!!

            If you don’t think that is a terror campaign you are clinically insane!!!!!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Oh, and when did the Guernicans declare war on Hitler?!?!?!!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            By the way:

            Winston Churchill’s enthusiasm for the deliberate destruction of civilian populations could be traced back to his comment: “The air opened paths along which death and terror could be carried far behind the lines of the actual enemy; to women, children, the aged, the sick, who in earlier struggles would perforce have been left untouched.” – Winston Churchill, The Great War. Vol. 3 P1602.”

            Surely that actually refers to the German Zeppelin terror bombing of UK civilians?!?!?!!!!

            So he’d hardly be enthusiastic about it!!!!!!!!

          • PAUL H

            Wars are brutal and best avoided, Churchill however thought war “delicious”

            “On July 28, 1914, he wrote to his wife that everything was now heading for a conflict and a catastrophe: ‘I am interested, in a complete turmoil, and happy.’ ~ Winston Churchill – Erich Schwinge, Bilanz der Kriegsgeneration, p. 43.

            1915 Winston Churchill told Margot Asquith that he would not at any price wish to live outside this ‘delicious war’.” – Erich Schwinge, Bilanz der Kriegsgeneration, p. 43.

            Churchill and his cousin Roosevelt were instrumental in dragging Britain into two world wars and destroying the British Empire

            But anyway, in effect the Zeppelin raids were largely psychological and economic few were killed, The Zeppelin hysteria was propaganda to cover up the facts that the British army meanwhile were executing their own troops, and wasting away a huge amount of cannon fodder
            “60,000 of Our Boys cut down on first day at Somme”
            600,000 casualties; 150,000 Allied troops killed .

          • Mr B J Mann

            Well, you’re the expert on propaganda!

          • Mr B J Mann

            As for:

            “The German chancellor, on the other hand, was repelled by the mere thought of targeting civilians.”

            You’re having a laugh?!

            Yeah, he wouldn’t hurt a fly!

            People have sat and watched him not kill a fly on several occasion!!!!

            Six Million Jews howevet?!?!?!!!

            The disabled and mentally defective,,,,,,

            Communists and Priests,,,,,

            Six Million poles (including three million Jews),,,,,,

            Romanies, other Slavs (20% of the Serbs, was it?!)………

            Guernica……..

            Yup, quite clearly:

            “The German chancellor, on the other hand, was repelled by the mere thought of targeting civilians.”

          • PAUL H

            Your list of points belongs in a 1940’s propaganda campaign

            It’s historically documented fact that Hitler opposed air raids on civilians while Churchill was in favor.

            Put it all down to an amusing meaningless trick of reality if you like.

            Six million Jews is a certain physical impossibility that any few hours of diligent research confirms

            No documentary evidence of the “Holocaust”
            No “smoking gun” evidence / “dearth of hard evidence”
            No bodies
            HOLOCAUST DEPROGRAMMING COURSE
            http://holocaustdeprogrammingcourse.com/

            The “three million Polish Jews” figure is well understood to be a gross exaggeration

            Stalin, not Hitler, deported one to two million Poles to Soviet concentration camp/Gulags, few returned.
            Stalin, not Hitler murdered at least 15,000 Polish officers and intelligentsia at Katyn

            America was euthanizing and sterilizing the disabled and mentally defective for longer and more extensively than ever happened in Germany.

            In fact Hitler made euthanasia permissible only after a personal plea from the mother of a severely malformed infant
            It turns out that sort of thing never really caught on in Germany like it did in America

            Three German bombers attacked Guernica with ninety seven people killed

          • Mr B J Mann

            Propaganda?

            You’re the expert on that!

            And when did the Guernicans declare war on Hitler?!

          • Lawrence James.

            Aerial bombardment of towns and cities, including London and Paris, was undertaken by Germany throughout World War I. It was utterly discriminate like the naval bombardments of East Coast towns in 1914 and 1915. Wriggle and nit pit as much as you can: bombing civilians was part of the German way of war and they stuck to their old methods in 1939-1940.

          • Mike

            Complete , utter and total biased nonsense

          • PAUL H

            In fact it’s the basic, unadorned and historically accurate truth

            “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~ Dresden James

          • Mike

            What does the “H” stand for I wonder?

          • Copyright101

            Is ‘Mike’ rhyming slang?

          • Lawrence James.

            Copyright rhymes with . . .l

          • Mr B J Mann

            Clearly you were brought up in an Argentinian Narzti enclave where a well-packaged web of l!es has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, and the truth seems utterly preposterous and its speaker a rav!ng lunat!c, hence your belief that your “contribution” is the basic, unadorned and historically accurate truth?!?!?!?!

          • herrlichkeit

            “The warmongers of the U.K. flatly refused.”

            It’s so easy to read into the agenda of you people when you use subjective language to address the allies in the way you do. To refer to the U.K. as “warmongers” in the pejorative sense when discussing Europe 1936-1939, while writing a 4 paragraph statement as to why hitlers annexation of 3 neighbouring states was justified, speaks volumes about where your sympathies lie.

