In Desperate Battle: Normandy 1944

[LukeFF]

JasonC is right. By the second half of 1944, German replacement pilot quality was already seriously lacking. How it worked was that the senior leadership for each combat unit would travel to the pilot training schools to hand-select the graduating replacement pilots needed to bring the combat unit back up to strength. In one instance in early September 1944, Hans Dortenmann of III./ JG54 (who would earn the Knight's Cross by war's end) remarked about the replacement pilots he evaluated, "My god, what are they teaching these guys?" His remark turned out to be prophetic, for the unit's combat performance in the following months was absolutely dreadful.

[Jaksteri]

Given that the Germans would have done exactly the same had they possessed the equipment to do so

But they didn't, all you got is just pathetic "if's" to justify the senseless slaughter put forth simply for the sake of petty revenge. Allieds became just as savage as the german propaganda told their people; bunch of murderous barbarians who made no difference if you were a soldier or a civilian.

German luftwaffe focused entirely on the tactical aspect, their bombers were designed military targets in mind, not population centers.

And the fact that you even go as far as to congraturate the allieds on this mindless mass murder just because "hurr durr nazis r evil" just proves how pathetic, spineless coward you are. You are clearly one of those idiots who have been born after the wars, and are warhungry nationalistic bastards who view the deeds of their father with fanatical shine in their eyes, and the urge to go and repeat the same mistakes.

I hate people like you

[JonS]

Allieds became just as savage as the german propaganda told their people; bunch of murderous barbarians who made no difference if you were a soldier or a civilian.

Nah. Intent matters.

German (and Japanese) policy was to kill millions because they didn't like them. Allied policy was to kill Germans (and Japanese) until they stopped victimising others. When you're drawing your last breath the difference is moot, but to the survivors it means the world.

just because "hurr durr nazis r evil"

Well ... they were evil. I'm not sure how killing nazis and their supporters and their enablers could ever be seen as a "mistake" ... although you seem to have managed that mindbending leap of logic. It's a shame The Leap Of Logic isn't an Olympic track and field event - you'd win gold! I, on the other hand, pulled a hamstring just reading your post.

I hate people like you

I hate simple minded cretins who refuse to accept that the actual world exists in shades of grey.

Edit: to lol at Vanir's post below

Edit2: to observe that the phrase "I hate people like you" was at the root of the holocaust ...

[Vanir Ausf B]

I hate people like you

You know what that leads to, right?

[Battlefront.com]

German luftwaffe focused entirely on the tactical aspect, their bombers were designed military targets in mind, not population centers.

I'm sure the civilians of Guernica, Rotterdam, Coventry, Plymouth, London, and any number of other British towns (that survived) would say design intention obvious doesn't matter when bombs are deliberately falling on civilian targets by bombers supposedly not designed for such a purpose.

I've been to many of these places that the Germans bombed into rubble. I've been to many places which were bombed into rubble by the Allies. I didn't notice much difference except the Allies eventually got better at it than the Germans. Mostly because the Germans couldn't hack the competition and switched over to truly random death and destruction weapons, such as the V Weapons. Let's also not forget about the ingenious German bombs which were purposefully designed to not go off but instead kill 1st responders.

Let's face it. Germany invented air warfare on civilian targets in the Spanish Civil War. Quite literally "they started it", so the most you can fault the Allies for is they didn't take the high road, but instead tried to beat the Germans at their own game.

My only complaint is the double standard of post war prosecutions at Nürnberg. Prosecuting Germans for things which the Allies did even more wasn't really fair. But winning isn't about being fair.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Let's face it. Germany invented air warfare on civilian targets in the Spanish Civil War.

Actually, it goes back further than that. The Germans bombed civilian targets in England during the First World War, first from Zeppelins and later from Gothas. They did this for a couple of years until the British got their air defense together.

Michael

[Kanonier Reichmann]

You remember it first hand don't you Michael.

Regards

KR

[Paper Tiger]

But they didn't, all you got is just pathetic "if's" to justify the senseless slaughter put forth simply for the sake of petty revenge. Allieds became just as savage as the german propaganda told their people; bunch of murderous barbarians who made no difference if you were a soldier or a civilian.

