| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - WW2 RAF Bombing Campaign
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


WW2 RAF Bombing Campaign

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2012 at 03:07
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:



Constantine I have a question. Do you find this sort of thing acceptable?

"Mr B- Will you never tire of your anti-British rant? What is the real story here? Did you loose out in the game of love to a Brit? Or did you receive an ill deserved back hand in a pub somewhere, perhaps after making disparaging remarks about the queen?"
 
Bucksins, I have read through the Captain's questions and I think that his intentions are ingenuous. He clearly wishes to know why you do so often single out the British as subjects for condemnation, which is a behaviour which has been noticed and puzzled quite a few members at WH.
 
He presents his question with a bit of well meaning and non-malicious banter. So I wouldn't take the above as being a personal attack.
 
Honestly, I have wondered whether your antipathy towards the Brits does have some personal motive behind it.

 Thank you Constantine, I now have a better understanding of your parameters.


Edited by Buckskins - 29 Jun 2012 at 03:11
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2012 at 01:25
Quote
But from a German point of view, in the last few months of the war one could hardly tell if those were British or American planes dropping bombs on their cities. Capt. Dan Villani of the 398th Bomb Group was a pilot of a B-17 who was part of the massive raid on Berlin in mid-February. Decades later, he recalled that "most of the formation spread out to avoid the flak and in so doing ruined the accuracy of the drop. I'm sure many of the pilots didn't give a damn. They just wanted out of a target area as fast as possible .... The aiming point was the center of Berlin and I don't think this was bombing a military target. But I personally felt no remorse. They brought Hitler to power and supported him and sealed their fate."

- Steven Ambrose, Citizen Soldiers, Ch. 12 The Air War

Dyson was correct in asserting that strategic bombing was not as important a factor as it was made out to be at the time (other than of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the two most indiscriminate and effective - and in my view justified - instances of terror bombing ever). 

I know at first hand that being subject to 'terror' bombing tended to increase morale rather than weaken or destroy it. That however is far from saying strategic bombing did not play an important part in its own right because as several people have already pointed out, it undoubtedly did. 

And given the techniques of the time, all strategic bombing was indiscriminate (it's still pretty indiscriminate in fact) within cities and towns, in particular when you are flying through flak and enemy fighters without fighter support off your own - or even with it.

No-one who knew or even half-understood the situation would single out the RAF for special condemnation, and the assertion that the RAF deliberately focussed on killing women and children at night because they were too cowardly to fly in the daytime is a vicious and ignorant purveyor of unjustified slander.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2012 at 03:30
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Quote
But from a German point of view, in the last few months of the war one could hardly tell if those were British or American planes dropping bombs on their cities. Capt. Dan Villani of the 398th Bomb Group was a pilot of a B-17 who was part of the massive raid on Berlin in mid-February. Decades later, he recalled that "most of the formation spread out to avoid the flak and in so doing ruined the accuracy of the drop. I'm sure many of the pilots didn't give a damn. They just wanted out of a target area as fast as possible .... The aiming point was the center of Berlin and I don't think this was bombing a military target. But I personally felt no remorse. They brought Hitler to power and supported him and sealed their fate."

- Steven Ambrose, Citizen Soldiers, Ch. 12 The Air War

Dyson was correct in asserting that strategic bombing was not as important a factor as it was made out to be at the time (other than of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the two most indiscriminate and effective - and in my view justified - instances of terror bombing ever). 

I know at first hand that being subject to 'terror' bombing tended to increase morale rather than weaken or destroy it. That however is far from saying strategic bombing did not play an important part in its own right because as several people have already pointed out, it undoubtedly did. 

And given the techniques of the time, all strategic bombing was indiscriminate (it's still pretty indiscriminate in fact) within cities and towns, in particular when you are flying through flak and enemy fighters without fighter support off your own - or even with it.

No-one who knew or even half-understood the situation would single out the RAF for special condemnation, and the assertion that the RAF deliberately focussed on killing women and children at night because they were too cowardly to fly in the daytime is a vicious and ignorant purveyor of unjustified slander.