            You completely ignore the fact that for 3 years prior to the invasion the wermacht quadrupled in size, and the biggest air force in Europe was amassed with state of the art close air support and fast attack vehicles forming the core of the armed forces. Were these fast attack vehicles and CAS planes for defensive purposes? This was of course all Poland’s fault though right? and Czechslovakia’s? and Austria’s? Holland’s? Belgium’s? Norway’s? The war was being prepared for from 1936, that is historical fact also, to suggest that the Germans were somehow adverse to conflict is quite frankly embarrassing.

          • PAUL H

            Try to keep ‘sympathies’ aside and instead maintain empathy for the truth to arrive at an impartial historical view.

            MYTH.1 Germany Aggressors

            “Here it seems to me is the key to the problem whether Hitler deliberately aimed at war. He did not so much aim at war as expect it to happen, unless he could evade it by some ingenious trick, as he had evaded civil war at home. Those who have evil motives easily attribute them to others; and Hitler expected others to do what he would have done in their place.
            England and France were ‘hate-inspired antagonists,’
            Soviet Russia was plotting the overthrow of European civilisation, an empty boast which indeed the Bolsheviks had often made;
            Roosevelt was out to ruin Europe.
            Hitler certainly directed his generals to prepare for war. But so did the British, and for that matter every other government.
            It is the job of general staffs to prepare for war… all the British directives from 1935 onwards were pointed solely against Germany; Hitler’s were concerned only with making Germany stronger. If therefore we were (wrongly) to judge political intentions from military plans the British government would appear set on war with Germany not the other way around.
            But of course we apply to the behavior of our own governments a generosity of interpretation which we do not extend to others.
            People regard Hitler as wicked; and then find proofs of his wickedness in evidence which they would not use against others.
            Why do they apply this double standard?
            Only because they assume Hitler’s wickedness in the first place,”
            ~ A.J.P. Taylor’s “The Origins of the Second World War”.
            Such rare objectivity for a British historian.

            What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers 1933-1939
            http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/nothanks/wwr00.html

            “This article from 1940 by Dr. Friedrich Stieve provides an overview of Hitler’s various peace initiatives from the time he was first duly appointed as Chancellor in 1933 until war was declared on Germany in 1939. It demonstrates clearly how these efforts at preserving world peace were thwarted by British, French, American and Russian war mongers and their string pullers, the International Bankers who had an entirely different agenda to which Hitler’s proposals and his model of National Socialism posed a huge threat. ”
            http://justice4germans.com/2013/06/29/what-the-world-rejected-hitlers-peace-offers-1933-1939-time-to-face-the-facts/

            ‘Peace loving Poland’ 1930.
            “We are aware that war between Poland and Germany cannot be avoided. We must systematically and energetically prepare ourselves for this war. The present generation will see that a new victory at Grunwald will be inscribed in the pages of history. But we shall fight this Grunwald in the suburbs of Berlin. Our ideal is to round Poland off with frontiers on the Oder in the West and the Neisse in Lausatia, and to reincorporate Prussia, from the Pregel to the Spree. In this war no prisoners will be taken, there will be no room for humanitarian feelings. We shall surprise the whole world in our war with Germany.” ~ Mocarstwowiec, Polish newspaper Issue 3 from 1930, i.e. before Hitler became Chancellor! Mocarstwowiec was the voice of the Polish “League for Great Power”. Quoted in: Bertram de Colonna, Poland from the Inside, p. 90.

            Polish persecution of non-polish ethnic minorities as policy of ‘Polonisation’ and ‘Catholisising’ of five million Ukrainians.
            14th December 1931: Manchester Guardian. “The minorities in Poland are to disappear; this policy is being pushed forward ruthlessly and without the slightest regard for public opinion abroad, for international treaties, and for the League of Nations. The Ukraine under Polish rule is an inferno – the same can be said of white Russia with even greater justice. The purpose of Polish policy is the disappearance of the national minorities. Both on paper, and in reality”
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBLgZAv_Iqo#t=70

            ‘Peace loving Soviet Union’ 1931
            “War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in 20 or 30 years…The Bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record.
            There will be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clentched fist.”
            Dimitry Z. Manuilsky in a speech made in 1931 before the Lenin School of Political Warfare. (He became an officer of the U.N. Security Council in 1949)
            http://politicalvelcraft.org/2013/07/30/new-world-order-chronology-nothing-new-here-we-fought-this-same-menace-in-1776/#more-86186

            ‘Peace loving America’ 1931
            “The Hoover Moratorium was not intended to “help” Germany, as Hoover had never been “pro-German”. The Moratorium on Germany’s war debts was necessary so that Germany would have funds for rearming. In 1931, the truly forward-looking diplomats were anticipating the Second World War, and there could be no war without an “aggressor”.”
            http://www.whale.to/b/m_ch7.html

            Between 1932 and 1942, the USA used about 12 per cent of her gross income on military equipment. That was far above what Germany used and what Japan used.
            http://www.rense.com/general83/dett.htm