German luftwaffe focused entirely on the tactical aspect, their bombers were designed military targets in mind, not population centers.

And the fact that you even go as far as to congraturate the allieds on this mindless mass murder just because "hurr durr nazis r evil" just proves how pathetic, spineless coward you are. You are clearly one of those idiots who have been born after the wars, and are warhungry nationalistic bastards who view the deeds of their father with fanatical shine in their eyes, and the urge to go and repeat the same mistakes.

I hate people like you

Wow. What an extraordinary post.

pathetic, spineless coward you are

.

When it comes to fighting wars, yes, guilty as charged.

You are clearly one of those idiots who have been born after the wars,

apart from the disputable 'idiots' part, again, true...

are warhungry nationalistic bastards who view the deeds of their father with fanatical shine in their eyes, and the urge to go and repeat the same mistakes

My father was born in 1940 so, yes, I'm very proud of what he did during the war and I would urge babies and infants to go out and do the same.

BTW, I'm Scottish. What have I got to be nationalistic about?

[PzKpfw 1]

Thats the problem with industrilised war, civilians are the major contibuting factor to any countries ability to make war. The civilians produce the material for their army to fight. People seem to forget this in these debates. Every factory has a skilled civilian labor force.

Total war as fought in WW2 involved everyone in every country not just the troops. Their has not been a conflict the scale of WW II since, and i hope their never is again. So while Armies are to take the hit, they are only a small part of the war machine. The ability to wage war is provided in the factories, transportation network etc. Which makes them all valid targets.

I have seen posts here talking about pathfinders enabeling accuracy etc, they were not as effective as some ppl think, one of the best books if not the best, i can reccomend concering the airwar fought at night between the RAF and the Luftwaffe:

Hinchliffe, Peter.

The Other Battle.

.

As to the remarks of Allies killing innocent civilians etc i would add that attempting to put Nazi Germany on the moral high ground is a mistake 6 million innocent civilian jews were murdered, for being jewish. Over 16 million Soviet civilians were murdered by German troops on the Eastren front for being "sub human". Over 3000,000 Soviet POWs died in German POW camps etc. And ppl wonder why Soviet troops took revenge on the German population they did on their drive to Berlin?.

Concerning German bombers being tactical, well lets not forget He-III;s, Do-17s, Ju-88s all bombed civilian populations as well, Rotterdam, Londin, Stalingrad, Lenningrad, etc. War is a terrible thing and as someone said earlier their is no morality in war, never has been never will, morality is an issue that comes up after the wars over.

Regards, John Waters

[Michael Emrys]

...as someone said earlier their is no morality in war, never has been never will...

And I think that is why some people like it so much, in fact can't seem to get enough of it. War is a place where you can go and do things you can't do in civilized society (at least not without being punished for it). Not only do you get to do horrible things to other human beings, you might even be declared a hero for it. War is very liberating for certain kinds of personalities.

Michael

[Erwin]

"War is very liberating for certain kinds of personalities."

And that truly is a horrifying concept.

[Battlefront.com]

nd the fact that you even go as far as to congraturate the allieds on this mindless mass murder just because "hurr durr nazis r evil" just proves how pathetic, spineless coward you are. You are clearly one of those idiots who have been born after the wars, and are warhungry nationalistic bastards who view the deeds of their father with fanatical shine in their eyes, and the urge to go and repeat the same mistakes.

I hate people like you

Oh, and let me remind you of the Forum rules for behavior. Personal attacks are a big no-no. Kinda odd to see someone here arguing about morality stooping to ad hominem attacks. It's the intellectual equivalent of firebombing civilized population centers.

Don't do it again or you'll be out of here. Argue the point, not the person.

Steve

[Erwin]

But, customers pay good money for CM entertainment and these forums are MOST entertaining. If we didn't have chaps like Jaksteri to fuel entertaining threads, BF would have to invent them.

Hey, now waaaait a minute...