The RAF tried to bomb Germany during the hours of daylight and had their asses handed to them. So they bombed German civilians because "They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind"  They were no match for the Luftwaffe. On the other hand the USAAF flew and fought during the hours of daylight which enabled the targeting of German war production and logistics. The USAAF was never turned back by the Luftwaffe on a bombing mission, even when they did not yet even have fighter cover. The RAF showed up during the hours of daylight towards the end of the war when the USAAF had all but neutralized the Luftwaffe. Those are the facts Graham. Spin them as you wish.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2012 at 06:14
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Quote
But from a German point of view, in the last few months of the war one could hardly tell if those were British or American planes dropping bombs on their cities. Capt. Dan Villani of the 398th Bomb Group was a pilot of a B-17 who was part of the massive raid on Berlin in mid-February. Decades later, he recalled that "most of the formation spread out to avoid the flak and in so doing ruined the accuracy of the drop. I'm sure many of the pilots didn't give a damn. They just wanted out of a target area as fast as possible .... The aiming point was the center of Berlin and I don't think this was bombing a military target. But I personally felt no remorse. They brought Hitler to power and supported him and sealed their fate."

- Steven Ambrose, Citizen Soldiers, Ch. 12 The Air War

Dyson was correct in asserting that strategic bombing was not as important a factor as it was made out to be at the time (other than of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the two most indiscriminate and effective - and in my view justified - instances of terror bombing ever). 

I know at first hand that being subject to 'terror' bombing tended to increase morale rather than weaken or destroy it. That however is far from saying strategic bombing did not play an important part in its own right because as several people have already pointed out, it undoubtedly did. 

And given the techniques of the time, all strategic bombing was indiscriminate (it's still pretty indiscriminate in fact) within cities and towns, in particular when you are flying through flak and enemy fighters without fighter support off your own - or even with it.

No-one who knew or even half-understood the situation would single out the RAF for special condemnation, and the assertion that the RAF deliberately focussed on killing women and children at night because they were too cowardly to fly in the daytime is a vicious and ignorant purveyor of unjustified slander.

The RAF tried to bomb Germany during the hours of daylight and had their asses handed to them. So they bombed German civilians because "They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind"  They were no match for the Luftwaffe. On the other hand the USAAF flew and fought during the hours of daylight which enabled the targeting of German war production and logistics. The USAAF was never turned back by the Luftwaffe on a bombing mission, even when they did not yet even have fighter cover. The RAF showed up during the hours of daylight towards the end of the war when the USAAF had all but neutralized the Luftwaffe. Those are the facts Graham. Spin them as you wish.
Bullsh*t. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Birddog View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Birddog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2012 at 09:02
Buckskins.
 
The altervative that you put forward was for the British to go for military targets. A night they would have missed and by day they would have, in your own words, "had their asses handed to them". How were the British to carry out this military target bombing campagin without wiping out Bomber Command? The British bombers did not have the fire power of American B17's or B24's as you have pointed out, and in day light raids the British Bomber losses were often well above 50% for a single mission. I am asking if their was an atlernative to this costly night campaign, and a RAF daylight bombing campaign in 1941 would have been suicidal. Mind you a lack of willingness to commit suicide might be judged as proof of British (not to mention Canadian, South African, New Zealand and Australian etc who made up bomber command) lack of moral fiber.  
 
Back to Top
Birddog View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Birddog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2012 at 09:07
Thank you all for writing and giving such interesting answers to a very devisive subject.
 
Understanding that Bomber Command was a great monster of a thing pulling in resources from across of the world and once a thing or organization has started rolling it is almost impossible to stop....what if the British had given up on night bombing altogether and put it's resources towards something else. What would have been a better way for the British to have pursued the war.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2012 at 02:32
Giving up on night bombing would only have meant more daylight bombing and the idea that day bombing in 1941-45 was any more accurate or 'pinpointed' than night bombing is simply ludicrous. 

However, limiting bombing to daylight hours would have the effect of allowing longer pauses and guaranteed periods for recuperation and repair, making the whole thing less effective than it in fat was. 