            ‘Peace loving Britain’
            “Let it not be forgotten that while Jewish bankers were pouring money into Germany which was rebuilding the Wehrmacht on a bigger scale than ever, a colossal campaign for peace and disarmament was launched in this country. This not only succeeded in substantially disarming us; but in creating an atmosphere in which Mr. Baldwin had to admit that he dared not go to the country asking for more armaments, vital though he knew our needs in sea, air and land forces to be. * All prior of course to the rise of Hitler.
            To anyone who made a study of the personalities and powers behind this so-called peace propaganda, as I did, there can be no doubt as to whence the real drive and finance emanated.
            To anyone appreciating the attitude of the press at that time, and realising that had this disarmament propaganda been distasteful to those who influence our publicity services, there would have blared forth a torrent of invective against our “peace ballotters”; there is additional proof that this campaign had the support of international Jewry, as had the rearmament of Germany.
            But why? the simple will ask. The answer is fairly simple, if once the purpose behind the Jewish plan is understood. “Out of the last war we brought the Soviet States of Russia; out of the next war we will bring the Soviet States of Europe. . .” had been the pronouncement at a world meeting of communist parties about 1932. To make the next war possible, therefore, the see-saw must be balanced again; German strength built up, and British strength whittled down. Then the Europeans can fight each other to the death of one and complete exhaustion of the other. A dramatic surprise is in store for both sides. Neither is to be the real winner. The real winner is quite a different army. This army is the one that will receive the real attention. For 25 years it will be built up under conditions of the greatest secrecy. Its leaders will not show their strength until the conflict is well under way. Not until a critical moment in the war will the European armies be permitted to guess at the existence of the huge factories beyond the Urals, or of the colossal proportions of the heavily mechanised hordes which will then commence to roll westwards over Europe under the red flag of Marxism.
            http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Archibald.Maule.Ramsay/The.Nameless.War.pdf

            “You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest.” ~ Winston Churchill – 1932 – Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill – His Career in War and Peace, p. 145; quoted as per: Adrian Preissinger, Von Sachsenhausen bis Buchenwald, p. 23

            ‘Evil warmongering Nazi’s’ 1933
            “Germany will be perfectly ready to disband her entire military establishment and destroy the small amount of arms remaining to her, if the neighboring countries will do the same thing with equal thoroughness.
            … Germany is entirely ready to renounce aggressive weapons of every sort if the armed nations, on their part, will destroy their aggressive weapons within a specified period, and if their use is forbidden by an international convention.
            … Germany is at all times prepared to renounce offensive weapons if the rest of the world does the same. Germany is prepared to agree to any solemn pact of non-aggression because she does not think of attacking anybody but only of acquiring security.”

            No answer was received.
            http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/nothanks/wwr00.html

            In 1938 Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and also chosen as Man of the year!

            [Hitler] dictated to Ribbentrop four secret negotiation points to put to the British if he got the chance, points vital to the future of Europe. If the Continent was to survive in a world dominated by Bolshevism, then somehow London and Berlin must bury the hatchet between them. He instructed Ribbentrop to write secretly to Churchill in this sense. “You will see,” Hitler predicted. “My spirit will rise from the grave. One day the world will see that I was right.” ~ Irving. Hitler’s War (Vol. II, “Eclipse,” pp. 886-887)

            MYTH.2 THE GERMAN ARMED FORCES OUTNUMBERED THEIR NEIGHBOURS
            POLAND 30 Active Divisions 10 Reserve Divisions 12 Large Cavalry Brigades Poland had nearly 2,500,000 trained men available for mobilisation.
            FRANCE 110 Divisions 65 were active divisions Including 5 cavalry divisions, two mechanised divisions, one armoured division, the rest being infantry. On the German borders stood 85 French Divisions and could mobilise 5,000,000-armed troops. These were supported backed by five British divisions.
            BRITAIN Britain’s relatively small but high quality Regular Army was supported by the Territorial Army consisting of 26 Divisions with plans well in hand to boost this to 55 divisions. This of course was in turn supported by the then world’s largest conscription army holding an empire ‘upon which the sun never set.’
            The British Empire consisted also of the former German ’empire’ of New Guinea, Nauru, Western Samoa, South West Africa, Quattar, Palestine, Transjordan, Tanganyika, Iraq, Togoland and the Cameroons. These territories stolen from Germany added another 1,061,755 square miles to the British Empire, the equivalent of 35 Scotland’s
            GERMANY Against these formidable forces Germany was able to mobilise just ninety-eight divisions of which only fifty-two were active (including Austrian divisions). Of the remaining 46 divisions only 10 were fit for action on mobilisation and even in these the bulk of them were raw recruits who had been serving for less than one month.
            The other 36 divisions consisted mainly of Great War veterans over the age of forty who were unfamiliar with modern weapons and up to date military techniques.
            THE BALANCE SHEET
            On the balance sheets it can be seen that the Poles and French alone, not counting Britain and its Empire, had the equivalent of 130 divisions against a total of 98 German divisions of with 1/3rd were virtually untrained men.
            In terms of trained soldiers the Germans were at an even bigger disadvantage. (Note at the outbreak of war over 50% of the German armed forces was horse drawn).
            http://www.rense.com/general83/dett.htm

          • herrlichkeit

            Hahaha brilliant, give someone a rope and they will hang themselves. The irony of that comment is wonderful.

            “Try to keep ‘sympathies’ aside and instead maintain empathy for the truth to arrive at an impartial historical view.”

            You then went on to use 6 incredibly suspect sources a couple of which surmounting to blog posts, a couple of which look they were websites set up by children or in 2001 and one thats purpose exists to justify the war and deny the holocaust, and an extremely poorly put together documentary. Wonderful, I am truly convinced.