[sburke]

Dang, ya hop a plane to head home and all hell breaks loose on the forum. Sheesh

[Michael Emrys]

"War is very liberating for certain kinds of personalities."

And that truly is a horrifying concept.

Yep. Kinda makes you want to carefully check out the person sitting next to you on the plane/bus/train car, doesn't it?

Michael

[Rokko]

"War is very liberating for certain kinds of personalities."

And that truly is a horrifying concept.

Great comment, made think off both "Ordinary Men" by Christopher Browning and "Male Phantasies" by Klaus Theweleit..

[Peregrine]

I think it is important to remember that Bomber Command was not running awok doing their own thing (target selection, sometimes - broad policy, never).

The campaign was established well before the end of the war. There were arguments whether it would be effective or moral, and the British Government decided it was. The British people had a reasonable idea what was being attempted (I think) and the majority OKed it. There was a definite hunger for revenge. The US joined in when they got to Europe too. Democracies did this because it was popular enough and possibly effective enough to justify it.

The Nazis succeeded in dragging the west towards (not to) their level which happen all too often in war.

[Tank Hunter]

@Jaksteri

Claiming that Luftwaffe was just targeting millitary objectives is just ridiculous. If all other examples you got were not enough I'll give you one extra

After the coup in Yugoslavia, Hitler was so angered that he was determined destroy Yugoslavia a nation. Operation "Punishment" was the code name for the German bombing of Belgrade. The Luftwaffe bombed the city for 4 days without a declaration of war. More than 500 were flown against. The Targets? Well their weren't millitary that's for sure.

von Kleist said after the war: "The air raid on Belgrade in 1941 had a primarily political-terrorist character and had nothing to do with the war. That air bombing was a matter of Hitler's vanity, his personal revenge."

So much for the "professional" Luftwaffe. WWII was brutal on all sides. If you look at the latest research you will find that even the Heer which was considered to mainly be "clean" from attrocities turned out to be involved in those especially on the EF. For years the blame was put on the SS as the pure evil which they were indeed, we can however see today that Heer was there aswell and participated in both rounding up and executing Jews and others that Hitler considered to be "Untermensch". Later when the tide turned and the Soviets got the upper hand and invaded Germany people were appalled when they realized about all the attrocities that the Soviets commited. What where they expecting? Liberators with flowers? There wasn't really a single Soviet soldier on the ground that hadn't experienced the Nazi rule. Was it right? Of course not. Nothing was right in WWII. The Allies knew Hitler had to be defeated at all costs so all means were avaliable. They did what they had to do at that time.

[Erwin]

"The Allies knew Hitler had to be defeated at all costs so all means were avaliable. They did what they had to do at that time."

Absolutely right and ditto for the Japs.

The humanity of the Allies (well, the US) was that it then magnanimously and generously rebuilt both Axis countries to be prosperous. Just imagine that happening today(!). And of course contrast and compare to what the Japs and Nazis were planning to do.

[Sgt Joch]

Another issue that comes up is the fact that the primary object in any war is to win and any country, particularly a Democracy, always has to decide how far they are willing to compromise their ideals to win a particular war.

The bomber offensive against Germany was driven in large part by geopolitical considerations. From June 1941 to June 1944, the Soviets were doing the bulk of the fighting (and the dying) against the Germans. Few German forces were tied up fighting US/UK troops even after the invasion of Italy. Even after D-Day, 2/3rds of German forces were on the Russian Front. Keeping the Russians in the war and fighting the Germans was the only way to win the war.

From June 1941 forward, Stalin was screaming for a second front in the West to relieve pressure on his forces. The only way the US/UK could strike directly at Germany and draw off the Luftwaffe and/or damage the German War effort was through the Bomber offensive.

The choice of targets however was driven largely by technological limitations. RAF night bombing had trouble hitting anything more precise than a city center. US daylight bombing had trouble hitting anything more precise than a factory complex, most of which were located in cities. Under both scenarios, it was clear that civilians, mostly Germans but also from occupied countries were going to die. Distasteful yes, but what was the alternative?