It's not as though the Allies didn't have total air superiority everywhere else. It sometimes gets overlooked that the RAF's Meteor for instance was in production before the Me 263 (even though not deployed as soon).

As for the Luftwaffe's alleged superiority over the RAF, here is Goering's view on the subject:
Originally posted by Hermann Goering Hermann Goering wrote:

]"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2012 at 04:44
Originally posted by Birddog Birddog wrote:

Buckskins.
 
The altervative that you put forward was for the British to go for military targets. A night they would have missed and by day they would have, in your own words, "had their asses handed to them". How were the British to carry out this military target bombing campagin without wiping out Bomber Command? The British bombers did not have the fire power of American B17's or B24's as you have pointed out, and in day light raids the British Bomber losses were often well above 50% for a single mission. I am asking if their was an atlernative to this costly night campaign, and a RAF daylight bombing campaign in 1941 would have been suicidal. Mind you a lack of willingness to commit suicide might be judged as proof of British (not to mention Canadian, South African, New Zealand and Australian etc who made up bomber command) lack of moral fiber.  
 

Regards the air crews, I never mentioned LMF. Even during the hours of darkness the RAFBC were hit hard by German night fighters. The essence of my post is, if I can't beat you up, I shouldn't go beating on your little sister during your absence.


Edited by Buckskins - 02 Jul 2012 at 04:50
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2012 at 04:47
Goering was a clown, all he was doing was covering his a@@.

Edited by Buckskins - 02 Jul 2012 at 04:48
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2012 at 04:56
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Quote
But from a German point of view, in the last few months of the war one could hardly tell if those were British or American planes dropping bombs on their cities. Capt. Dan Villani of the 398th Bomb Group was a pilot of a B-17 who was part of the massive raid on Berlin in mid-February. Decades later, he recalled that "most of the formation spread out to avoid the flak and in so doing ruined the accuracy of the drop. I'm sure many of the pilots didn't give a damn. They just wanted out of a target area as fast as possible .... The aiming point was the center of Berlin and I don't think this was bombing a military target. But I personally felt no remorse. They brought Hitler to power and supported him and sealed their fate."

- Steven Ambrose, Citizen Soldiers, Ch. 12 The Air War

Dyson was correct in asserting that strategic bombing was not as important a factor as it was made out to be at the time (other than of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the two most indiscriminate and effective - and in my view justified - instances of terror bombing ever). 

I know at first hand that being subject to 'terror' bombing tended to increase morale rather than weaken or destroy it. That however is far from saying strategic bombing did not play an important part in its own right because as several people have already pointed out, it undoubtedly did. 

And given the techniques of the time, all strategic bombing was indiscriminate (it's still pretty indiscriminate in fact) within cities and towns, in particular when you are flying through flak and enemy fighters without fighter support off your own - or even with it.

No-one who knew or even half-understood the situation would single out the RAF for special condemnation, and the assertion that the RAF deliberately focussed on killing women and children at night because they were too cowardly to fly in the daytime is a vicious and ignorant purveyor of unjustified slander.

The RAF tried to bomb Germany during the hours of daylight and had their asses handed to them. So they bombed German civilians because "They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind"  They were no match for the Luftwaffe. On the other hand the USAAF flew and fought during the hours of daylight which enabled the targeting of German war production and logistics. The USAAF was never turned back by the Luftwaffe on a bombing mission, even when they did not yet even have fighter cover. The RAF showed up during the hours of daylight towards the end of the war when the USAAF had all but neutralized the Luftwaffe. Those are the facts Graham. Spin them as you wish.
Bullsh*t. 

Well now my dear learned friend, that can't be. You see, all our cattle are inseminated artificially by a vet tech. We have no bulls. They are way more trouble than they are worth, and a bad buy financially. So you see sir, sans bulls, sans Bullsh@t.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Birddog View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Birddog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2012 at 09:12
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by Birddog Birddog wrote:

Buckskins.
 