            You can state the facts of world tensions all you like, and it’s true they were high, however, was poland an immediate threat to Germany? was Czechoslovakia or Austria? The Germans did not have to invade an annex to ensure their own safety, it was for their BENIFIT, Hitler never ever denied this, so I don’t know why you would.

          • PAUL H

            Thankfully some of us no longer rely on the corrupt establishment’s court-quackademics to tell us what to think and what the truth is.

            “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” ~ Alvin Toffler

            Yes Poland did appear to present an immediate and serious threat to the German citizens within Poland

            Poland had threatened to annex the occupied Danzig region and Germany was well aware that Poland had already annexed Ukraine then proceeded to brutalize non-Poles –
            15th June 1932, Lord Buxton spoke to the House of Lords about recent [January] League of Nations negotiations in Geneva concerning the Polish “terrorisation”, as it was called, that occurred in the autumn of 1930 in Ukraine.
            “Assimilation by the destruction of cultures is the order of the day. From the corridor and from Posen no fewer than a million Germans have already left the country since the annexation owing to conditions which they find intolerable.

            Poland attacks Soviet Union 1938, Lithuania Germany and Czechoslovakia and annexed some border regions of their neighbour states. Because of these attacks, the border-conflicts of the next twenty years are ‘pre-destined’
            Hitler’s War – What The Historians Neglect To Mention

            September 1938, Poland annexes the Czech Teschen region and the German City of Odenberg.
            Poland was designated by England as an outlaw state.
            Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof on The War That Had Many Fathers

            No doubt the purpose of focusing on German local annexations of Germanic speaking populations is to distract from aggressive Imperial British territorial annexations –

            ” … only a little more than a year ago the British Government annexed, by order in council, 100,000 square miles to the British Empire. This was done in February, 1937, in south Arabia. It was done in defiance of treaties of long standing. It was done contrary to pledges solemnly given in the House of Commons.” ~ Congressional Record of March 4,1941. From the New Leader, an organ of the Independent British Labor Party
            The Empire Of “The City” by Edwin C. Knuth

            Austria was peacefully annexed following free votes – .97.3% Austrians voted for unification. Austria was not invaded.

            “Annexing of Austria. March 1938 Austrian successor Dr Schnusheck [sp?] attempts to circumvent the popular desire for re-unification with Germany with a peculiar referendum, on extremely short notice, March 9th 1938 he announces a referendum on re-unification to be held in four days time March 13th No electoral registrars were to be present, supervision entirely in hands of his own party, citizens in public service were ordered to attend ballots under the direct supervision of their superiors and show their completed ballots to their respective superiors, people are permitted to vote only against reunification, anyone for re-unification had to make their own ballots –
            As a result, German troops marched into Austria over flower-lined roads and Austrian troops marched into Munich, Stuttgart, Dresden and Berlin as a sign of unification.

            Recall that Sudetenland was annexed with British Prime Minister Chamberlain’s agreement and the British Royal Families wholehearted support. With Chamberlain appearing celebrating alongside the royal family on the palace balcony by exceptional invitation.

            May 1938, attacks by ethnic Czech and Slovak’s against ethic minority Germans increase dramatically. Sudaten German representatives demand unification with German Reich, Czech-Slovak’s respond by declaring martial law over the 13 Sudaten provinces, prompting Hitler to demand the return of the Sudaten territories to the Reich.
            Hitler’s War – What The Historians Neglect To Mention

            Czecho-Slovakia Within. Bertram de Colonna. The state of Czechoslovakia as it was created under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles was an ethnographic Babel fated to fail under a central leadership characterized by intolerance of its minorities. The Czech destruction of the German and other minorities resulted in an erosion of the economic and social structure long before the state finally disintegrated with the Sudeten-‘Anschluss’. In this 1938 study the author traces the origins and development of the minority problems and proposes what might have been a peaceful solution – if it had not fallen on deaf ears at Prague
            http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/czechoslovakiawithin/csw00.html

            September 29, France, Britain, Germany, and Italy signed the Munich Agreement. It allowed Hitler to have the Sudetenland in exchange for him agreeing to “guarantee” Czechoslovakia’s borders — but only after Poland and Hungary had taken their shares!

            Britain and France not only sold out Czechoslovakia to Hitler — but to Poland and Hungary too!

            The sellout appears in Article 1 of the Munich Agreement. According to the Encyclopedia [Vol. 1, p. 8]:

            “As Article 1 of the agreement put it, ‘when the question of the Polish and Hungarian minorities in Czechoslovakia has been settled, Germany and Italy will each give a similar guarantee to Czechoslovakia’.

            Poland had been first to share in the spoils. After an ultimatum from Warsaw on September 27, 1938, Czechoslovakia had ceded to Poland the district of Tesin (Teschen) — an area of some 625 square miles with a population of 230,000 people.”

            After signing the Munich Agreement, Chamberlain flew back to Britain, declaring that the Agreement meant “peace in our time!” But it was not to be.

            Poland took its piece of Czechoslovakia first. Then Hungary helped itself to some of Czechoslovakia’s Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia region. Hungary said it had been stolen from them after World War One by the 1920 Treaty of Trianon.