What were Roosevelt and Churchill supposed to say to Stalin? : "Sorry Joseph, a) we know millions of your soldiers have been dying fighting the Nazis, but we don't want to risk thousands of our fight crews on high risk missions over Germany and even though the Nazis have killed millions of your innocent civilians and torched your country, we don't want to get our own hands dirty and risk killing innocent German civilians, even though it may shorten the War!"

What would Stalin have said? : "You guys are idots, maybe I will cut a separate deal with Adolph!" perhaps?

In the words of that wise sage:

http://youtu.be/g6GuEswXOXo

[Michael Emrys]

There is another thing that needs to be kept in mind regarding the Combined Bomber Offensive and especially Bomber Command. From the middle of 1940 until about the end of 1942—in other words for two and a half crucial years of the war—it was virtually the only means that Britain had for taking large scale offensive action against the Axis. And it was necessary to take such action for a number of reasons. First of all, it was important to British morale to show that they were striking back at the enemy. Secondly, it was important to convince the Americans that Britain was still in the game and was going to pull its share of the load. Thirdly, as has already been mentioned, it was important to convince allies, especially the USSR, that Britain was not abandoning them to their fates and playing it safe. Finally, it was desirable to remind the Germans every night that they were not going to go scot free after committing the crimes they had.

I think it may be fair to say that prior to 1944 the bombing of Germany was more important for its political effects than its strictly military ones. But those effects were important and were all part of the net that eventually snared the Axis.

Michael

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I think it is important to remember that Bomber Command was not running awok doing their own thing (target selection, sometimes - broad policy, never).

The campaign was established well before the end of the war. There were arguments whether it would be effective or moral, and the British Government decided it was. The British people had a reasonable idea what was being attempted (I think) and the majority OKed it. There was a definite hunger for revenge. The US joined in when they got to Europe too. Democracies did this because it was popular enough and possibly effective enough to justify it.

The Nazis succeeded in dragging the west towards (not to) their level which happen all too often in war.

I agree entirely with the above. I never said the Allies had descended to the rock bottom levels of morality the Nazis had but I still believe they should have held themselves to a higher level of principle than they did. Bombing cities heavily populated with civilians "until the rubble bounced" smacked of sheer revenge as the primary motivating factor. Not exactly high brow is it.

Regards

KR

[JonS]

"Make the rubble bounce" is a post-war phrase, referring to targetting a single point with multiple nukes. It has nothing to do with WWII.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

You may be right. Apparently attributed to Winston Churchill. On the subjct of ol' Winnie and the bombing camapign over Europe I found this quote particularly insightful with regards to the aims of the campaign.

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. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land . . . The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing . . . 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.

— Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister, memo to Charles Portal, Chief of the Air Staff and the Chiefs of Staff Committee, 28 March 1945. Under pressure from Air Chief Marshal Arthur Harris, Portal and others, Churchill withdrew his memo and issued a new one on 1 April 1945 omitting the words "acts of terror."

Regards

KR

[LongLeftFlank]

Once again, this quote doesn't really speak to policy or intent in the prior period. It is more a reaction to a wave of end-of-the-war concern that intensive bombing of German cities was no longer justifiable on military grounds, with the majority of the former Reich now under Allied occupation. There was no "My God, What Have I Done?" here.

I'll say it again. Prior to the successful crossings of the Oder and Rhine in early 1945, the Allies were simply in no position either to take victory for granted, or to commit such enormous resources to a bombing campaign whose primary purpose was terror or revenge. The most they can be accused of is profound indifference to civilian losses in light of their own, and probably some grim satisfaction as well.

Also, pay a visit to downtown Turin, Genoa or Livorno sometime. Notice all those generally ugly postwar cement flats and office blocks? Yup, these Italian cities were bombed *extremely* heavily as part of the same strategic campaign, as were Caen, St Lo, Rouen and other transportation and industrial centers in France. Revenge and blood lust at work here?

Also -- and I have no idea of the answer -- were any Luftwaffe personnel or commanders actually tried as war criminals by the West for aerial bombing of cities? (the Soviets locked up Erich Hartmann for 10+ years, I know, but they had their own definition of "war crimes").