The altervative that you put forward was for the British to go for military targets. A night they would have missed and by day they would have, in your own words, "had their asses handed to them". How were the British to carry out this military target bombing campagin without wiping out Bomber Command? The British bombers did not have the fire power of American B17's or B24's as you have pointed out, and in day light raids the British Bomber losses were often well above 50% for a single mission. I am asking if their was an atlernative to this costly night campaign, and a RAF daylight bombing campaign in 1941 would have been suicidal. Mind you a lack of willingness to commit suicide might be judged as proof of British (not to mention Canadian, South African, New Zealand and Australian etc who made up bomber command) lack of moral fiber.  
 

Regards the air crews, I never mentioned LMF. Even during the hours of darkness the RAFBC were hit hard by German night fighters. The essence of my post is, if I can't beat you up, I shouldn't go beating on your little sister during your absence.
 
But the losses at night were a hell of a lot lower than daylight raids. They were not losing over half the bombing force per-operation on night raids like they did in daylight raids. The Brtish did start the war flying daylight raids against military targets. They did take heavy casualties at night, which does inticate that the German were putting resources towards shooting down the bombers. I have not argued the inacuracey of bomber command. But since the British were involved in fighting a total war against the germans, a war in which the Germans did bomb allied civilians first (London was not the first city to be bombed, look at what happened to Rotterdam May 14 1940 after they agreed to surrender) what was the alternative to night bombing? And just repeating daylight bombing is no good because as you keep pointing out, bomber command would have had it arse handed to it.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2012 at 05:48
Birddog, I know you're not saying the Brits had the right to do what they did to German civilians, because Germany did it to them and others? You are surely not proposing that the British threshold of morality was compatible with that of the Nazis? They should be very happy the Luftwaffe bombed London first by accident, because the Brits retaliated and this caused Hitler and Goering to switch targets from RAF assets, to London. It saved the Brits bacon big time.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2012 at 07:11
Even the Luftwaffe couldn't bomb London by accident.  That's as ridiculous as everything else you've been saying - like throwing a stone into the Atlantic and missing.  (Even in WW1 the Germans bombed it deliberately.)

It's too obvious to be really interesting, but the biggest military mistake of all time was Hitler's decision to invade Poland in 1939, leading inescapably to the country's total defeat.

(Japan's decision to attack Pearl Harbour was in more or less the same league, and is probably the only other real contender for the mistake that led to the greatest defeat in history.)

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Birddog View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Birddog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2012 at 08:29
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Birddog, I know you're not saying the Brits had the right to do what they did to German civilians, because Germany did it to them and others? You are surely not proposing that the British threshold of morality was compatible with that of the Nazis? They should be very happy the Luftwaffe bombed London first by accident, because the Brits retaliated and this caused Hitler and Goering to switch targets from RAF assets, to London. It saved the Brits bacon big time.
 
It is not a question of morality. It a question of how can you fight a war with the resources you have. No general ever plans to lose a battle. The British and Germans started the war with the theory that the bomber will always get through. Speed and the unstoppability bomber formation means that the bomber in daylight would always get through to their targets. Then they discovered the reality, that the bombers flowen by the RAF would not fast enough or well armed enough for it to get through to the target. They had to change their tactics. And the British were involved in the war on the front line. They were getting attacked daily. Bomber command night raids were a way of striking directly back at Germany when the navy and the army could not.
 
The US also believed in starting a front inside Germany itself, but the Americans had the advantage of (apart for Peral Harbour) being not under direct attack. The US had the time to train the crews and build the bombers and learn the buisness of daylight bombing.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2012 at 08:47
Originally posted by Birddog Birddog wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Birddog, I know you're not saying the Brits had the right to do what they did to German civilians, because Germany did it to them and others? You are surely not proposing that the British threshold of morality was compatible with that of the Nazis? They should be very happy the Luftwaffe bombed London first by accident, because the Brits retaliated and this caused Hitler and Goering to switch targets from RAF assets, to London. It saved the Brits bacon big time.
 