            To make matters worse, even while it was being dismembered, Czechoslovakia was contending with demands for independence from its Slovakian region. And so, now trying to appease its own citizens, Czechoslovakia agreed to grant more autonomy to Slovakia, and to hyphenate the country’s name, so that it became Czecho-Slovakia.

            Abandoned by its allies and threatened with civil war, Czecho-Slovakia was unable to fight its neighbors. Instead, it allowed Germany, Hungary, and Poland to bite off pieces, hoping they’d eventually all be satisfied and go away.

            But it was not to be. According to the Encyclopedia [Vol. 1, p. 8]:

            “Having appeased the Polish and Hungarian demands in accordance with the Munich Agreement, Czecho-Slovakia was now entitled to ask for the promised guarantees from Italy and Germany.
            http://www.weeklyuniverse.com/2003/poland.htm

            In March 1939, Hitler took over Czechoslovakia, Hitler’s invasion of the rest of Czechoslovakia on 15 March 1939 considered technically an aggression against an independent, non-German state.

            On 14 March 1939, Slovakia declared itself an independent republic, thereby dissolving the state known as Czechoslovakia. That same day, Czechoslovak President Emil Hacha signed a formal agreement with Hitler establishing a German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia, the Czech portion of the federation. The British government initially accepted the new situation, but then Roosevelt intervened.
            President Roosevelt’s Campaign To Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents
            http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html

            Deals that preceded the sell-out of Czechoslovakia by Chamberlain, which turned Germany into a military superpower that included the Skoda works, the biggest munitions factory in Central Europe, controlled by the French Schneider Creuzot, like Wittowitz, the biggest steelworks owned by the Rothschilds, like the Czech explosives, had already been handed over to Germany before 15/16th March; when the Nazis take Czechoslovakia. Montague Norman’s Bank of England released £6 million of Czechoslovakian gold to Hitler which was deposited in London.
            This was done with the agreement of the Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain.
            The Milner group, through its publication, The Round Table magazine, had previously been pressing for the appeasement of Hitler throughout. Now suddenly it was calling for a ‘Grand Alliance’ of Poland, Rumania, France, and Britain, against Germany. Arch appeasers Lord Lothian and Lord Astor, abruptly began making speeches saying War with Germany; exactly the opposite of what they had said before.

            Czecho-Slovakia, A Critical History. Kurt Glaser A good account of the minorities problem in Czechoslovakia. Emphasizes the unrealistic policies of the Beneš government

            Europe’s Road to Potsdam. Wenzel Jaksch An account of the Sudeten situation in the 1930s, critical of Czech policies under Beneš. The author was head of the Sudeten Social Democrats.

            Slovakia: Nation at the Crossroads of Central Europe. Joseph M. Kirschbaum, An informed account of Slovak policies in the 1930s. Good on the breakup of the Czech state after the Munich Conference

          • Copyright101

            Austria voted to join Germany in 1938. As it had in 1919.

          • herrlichkeit

            You believe that 99.73% of Austrians (a country that was 10% jewish, 15% slavic, and hadn’t had a right wing government in years, not to mention a 99% vote is literally unheard of) voted to support the Anschluss by choice? You’re even more naive than you sound, desperate to believe even the obvious elements of history are true in order to justify your ideology.

            What did Hitler do wrong in your opinion?

          • Copyright101

            What did Hitler do wrong in your opinion?

            Lose.

          • Erich Hohenzollern

            “When I look back, I only have this regret that we did not succeed.” – General Leon Degrelle
            We must now!

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn7qry9wCAk

          • herrlichkeit

            “Lose”

            Debate over, just wished you’d been deliberate with everyone about what you were from the beginning.

          • Copyright101

            I never disguised anything. We don’t pretend to be something we’re not. Unlike a certain Tribe. 😉

          • logdon

            Hitler banked on Chamberlain’s ‘Peace in our Time’ mindset of the next time we’ll do something variety.

            He miscalculated.

            Britain offered the Nazi’s an ultimatum for peace and it was turned down.

            Rather than your glib pronouncement try reading the facts.

            Here they are….

            1939: Britain and France declare war on Germany Britain and France are at war with Germany following the invasion of Poland two days ago.

            At 1115 BST the Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, announced the
            British deadline for the withdrawal of German troops from Poland had
            expired.

            He said the British ambassador to Berlin had handed a final note to the
            German government this morning saying unless it announced plans to
            withdraw from Poland by 1100, a state of war would exist between the two
            countries.

            Mr Chamberlain continued: “I have to tell you now that no such
            undertaking has been received and consequently this country is at war
            with Germany.”

            Similarly the French issued an ultimatum, which was presented in Berlin
            at 1230, saying France would be at war unless a 1700 deadline for the
            troops’ withdrawal was adhered to.

          • Copyright101

            Why was the German ultimatum to Poland unreasonable but the Anglo-French ultimatum reasonable?

            Why did France and Britain not declare war on the USSR?

          • logdon

            Because Hitler had ridden roughshod over Czechoslovakia, had annexed Austria, taken the Sudetenland and next Poland.

            He had, as they say, ‘form’.

            The USSR had nothing to do with any of that.

          • Copyright101

            But when we declared war on Germany I dont remember Czechoslovakia being mentioned?

            Austria voted for Anschluss, why would we declare war on Germany for that? (Austria had also voted for union with Germany after WW1) Why was the Sudetenland not attached to Austria (or even Germany) after WW1?