It is not a question of morality. It a question of how can you fight a war with the resources you have. No general ever plans to lose a battle. The British and Germans started the war with the theory that the bomber will always get through. Speed and the unstoppability bomber formation means that the bomber in daylight would always get through to their targets. Then they discovered the reality, that the bombers flowen by the RAF would not fast enough or well armed enough for it to get through to the target. They had to change their tactics. And the British were involved in the war on the front line. They were getting attacked daily. Bomber command night raids were a way of striking directly back at Germany when the navy and the army could not.
 
The US also believed in starting a front inside Germany itself, but the Americans had the advantage of (apart for Peral Harbour) being not under direct attack. The US had the time to train the crews and build the bombers and learn the buisness of daylight bombing.

It's very much a question of morality. That's correct, the RAFBC couldn't get through without unacceptable losses. That was not a permit to start murdering innocent women, kids, and old people. They where not participants in the German war of aggression. It was a despicable thing to do. What was the point of Dresden for instance. Don't ask me why we joined in. Once more Churchill had the begging bowl out again, and the leadership that led us into a European war complied. Collateral damage will always be. The deliberate killing of defenseless non combatants and non contributors to the Nazi war effort was unforgivable and inhumane.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2012 at 08:55
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Even the Luftwaffe couldn't bomb London by accident.  That's as ridiculous as everything else you've been saying - like throwing a stone into the Atlantic and missing.  (Even in WW1 the Germans bombed it deliberately.)

It's too obvious to be really interesting, but the biggest military mistake of all time was Hitler's decision to invade Poland in 1939, leading inescapably to the country's total defeat.

(Japan's decision to attack Pearl Harbour was in more or less the same league, and is probably the only other real contender for the mistake that led to the greatest defeat in history.)


Central London is accidentally bombed

The situation changed on 24 August when the Luftwaffe – accidentally, it’s now believed – dropped bombs on central London instead of the docks. Nine people were killed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/germany_bombs_british_towns_and_cities

Hitlers biggest mistake was Operation Barbarossa.






May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2012 at 09:56
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

I do think you are being rather unfair here, Buckskins.
 
Virtually all sides engaged in civilian bombing during WWII. While morale may not have been affected in most cases, industrial production certainly was. And an army can only fight with the industrial products it has. WWII was more of a total war scenario, in which the full weight of the civilian population was mobilised for the war effort. And often it made more sense to achieve victory through the destruction of industrial infrastructure or non-military targets.
 
The Americans certainly thought so before dropping Fat Man and Little Boy. Which were themselves sequels to the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed even more people than the atom bombs.
 
"Virtually all sides" Confused, I thought all sides engaged in civilian bombing during WWII. If I am wrong, then I apologize, but even the puppet states used civilian bombing.
 
PS: I agree that it was proven that it made more sense to achieve victory by attacking non-military targets.
Back to Top
Birddog View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Birddog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2012 at 17:46
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:


Originally posted by Birddog Birddog wrote:


Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Birddog, I know you're not saying the Brits had the right to do what they did to German civilians, because Germany did it to them and others? You are surely not proposing that the British threshold of morality was compatible with that of the Nazis? They should be very happy the Luftwaffe bombed London first by accident, because the Brits retaliated and this caused Hitler and Goering to switch targets from RAF assets, to London. It saved the Brits bacon big time.

 
It is not a question of morality. It a question of how can you fight a war with the resources you have. No general ever plans to lose a battle. The British and Germans started the war with the theory that the bomber will always get through. Speed and the unstoppability bomber formation means that the bomber in daylight would always get through to their targets. Then they discovered the reality, that the bombers flowen by the RAF would not fast enough or well armed enough for it to get through to the target. They had to change their tactics. And the British were involved in the war on the front line. They were getting attacked daily. Bomber command night raids were a way of striking directly back at Germany when the navy and the army could not.
 
The US also believed in starting a front inside Germany itself, but the Americans had the advantage of (apart for Peral Harbour) being not under direct attack. The US had the time to train the crews and build the bombers and learn the buisness of daylight bombing.


It's very much a question of morality. That's correct, the RAFBC couldn't get through without unacceptable losses. That was not a permit to start murdering innocent women, kids, and old people. They where not participants in the German war of aggression. It was a despicable thing to do. What was the point of Dresden for instance. Don't ask me why we joined in. Once more Churchill had the begging bowl out again, and the leadership that led us into a European war complied. Collateral damage will always be. The deliberate killing of defenseless non combatants and non contributors to the Nazi war effort was unforgivable and inhumane.


So in the end the correct moral thing for the RAF to do was to give up the bombing of German cities. What would have been the result of this policy? I have asked for alternatives.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2012 at 23:55
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Even the Luftwaffe couldn't bomb London by accident.  That's as ridiculous as everything else you've been saying - like throwing a stone into the Atlantic and missing.  (Even in WW1 the Germans bombed it deliberately.)

Central London is accidentally bombed

The situation changed on 24 August when the Luftwaffe – accidentally, it’s now believed – dropped bombs on central London instead of the docks. Nine people were killed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/germany_bombs_british_towns_and_cities

You didn't say 'Central London' you said 'London'.  At best they were aiming at one part of London and missed and hit another part. They were still deliberately bombing London. 

Moreover, this is the context for the sentence you quoted (same URL):

Quote

Southampton was badly bombed from June onwards and the International Cold Storage Depot in the city burned for over a week. Coventry was bombed in both July and August with the loss of several dozen lives. Liverpool, Wrexham, Bradford and Birmingham were attacked as well as intermittent raids on London.

Central London is accidentally bombed

The situation changed on 24 August when the Luftwaffe – accidentally, it’s now believed – dropped bombs on central London instead of the docks. Nine people were killed. Until this point, it is largely thought that civilian deaths had been collateral damage during the bombing of strategic industrial targets and from bombs scattered off-target to make a hasty getaway.

By the end of August, however, over 1,000 civilians had been killed by bombings 

I was living in Southampton during 1940, till September in the centre, so don't try bamboozling me with Nazi propaganda about who was bombing whose civilians.







[/QUOTE]
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jul 2012 at 03:44
Originally posted by Birddog Birddog wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:


Originally posted by Birddog Birddog wrote:


Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Birddog, I know you're not saying the Brits had the right to do what they did to German civilians, because Germany did it to them and others? You are surely not proposing that the British threshold of morality was compatible with that of the Nazis? They should be very happy the Luftwaffe bombed London first by accident, because the Brits retaliated and this caused Hitler and Goering to switch targets from RAF assets, to London. It saved the Brits bacon big time.

 
It is not a question of morality. It a question of how can you fight a war with the resources you have. No general ever plans to lose a battle. The British and Germans started the war with the theory that the bomber will always get through. Speed and the unstoppability bomber formation means that the bomber in daylight would always get through to their targets. Then they discovered the reality, that the bombers flowen by the RAF would not fast enough or well armed enough for it to get through to the target. They had to change their tactics. And the British were involved in the war on the front line. They were getting attacked daily. Bomber command night raids were a way of striking directly back at Germany when the navy and the army could not.
 
The US also believed in starting a front inside Germany itself, but the Americans had the advantage of (apart for Peral Harbour) being not under direct attack. The US had the time to train the crews and build the bombers and learn the buisness of daylight bombing.


It's very much a question of morality. That's correct, the RAFBC couldn't get through without unacceptable losses. That was not a permit to start murdering innocent women, kids, and old people. They where not participants in the German war of aggression. It was a despicable thing to do. What was the point of Dresden for instance. Don't ask me why we joined in. Once more Churchill had the begging bowl out again, and the leadership that led us into a European war complied. Collateral damage will always be. The deliberate killing of defenseless non combatants and non contributors to the Nazi war effort was unforgivable and inhumane.


So in the end the correct moral thing for the RAF to do was to give up the bombing of German cities. What would have been the result of this policy? I have asked for alternatives.

How about that given British history in the preceding 3 centuries, it just may have given them a shred of decency to hang on to for their historical salvation.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Birddog View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Birddog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jul 2012 at 09:21
And interesting thought you are putting forward.