          • logdon

            Your obtuseness defeats me.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Had the Spanish voted for Guernica?!

          • Copyright101

            Was Guernica actually a terror bombing event in any way comparable with Hamburg? Historians don’t seem to think so now, once the (((screech))) of anti-German propaganda has died down.

          • Mr B J Mann

            No, airforces had been flattening cities since the Romans, I’m sure the Guernicans(?) all rushed outside to watch, cheering, and throwing their caps in the air!

          • Lawrence James.

            Which historians ? Franco’s lickspittles, I suppose.

          • Copyright101

            I was just looking at that fascist fortress – Wikipedia.

          • Mr B J Mann

            PS Could the Mosquito and P-51D fly over most of Europe AND outrun/outfight German fighters AND carry a bomb load?

            Or are you confusing and conflating several different versions?!

          • Copyright101

            The unarmed Mosquito bomber, when first in service, could outrun any German fighter. Later on fighter versions even had a sporting chance against German jets. Its not hard to conceive of a mixed formation of bomber and fighter Mosquitos, and once the bombers have dropped their bombs, they become fighters. Ditto the P-51D

            Remember P-51Ds were escorting US bombers all the way to Germany and back, easy enough to exchange the lumbering bombers for P51 fighter-bombers.

            Also having these aircraft operating as fast fight-bombers obviates the need for large formations for defence and operating at tree-top height would allow them to avoid much of the ground defences. All this was perfectly understood in the tactical sphere but for some mysterious reason was not taken to its logical conclusion in raids far behind the lines.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Again you’re ignoring the fact you can’t “just” switch from one role to another: there”s the weight of the bomb to consider.

            And your key phrase was “sporting chance”: it’s not a bloody game, neither is flying at treetop height, it’s suicidal!

            Again, from your source by 1943 only: “one in six expected to survive their first tour and one in forty would survive their second tour”.

            So if it was a game it was a very bloody one!

            Do you really think that if your cunning plan was known to be so much better it wouldn’t have been used?!

            Oh, and:

            “by mid-1944 it was also mounting huge bombing raids in daylight”!

          • Copyright101

            Again you’re ignoring the fact you can’t “just” switch from one role to another: there”s the weight of the bomb to consider.

            Yes, which is why you would fighters for protection, once the bombs are away then a Mosquito was a pretty potent fighter.

            And your key phrase was “sporting chance”: it’s not a bloody game

            You what? You think that’s refuting my argument? Pathetic. A mere choice of words, semantic nit-picking. The phrase ‘sporting chance’ is in common use. My employment of it in no way denotes a belief in war as a game.

            Do you really think that if your cunning plan was known to be so much better it wouldn’t have been used?!

            An even more cunning plan would have been not to have the war in the first place, so why didnt we do that? We could compile an almost endless list of cunning plans that were never tried and idiotic ones that were.

            However its not just my cunning plan. General Robin Olds first put me onto the idea in an interview I saw a few years ago. He was a P-38 and later P-51 pilot in WW2. He was musing on the illogicality of the strategic bombing tactics, of flying a P-51 all the way into Germany to escort bombers. I thought it was a very good point and realised what he said applied to the Mosquito as well.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Olds

          • Mr B J Mann

            Your link says:

            “His inability to rise higher as a general officer is attributed to both his maverick views and his penchant for drinking.”

            It also says:

            “Olds often lamented the lack of an internal gun in the F-4C he flew during his tour in Vietnam, but would not allow his fighters to be equipped with the gun podsthen available……. He also reasoned that the drag of the pod would both degrade the performance characteristics of the F-4 while not gaining it any advantage against the more maneuverable MiG-17s and MiG-21s, result in unnecessary losses strafing worthless targets, and reduce the number of bombs carried by the Phantoms, the delivery of which was the 8th’s primary mission.”

            A Mosquito bomber has a bomb bay and bomb bay doors.

            A Mosquito Night fighter carries a heavy load of primitive radar.

            A Mosquito fighter has no bomb bay, and no bomb bay doors. It carries machine gun ammo feed gear and supplies of ammo and has loading and servicing hatches.

            A Mosquito fighter bomber has reduced ammo load, a reduced bomb bay and bomb doors for a couple of of small bombs and wing racks to take a couple more small bombs (which increase drag and decrease speed, like the Phantom gun pod Olds wouldn’t use).

            It’s used for things like bombing and strafing army positions.

            They are not the same plane doing different jobs.

            They are different planes based on a common design.

          • Copyright101

            Yet Olds was an accomplished fighter pilot in 1944-45, perhaps he might have some insights? You think that only becoming a general was somehow falling short?

            Olds’ proposition would only have involved P51s carrying a single bomb each. A large formation would only deliver the same bombload as a few B-17s. The difference being they would do it far
            vastly more accurately.

            All I’ve done is widen that to include the Mosquito. Why would I do that if all it took to refute my point was for someone to start quibbling over the attributes of various Mosquito variants? Why would I say something that I hadnt thought about? As if I didnt know what a Mosquito was.

            You’ve been reduced to nitpicking over Mosquito varients. Easiest solution of course – send 30 fighters and 30 bombers on a raid. Or 30 bombers and 30 P-51s. Or whatever. Unladen, the bombers would have a good chance of escaping. And of course there were Mosquito fighter-bombers carrying guns and bombs despite your insistence to the contrary.