So because the British had a history of 3 centuries of being The bully boys of the word and ruling an empire that covered 1/3 of the world, they should have tamely sat down for being bombed by the enemy, and earned the aid the US gave them?
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2012 at 04:46
Originally posted by Birddog Birddog wrote:

And interesting thought you are putting forward.

So because the British had a history of 3 centuries of being The bully boys of the word and ruling an empire that covered 1/3 of the world, they should have tamely sat down for being bombed by the enemy, and earned the aid the US gave them?

I don't understand what you mean by " and earned the aid the US gave them?"
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Birddog View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Birddog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2012 at 10:50
"How about that given British history in the preceding 3 centuries, it just may have given them a shred of decency to hang on to for their historical salvation."
That is what you said. So I am trying to understand what you are saying.
If they had any decency they should have let the Germans bomb them without bombing them back because of all the bad things the British had done in the past. If they had refrained from retalating they would have gained some decency and become a better people than the Germans? But since they did bomb the Germans they are now damned for all time?
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2012 at 08:45
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Even the Luftwaffe couldn't bomb London by accident.  That's as ridiculous as everything else you've been saying - like throwing a stone into the Atlantic and missing.  (Even in WW1 the Germans bombed it deliberately.)

Central London is accidentally bombed

The situation changed on 24 August when the Luftwaffe – accidentally, it’s now believed – dropped bombs on central London instead of the docks. Nine people were killed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/germany_bombs_british_towns_and_cities

You didn't say 'Central London' you said 'London'.  At best they were aiming at one part of London and missed and hit another part. They were still deliberately bombing London. 

Moreover, this is the context for the sentence you quoted (same URL):

Quote

Southampton was badly bombed from June onwards and the International Cold Storage Depot in the city burned for over a week. Coventry was bombed in both July and August with the loss of several dozen lives. Liverpool, Wrexham, Bradford and Birmingham were attacked as well as intermittent raids on London.

Central London is accidentally bombed

The situation changed on 24 August when the Luftwaffe – accidentally, it’s now believed – dropped bombs on central London instead of the docks. Nine people were killed. Until this point, it is largely thought that civilian deaths had been collateral damage during the bombing of strategic industrial targets and from bombs scattered off-target to make a hasty getaway.

By the end of August, however, over 1,000 civilians had been killed by bombings 

I was living in Southampton during 1940, till September in the centre, so don't try bamboozling me with Nazi propaganda about who was bombing whose civilians

[/QUOTE]

The situation changed on 24 August when the Luftwaffe – accidentally, it’s now believed – dropped bombs on central London instead of the docks


The last time I looked central London was still a part of London.

Do tell me what has you confused sir, I will be happy to help.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2012 at 08:49
Originally posted by Birddog Birddog wrote:

"How about that given British history in the preceding 3 centuries, it just may have given them a shred of decency to hang on to for their historical salvation."
That is what you said. So I am trying to understand what you are saying.
If they had any decency they should have let the Germans bomb them without bombing them back because of all the bad things the British had done in the past. If they had refrained from retalating they would have gained some decency and become a better people than the Germans? But since they did bomb the Germans they are now damned for all time?

In order to answer your question in context, I need to know what you mean by 

" and earned the aid the US gave them?"
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Birddog View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Birddog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2012 at 10:29
I guessed from your reaction that you ment nothing about US aid so I asked the 2nd question so now I want clarification on what....

"How about that given British history in the preceding 3 centuries, it just may have given them a shred of decency to hang on to for their historical salvation."

Means?


Edited by Birddog - 08 Jul 2012 at 10:30
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2012 at 23:16
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

 
Quote
Quote

Central London is accidentally bombed

The situation changed on 24 August when the Luftwaffe – accidentally, it’s now believed – dropped bombs on central London instead of the docks. Nine people were killed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/germany_bombs_british_towns_and_cities

You didn't say 'Central London' you said 'London'.  At best they were aiming at one part of London and missed and hit another part. They were still deliberately bombing London. 