            This being the variant concerned: the FB Mk VI

            http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_mosquito_VI.html

            Somewhat ironically, considering that the aircraft had first been developed as an unarmed bomber, the most numerous variant of the Mosquito was the FB Mk VI fighter bomber, which combined the eight guns of the F Mk II with the capacity to carry a useful bomb load.

            The FB Mk VI was armed with four .303in machine guns and four 20mm cannon, just as had been planned for the day fighter version. It could carry two 500lb bombs in the rear half of its bomb bay (the front half was used by the cannons). Additionally the Mk VI had two wing mounting
            points that allowed it to carry either 50 gallon drop tanks, or two more 500lb bombs, for a total bomb load of 2,000lbs. Fully armed the FB Mk VI had an effective range of over 1000 miles

            That variant is also significant, being the type used on the Amiens prison raid. A good demo of what Mosquitos could achieve in a daylight raid. Now imagine that but hitting a large target like a factory. According to you the small bomb load of the fighter-bomber is the problem, yet clearly it wasnt. Trading accuracy (and aircraft survivability) for bomb load looks like a good trade off. And if bomb load is an issue – add full bomber versions to the attack.

          • Mr B J Mann

            But as I’ve also already pointed out you’ve come up with one maverick but the consensus of opinion of the people most closely involved at the time was to use the British heavy bombers (in a mix of strategies and tactics).

            Plus, even if Mosquitos were a better option that doesn’t mean scrapping all the heavy bombers and stopping bombing while reconfiguring all the aircraft factories was!

          • Mr B J Mann

            As for quibbling and nitpicking this was about who started the war and who started flattening cities.

            So, if you insist on quibbling and nitpicking: why did the Germans use heavy bombers at night?!

          • Mr B J Mann

            “All I’ve done is widen that to include the Mosquito. Why would I do that if all it took to refute my point was for someone to start quibbling over the attributes of various Mosquito variants? Why would I say something that I hadnt thought about? As if I didnt know what a Mosquito was.
            You’ve been reduced to nitpicking over Mosquito variants. ……..”

            “considering that the aircraft had first been developed as an unarmed bomber,”

            I wouldn’t want to be accused of nit picking or quibbling but who also posted:

            “once the bombers have dropped their bombs, they become fighters.”

          • Frechette

            P-51s did not carry a bomb load but were used as a bomber escorts to protect the bombers from German fighters. The Mosquito was used to mark out the targets with flares for the bombers. They lead the bomber stream. Neither was the Mosquito designed to carry bombs.

            P-51 pilots were given orders to strafe German civilians according to Chuck Yeager’s memoirs. That was a war crime which at the time Yeager admits to.

          • Mr B J Mann

            “Neither was the Mosquito designed to carry bombs.”

            Eh?

            Do you mean the fighter versions?!

            See my later posts.

          • Lawrence James.

            By your cockeyed arguments ( line 1 ) the bombing of German cities were also in the context of a ‘ground battle’ after the 1944 invasion insofar as it deprived the enemy of raw materials and transport systems. I suspect from your remarks that you might regret the outcome of World War II.

          • Copyright101

            also in the context of a ‘ground battle’ after the 1944 invasion insofar
            as it deprived the enemy of raw materials and transport systems.

            Then it was a very inefficient strategy. You could make an effects based argument for it. The number of 88mm guns used as AAA would have been enough, deployed on the eastern front, to destroy the entire Soviet tank force.

          • Lawrence James.

            This was Hitler’s war: he willed it and had he won it the miseries he and his ideas inflicted on Europe would have become permanent. Or perhaps you think his plans for the continent were a good thing.

          • Frechette

            Hitler started a regional war which Stalin joined a week later by invading Eastern Poland. Britain and France turned it into a continental war and FDR into a world war. No Diktat of Versailles, no Hitler, no WWII. The responsibility for Versailles is clearly on the shoulders of the French and the British.

          • Frechette

            Based on what is happening in Europe today, yes I do indeed regret the outcome of WWII.

          • herrlichkeit

            “The use of “carpet bombing” was becoming standard practice by Condor Legion personnel. To illustrate this point, military historian James S. Corum cites an excerpt from a 1938 Condor Legion report on this use of this tactic:

            We have had notable results in hitting the targets near the front, especially in bombing villages which hold enemy reserves and headquarters. We have had great success because these targets are easy to find and can be thoroughly destroyed by carpet bombing.”

          • Copyright101

            Which sounds like specifically military targets, not targeting the villages because they were villages or with the intent to hit civilians as an end in itself. Thanks for the confirmation.

          • mulegino1 .

            They always bring up Wielun, Guernica, Rotterdam, and Warsaw and define these as “terror bombing” when they were in fact siege bombing of a military target being assaulted by ground forces, little different than an artillery bombardment. To compare these to the deliberate terror bombing of German working class housing called for under the Lindemann Plan is simply ridiculous. As F.P. Veale noted in his “Advance to Barbarism”, the British terror bombing of German cities represented the “most barbarous method of warfare since the Mongol invasions”.

        • Lawrence James.

          Indeed, or given the general perversity of his arguements, he believes that the Pushtun villages occasionally bombed in the 1930s were cities.

        • Lawrence James.

          He was not thinking, probably never has to judge by this and other outbursts. The RAF did bomb some villages in Palestine and on the North-West Frontier early in 1939.

      • Mr B J Mann

        By the way, you refer to wiki in your later reply.

        Under strategic bombing that refers to the teeny weeny problem of:

        Strategic bombing during World War II began on 1 September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland and the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) began bombing cities and the civilian population in Poland in an indiscriminate aerial bombardment campaign.[16] As the war continued to expand, bombing by both the Axis and the Allies increased significantly. The RAF flew its first strategic bombing raid on Germany at Mönchengladbach on 11 May 1940 and in September 1940, the Luftwaffe began targeting British cities in ‘The Blitz’.[17] From 1942 onward, the British bombing campaign against Germany became less restrictive and increasingly targeted industrial sites and eventually, civilian areas.[

        It also refers to the total British toll of 60,595 civilians killed and Italian of 60,000–100,000 civilians killed for the entire war.

        Compare that to the non-terrifying
        25,800 Warsaw civilians killed!

      • Mr B J Mann

        For the avoidance of doubt, that Wiki article goes on to say:

        Wieluń, the first Polish city destroyed by Luftwaffe bombing, on 1 September 1939. In one of the first acts of the German aggression during World War II, German bombers destroyed 75% of all the buildings, including a clearly marked hospital and the historic Gothic church, killing approximately 1,200 civilians.[43]
        During the German invasion of Poland, the Luftwaffe engaged in massive air raids against Polish cities,[44] bombing civilian infrastructure[44][45] such as hospitals[43][44] and targeting fleeing refugees.[46][47][48][49] Notably, the Luftwaffe bombed Warsaw, Wieluń, and Frampol. It is believed that the bombing of Frampol was an experiment as it had <bno targetable industry and no military units were stationed there……….

        Polish reports from the beginning of September note strafing of civilians by German attacks and bombing of cemeteries and marked hospitals (marking of hospitals proved counterproductive as German aircraft began to specifically target them……….

        Warsaw was first attacked by German ground forces on 9 September and was put under siege on 13 September…….. [Remember the Germans started their bombing campaign on the 1st!]

        On 13 September, following orders of the ObdL to launch an attack on Warsaw’s Jewish Quarter, justified as being for unspecified crimes committed against German soldiers but probably in response to a recent defeat by Polish ground troops,[56] and intended as a terror attack,[57] 183 bomber sorties were flown with 50:50 load of high explosive and incendiary bombs, reportedly set the Jewish Quarter ablaze. On 22 September, Wolfram von Richthofen messaged, “Urgently request exploitation of last opportunity for large-scale experiment as devastation terror raid … Every effort will be made to eradicate Warsaw completely”. His request was rejected.[57] However, Hitler issued an order to prevent civilians from leaving the city and to continue with the bombing, which he thought would encourage Polish surrender.[58]………

        In fact the article points out the British Air Force wasn’t even allowed to attack land targets initially in case civilians were hit!

        They only at first only attacked warships at sea, then rural military targets, only finally attacking German cities after the terror bombing of Rotterdam.

        So it looks like your source shows you to be a teeny weeny bit wrong!

      • Lawrence James.

        ‘Mass’ bombing of German cities in 1939-1940 ?. Poppycock ! Or muddled and muddy thinking, for it was Warsaw and Rotterdam which experienced the first large-scale aerial bombardment by Luftwaffe aircraft.

        • Copyright101

          The assumption being made is that the bombing of Rotterdam & Warsaw were pure terror bombing events largely divorced from any other operational activities and furthermore that if this was so that only the Germans were doing it.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Or, alternatively:

            “The assumption being made is that the bombing of German cities were pure terror bombing events largely divorced from any other operational activities and furthermore that if this was so that only the Allies were doing it.”

            There, fixed it for you!

  • blandings

    Maybe I have a blind spot but I can’t understand why we indulge ourselves with considerations of the morality or otherwise of particular acts in a war. The bomber crews that risked their lives to bomb Hamburg did so because they were assured that it would help win the war and, by implication, protect their friends, families and countrymen, and they were told this by people who themselves probably believed it to be true. I doubt that it was any different for the german aircrews that bombed Hull. They may all have been deluded but they were not behaving any more or less morally than the rest of us.
    Where is the morality in war? I’m blowed if I know, but whether we, as individuals, behaved as well as we could in our life is something to discus with our god as we near the end and not for politicians and armchair generals to pontificate over.

    • Mr B J Mann

      How much of Warsaw did the Germans leave standing (the quaint historical city you see now is a post-war reconstruction!)?

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    “Is this your first visit to Hamburg?”
    “Yes, but I flew over it many times during …”

    • logdon

      Always a corker!

  • Jack Smith

    The bombing of Dresden, like the whole war, was futile and a crime. Our continent would be far superior today than it is had WW2 never been fought.

    • Lawrence James.

      Pity about the untermenschen and all the others Hitler wanted to exterminate.

  • ArfurTowcrate

    The deliberate mass killing of civilians should never be condoned.

  • Sub

    What the Germans did in 8 months, the Allies did in one day – 40,000 is also the amount of British civilians killed during the entirety of the Blitz.

Close