The situation changed on 24 August when the Luftwaffe – accidentally, it’s now believed – dropped bombs on central London instead of the docks

The last time I looked central London was still a part of London.
Do tell me what has you confused sir, I will be happy to help.
  
What confuses me is your inability to read. The link you quoted said the planes that night were among many that had targetted London (and other cities) over the previous three months. London's Dockland is part of London. Bombs were dropped on it deliberately. Many civilians , women and children live in Dockland. Many had been killed before the raid on August 24. 

On the other hand, not too many people lived - or live now - in central London. So the fact that the Luftwaffe on August 24 missed the people they were supposed to be bombing and hit another lot of people is isn't relevant to anything. 

You apparently read an article that said the Luiftwaffe targetted London on August 24, and somehow came out of it saying they hit London accidentally. That's what confusing. 

Actually most bombs dropped in the strategic bombing campaigns of Germany, the UK and the US missed their actual target, so in the only possible rendition of your position they could all be claimed to have been dropped 'accidentally'. 


Edited by gcle2003 - 08 Jul 2012 at 23:23
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 04:34

Originally posted by Birddog Birddog wrote:

I guessed from your reaction that you ment nothing about US aid so I asked the 2nd question so now I want clarification on what....

"How about that given British history in the preceding 3 centuries, it just may have given them a shred of decency to hang on to for their historical salvation."

Means?

No one is saying the UK should sit back as the Luftwaffe bombed them. The British had radar and night fighters on standby. They could actually tell when the Luftwaffe aircraft were taking off in France. Bombers are not fighters. With France well within range of the RAF, what they could have done was concentrate on targeting German MILITARY targets during the hours of daylight. They would have no problem with fighter cover for their bombers. I can't say because of the British conduct they would be damned forever. Their conduct prior to WW2 had long since had them damned by history forever.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 04:39
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

 
Quote
Quote

Central London is accidentally bombed

The situation changed on 24 August when the Luftwaffe – accidentally, it’s now believed – dropped bombs on central London instead of the docks. Nine people were killed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/germany_bombs_british_towns_and_cities

You didn't say 'Central London' you said 'London'.  At best they were aiming at one part of London and missed and hit another part. They were still deliberately bombing London. 

The situation changed on 24 August when the Luftwaffe – accidentally, it’s now believed – dropped bombs on central London instead of the docks

The last time I looked central London was still a part of London.
Do tell me what has you confused sir, I will be happy to help.
  
What confuses me is your inability to read. The link you quoted said the planes that night were among many that had targetted London (and other cities) over the previous three months. London's Dockland is part of London. Bombs were dropped on it deliberately. Many civilians , women and children live in Dockland. Many had been killed before the raid on August 24. 

On the other hand, not too many people lived - or live now - in central London. So the fact that the Luftwaffe on August 24 missed the people they were supposed to be bombing and hit another lot of people is isn't relevant to anything. 

You apparently read an article that said the Luiftwaffe targetted London on August 24, and somehow came out of it saying they hit London accidentally. That's what confusing. 

Actually most bombs dropped in the strategic bombing campaigns of Germany, the UK and the US missed their actual target, so in the only possible rendition of your position they could all be claimed to have been dropped 'accidentally'. 

Graham, I'm starting too feel embarrassed for you.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Birddog View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Birddog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 13:50
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:


Originally posted by Birddog Birddog wrote:

I guessed from your reaction that you ment nothing about US aid so I asked the 2nd question so now I want clarification on what....

"How about that given British history in the preceding 3 centuries, it just may have given them a shred of decency to hang on to for their historical salvation."

Means?

No one is saying the UK should sit back as the Luftwaffe bombed them. The British had radar and night fighters on standby. They could actually tell when the Luftwaffe aircraft were taking off in France. Bombers are not fighters. With France well within range of the RAF, what they could have done was concentrate on targeting German MILITARY targets during the hours of daylight. They would have no problem with fighter cover for their bombers. I can't say because of the British conduct they would be damned forever. Their conduct prior to WW2 had long since had them damned by history forever.


Is this the same RAF that never appeared in daylight without getting it arse handed to it?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.